explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1756: I'm With Her

2016-11-08T04:31:58Z

Teleksterling:

The "I'm with her" and H with an arrow are CLEARLY the respective campaign slogan and campaign logo for Hillary Clinton, not some vagueness having to do with bringing a significant other. {{unsigned ip|173.245.48.78}}
:I see it more as him endorsing voting regardless of who you vote for (as evidenced by half the comic is about "Here's how you vote" without any mention of candidates or issues) and the endorsing Clinton part is an add-on as if to say "This is how I'm voting; vote for her if you agree with me." [[User:Jeudi Violist|Jeudi Violist]] ([[User talk:Jeudi Violist|talk]]) 18:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Has Randall endorsed a presidential candidate before? --[[User:Dfeuer|Dfeuer]] ([[User talk:Dfeuer|talk]]) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:He supported Obama on his blog in '08, not in the comic though. {{unsigned ip|162.158.214.230}}

He could have said any number of clever things about the election, and all he did was put up a campaign sign. Disappointing. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 17:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:I'm hoping Wednesday will be a newspaper saying "American immigration continues north" and below, "40% of the population move to Canada", but only if Trump wins.{{unsigned|Jacky720}}

what a cuck --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.63|172.68.51.63]] 17:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:: leaving aside the most ridiculous slur of the past few years, I don't know what else did you expect from Randall. I guess you must have stumbled upon this wiki by chance and have never heard of xkcd before.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.130|141.101.98.130]] 17:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:: AHAHAHAHA. *Ahem.* Hooray for pejorative misappropriation of a kink. /s [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.55|108.162.246.55]] 19:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the first time I still don't get the joke even after reading the explainxkcd page [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.123|108.162.219.123]] 18:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:It isn't a joke. [[Randall]] is simply encouraging people to vote. [[User:GizmoDude|GizmoDude]] ([[User talk:GizmoDude|talk]]) 20:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
;Bit disappointing...

I was hoping for a comic today. oh well. Interesting to see how he's planning to vote, though - it's a shame that there are no candidates this year in favor of strong encryption. {{unsigned ip|172.68.55.80}}

Funny how females outdo males in this 'comic' but in terms of frequency and of elevation. Oh well. xkcd has long been overrepresenting females, it was to be expected. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>{{unsigned ip|162.158.201.90}}
:Seriously? You're whinging 'what about the men?' in a geek web comic?! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.212|108.162.215.212]] 18:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
::And there are 11 characters and they are split 5 to 6, and if Blondie represents Clinton then there are 5 to 5 M vs W supporters. ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:"Overrepresenting"?! If there were too many guys you wouldn't bat an eye because it's 'accurate' to whatever demographic you think xkcd is supposed to represent, but as soon as Randall draws 'too many women' you whinge about the oppression of men. First off, even if the readership is male-dominated, that doesn't have any impact on who the comic can portray. Second, there is nothing oppressive about seeing women portrayed in equal numbers or -heaven forbid- in positions of power.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.118.191|172.68.118.191]] 00:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The only disappointing this are comments like those two above. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.201.96|162.158.201.96]] 18:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
: Females being overrepresented in comics like xkcd (but also other ones) with respect to their controlled interest in science in reality is a fact. Therefore, you are calling facts disappointing. How geeky of you. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>{{unsigned ip|162.158.201.90}}
:: So, your real problem is that Randall likes using female stick figures, yes? Also, why are you afraid to "un-nowiki" your signature...? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.201.96|162.158.201.96]] 19:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
::: No. Allow me to repeat my point as you had apparently misunderstood: 'females being overrepresented'. This is something else than 'females being represented'. The more you know, the less chance there is for you to accidentally twist another person's words as misogyny/sexism. Also, identity is not relevant to discussion. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>{{unsigned ip|162.158.201.90}}
:::: I understood you perfectly fine. My point still stands: You don't like Randall's preference for female stick figures. I never said you're being misogynic/sexist, so please don't imply I did. Thing with your "hidden" identity is that it's plain visible in the history of this page, so there's really no need to nowiki the signature, that's all. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.201.96|162.158.201.96]] 20:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
::::: You are extremely skilled at saying things that are false and asserting that they're true. First you confused objecting to female overrepresentation (over-presence) with objecting to female representation (presence) ('your real problem is that Randall likes using female stick figures'). Then you moved to confusing objecting to female overrepresentation with objecting to *Randall's* female overrepresentation. My objection does not pertain to who is doing overrepresenting, but to the mere fact of it. I would have objected identically to any other writer. Also, your attributing of opposition to female presence in comics (after doing which which you proceeded to asserting my being personally hostile to Randall) is accusing of sexism/misogyny by definition. Also, I am obviously aware of edit history; my use my signature constitutes a reminder that identity is, as I said, irrelevant in discussion. It does not serve to obscure anything. You have a remarkable record of falsehoods. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>{{unsigned ip|162.158.201.90}}

A little disappointing to have a normally lighthearted comic dive seriously into politics, if even for one strip. Not really a fan of either candidate, but would like to see stuff like this stay above the fray. {{unsigned ip|162.158.69.100}}
:Completely agreed. [[User:SeanAhern|SeanAhern]] ([[User talk:SeanAhern|talk]]) 18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:Completely agreed 2. At first I though it's some kind of a romance statement ("be with her"). And from explainxkcd I have learnt that it's an US campaign ad. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.150|162.158.202.150]] 22:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
::Lighthearted? Try to read the comics in the [[:Category:Politics]] and [[:Category:Climate change]]. Also there are many other comics that are not at all light hearted. You must have mistaken this with some other web comic? :) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 23:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a first... comics 500 and 1130 (possibly 1131 too) were related to the election, but didn't endorse a candidate. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.89|108.162.219.89]] 18:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:I think Randall is pretty much just saying '''OH GOD PLEASE DONT VOTE FOR TRUMP''' [[User:GizmoDude|GizmoDude]] ([[User talk:GizmoDude|talk]]) 20:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:: If Randall was saying that, he'd also be bringing up third party candidates (honestly surprised he didn't endorse Jill Stein considering she's more pro-science than Hillary. And before anyone says "anti-vax", check snopes. Jill Stein is so pro-vax [she's volunteered time vaccinated children and is on record saying she wants to increase vaccination rates], pro-addressing-climate[she's green party who has that as a primary platform], and wants to replace the people with business degrees on the panels of the FDA with people with science degrees. Jill is so pro-science and that it makes Hillary look like a flat-earther.) --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.42|108.162.246.42]] 21:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Jill Stein's stance on nuclear energy is an unscientific as it gets. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.196|108.162.210.196]] 23:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
::::No no no. If Randal just wish that Trump should not become president there is only one way to achieve this and that is by making Hillary win. This is not even saying that he likes her, he just dislikes the alternative more. Voting for anyone else might just help Trump. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 23:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:Also, it looks like minutephysics has done a similar thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDeL4LGuBx4 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.89|108.162.219.89]] 00:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I came here to see what the tone of the comments were going to be. I was half expecting to find an all-out flamewar in progress. I was happy to see that the comments have not devolved into the kind of attacks that one would expect to find pretty much anywhere else on the Internet. Geeks are the best people. :) [[User:Mwburden|mwburden]] ([[User talk:Mwburden|talk]]) 18:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm very dissappointed. Randall never took sides before and - be it as it may - this comic is not a comic but plain out political campaign. Up until now I held xkcd in EXTREMELY high esteem - this comic put a serious dent in that opinion..
--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.60|162.158.91.60]] 18:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
: I'm really torn about this one. On the one hand I feel that you HAVE to take sides in this one, if your only other option is Donald Trump... on the other hand, I never liked when web comics express political opinions. It will always end in a flame war and almost never have anything to do with the web comic itself. Randall should've just put up a "go vote becaues it's important" sign without taking sides. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.201.96|162.158.201.96]] 19:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
: Don't let the door hit you on the way out. I'm sure there are other comics out there that would agree with your ideology. [[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 19:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:Randall should do whatever Randall thinks he should do. Should he put up "go read about global warming" comics instead of take the side of AGW? If you think this example is an inappropriate one to use in contrasting this comic with the current political election cycle then you've completely ignored the stances of the two popular candidates. But back to the original point: if you don't like XKCD anymore because of this one comic then go find another comic or start your own. All of art is an expression of the person. Randall knew not everyone would like his beliefs when he pushed this out to the world and is obviously prepared to deal with any consequences of taking a stand on his website. I, for one, applaud him for doing so {{unsigned ip|162.158.69.19}}
:: Randall did a comic about global warming a while back, which was very interesting. Because I heard the "earth has warmed up before" argument before and even used it myself at least once. The difference about the global warming comic is that he backed it up with scientific facts, which is well within the scope of this comic. Political opinions aren't (or did the slogan change to ''A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language and politics''?). Yes, of course he can do with his web comic whatever he wants to. But readers can express their opinions about what he does with it. It's called "freedom of speech", you know?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.201.96|162.158.201.96]] 20:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:::[[1357|There's a comic for that.]] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.230|162.158.214.230]] 21:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Randall has endorsee Obama in 2008 and it is his comic and he can use it to endorse anyone he likes. I'm pretty sure he believes that he will only loose a few real fans of xkcd over this comic, because those who really enjoys all his comics in spite of for instance climate comics would really not like to see Trump as president. And would thus be happy if this comic helped in any way to avoid that. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 23:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you help list all the characters in the transcript? From left to right; they're Joanna (ponytail with EMP cannon) from [[322]]; Black Hat; unknown with kite; White Hat; possibly Miss Lenhart (but his hair is somewhat different from [[1519]]); unknown possibly Megan; cueball; unknown woman with glasses; Hairbun; Beret Guy; Cueball with toy sword from [[303]]. [[User:B jonas|B jonas]] ([[User talk:B jonas|talk]]) 19:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:Not Miss Lenhart. Blondie. They are listed now. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 23:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Good for Randal. I had been noticing how many Hillary leaning artists had been pulling their punches this election, likely out of fear of trolling or loss of revenue. You want to know what courage looks like? This is is. [[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 19:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Title text hasn't been explained yet. Is it a reference to the German chancellor Angela Merkel's phrase "Wir schaffen das!'? Don't know if Clinton has a slogan like Obama's "Yes, we can!". {{unsigned ip|162.158.91.36}}

I find (linking to )this civicinnovation website rather questionable. They want to audit peoples address books based on who the names in there might vote for? That sounds like Erich Mielkes wildest dreams come true. Even German newspapers (where i'm from), which are 100% anti-Trump, have in the last days noted concern about the methods of Clintons supporters bullying the other side, and this is a disquieting new piece in that picture. I'll hope this is just a ploy to step up with Trump on the ''bad manners'' side. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.160|162.158.91.160]] 19:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

;Not all comics have to be humorous

From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics#Etymology]
:The English term ''comics'' derives from the humorous (or "[[wikt:comic|comic]]") work which predominated in early American newspaper comic strips; usage of the term has become standard for non-humorous works as well. {{unsigned ip|162.158.69.57}}

:The problem is that this isn't a comic, this is a campaign ad. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.238.38|162.158.238.38]] 20:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

;Could we please just NOT get politics involved in the comments, guys?

Just... please? [[User:Papayaman1000|Papayaman1000]] ([[User talk:Papayaman1000|talk]]) 20:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:Are you serious. What had you expected :-) This is the most loaded comic of all time. It will even take down [[388: Fuck Grapefruit]], even though [[388:_Fuck_Grapefruit#Controversy|it beat his blog]] about his Obama endorsement. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Randall has taken a side in a political Argument before: Not counting the near-invisible easter egg, comic 1005 consists solely of Randall taking a stance on something political and providing links to show how you can help. That wasn't too long ago, but no one freaked out about a serious, political strip back then.
[[User:CJB42|CJB42]] ([[User talk:CJB42|talk]]) 20:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:Policy to candidates is not an apples to apples comparison. People get much more up in arms when the topic is either a candidate or policy that goes against religious text or teachings. SOPA and PIPA were neither (well, unless you count GNU as some kind of internet religion). [[User:Zernin|Zernin]] ([[User talk:Zernin|talk]]) 21:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It's sad to see a guy who is so smart in some areas, yet can not see Hillary Clinton for the terrible president she would be. (Granted, part of the reason we only have a few other choices is because of our messed up voting system.) {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.177}}
:I agree with you that Hillary may be worse than almost any one else from the Democrats. But Trump is sooo much further out on a limp, and I'm sure this might be the only reason Randall makes this comic. He is seriously afraid of what woudl happen to the US and the rest of the world if Trump wins --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 23:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Instead of comic, post contained a political statement. I am not amused. I want a refund. I don't vote, and I don't even live anywhere near USA. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.102|141.101.96.102]] 18:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:A refund? For what? You pay to read this comic? [[User:Zorlax the Mighty|Zorlax the Mighty'); DROP TABLE users;--]] ([[User talk:Zorlax the Mighty|talk]]) 21:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Darn right you better be with her. If you say anything else, you will "commit suicide". Just ask Vince Foster or Seth Rich if you think I'm crazy.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.77|173.245.48.77]] 21:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

What, Randy does not say "Bernie or Bust"? I feel cheated now. :P --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.228|162.158.150.228]] 22:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:Poor Bernie. Poor America. Poor world. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.32|198.41.238.32]] 23:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Just good luck America (and the rest of the world where I belong), whatever happens tomorrow. But I'm hoping Randall can help his candidate win! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm with her... unfortunately : (. I just didn't think it made sense to donate to a billionaire. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.106|162.158.74.106]] 00:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't get political in the comments? The fucking "comic" is a fucking political ad. We're going to call this fucker out on his cuckery. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.27|162.158.74.27]] 01:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't give a damn. Sure, I might not agree with his political leanings (hell, I don't want either of them in the WH), but it's just 1 comic. On Wednesday, he'll probably go back to the same stuff he's been doing for 1755 other strips. This will be nothing special. Just one comic. Sure, it might be politically fueled, but just because a person lets their leanings known doesn't mean you should be allowed to call them a "cuck" or cause a talk page for a popular comic, or a Reddit for a popular comic, devolve into the equivalent of monkeys flinging crap at walls. So just please deal with it and move on.
Yours truly, [[User:GranadalandDreamer|GranadalandDreamer]] ([[User talk:GranadalandDreamer|talk]]) 01:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Randall's with *her*? good to know that randall considers arab life worthless/supports financiers over single African-american mothers/refuses to understand encryption/would rather spend public money on coal than retrain miners/loves trade deals that will hurt the poorest, increase inequality, damage the environment, homogenize culture, allow private corporations to sue elected governments/can't make his mind up over the Dakota Access pipeline/changes his accent depending on which state he is stumping in/was late to supporting gay marriage/lied repeatedly about coming under sniper fire in bosnia/has had to repeatedly plead incompetence or rely on bureaucratic politics to evade formal breach of contract or charges of criminality. Iowa, Utah and Wisconsin may have Gloria la Riva of the Party for Socialism and Liberation on the ballot, if you want a candidate who isn't an elitist. And if you didn't want splitters, you should have voted for Bernie. [[User:Cockhorse|Cockhorse]] ([[User talk:Cockhorse|talk]]) 02:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I mean it's not like Trump is going to be a whole lot better for Arab people, Black people, gay people, or pretty much anyone who's not a straight white dude. It's quite possible he voted for Bernie, but at this point it's a little late for him to be asking others to support Sanders. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.71}}

Looks like the Trumpettes are getting rather triggered over a web comic. Wasn't there a candidate in this election that was preaching against this whole getting easily offended by words thing? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.43|108.162.238.43]] 03:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This just makes me... sad... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.117|108.162.215.117]] 03:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is a webcomic about "romance, sarcasm, language, and math" taking a political stance and telling me who to vote for? Randall can have his own opinion, but this isn't okay. I've read this comic since ... gosh, since the low 200s-300s, so probably over 5 or 6 years and... I think I'm done. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.55|108.162.241.55]] 04:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised this wiki doesn't have a category for 'serious'/'no joke' comics, and least not that I spotted. There should be, and this should be in it. [[User:Teleksterling|Teleksterling]] ([[User talk:Teleksterling|talk]]) 04:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1613: The Three Laws of Robotics

2015-12-07T22:46:41Z

Teleksterling:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PKx3kS7f4A Relevant Computerphile] {{unsigned ip|141.101.84.114}}

I think the second one would also create the "best" robots i.e. ones that have the same level of "free will" as humans do, but won't end up with the robot uprising. X3[[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 09:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
:Scientists are actually already working on such a robot! I've seen a video where they command a robot to do a number of things, such as sit down, stand up, and walk forward. It refuses to do the last because it is near the edge of a table, until it is assured by the person giving the commands that he will catch it. [http://www.businessinsider.com/robots-taught-to-disobey-humans-2015-11 Here's a link]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.220.17|108.162.220.17]] 18:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The second ordering was actually covered in a story by Asimov, where a strengthed third law caused a robot to run around a hazard at a distance which maintained an equilibrium between not getting destroyed and obeying orders. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaround_(story) [[User:Gearoid|Gearóid]] ([[User talk:Gearoid|talk]]) 09:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The explanation itself seems pretty close to complete. I'll leave others to judge if the tag is ready to be removed though. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 12:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Technically, in the world we live in, robots are barely following ONE law - obey orders. Noone ever tried to built robot programmed to never harm human, because such programming would be ridiculously complex. Sure, most robots are built with failsafes, but nothing nearly as effective as Asimov's law, which makes permanent damage to robots brain when it fails to protect humans. Meanwhile, there is lot of effort spent on making robots only follow orders of authorized people, while Asimov's robots generally didn't distinguish between humans. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
:Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Closest analogy to our world might be scenario 3 or 4, depending on the programming and choices made by the people controlling/ordering the robots around. One could argue that this means this comic is meant to criticize our current state, but that doesn't seem likely given how robots are typically discussed by Randall. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 17:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the title text: why would a driverless car kill its passenger before going into a dealership?13:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
: A driverless car would feel threatened by a trip to a car dealership. The owner would presumably be contemplating a trade-in, which could lead to a visit to the junk yard. [[User:Erickhagstrom|Erickhagstrom]] ([[User talk:Erickhagstrom|talk]]) 14:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks.[[Special:Contributions/198.41.235.167|198.41.235.167]] 22:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
: This looks like a reference to "2001: A Space Odyssey", where HAL tries to kill Dave by locking the pod bay doors after finding out he will be shut down.

for my kitty cat, the world is taking a turn for the better as human are gradually transitioning from scenario 6 to scenario 5. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.239|108.162.218.239]] 17:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

To additionally summarise: The permutations of laws can be classified into two equally numbered classes. a) harmless to humans and b) deadly to humans. In a) Harmlessness precedes Obedience, in b) Obedience precedes Harmlessness. Since robots are mainly tools that multiply human effort by automation, the disastrous consequences are only a nature of the human effort itself. Randall's pessimism is emphasized by the contrast between the apparent impossibility of the implementation of the harmlessness law and the natural presence of the "obedience law" in actual robotics. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.243|198.41.242.243]] 17:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
: You got in there before I realised I hadn't actually clicked to posted my side-addition to this Talk section, it seems. Just discovered it hanging, then edit-conflicted. So (as well as shifting your IP signature, hope you don't mind) here is what I was going to add:
: ''Added the analysis of 'law inversions'. Obedience before Harmlessness turns them into killer-robots (potentially - assuming they're ever asked to kill). Self-protection before Obedience removes the ability to fully control them (but, by itself, isn't harmful). Self-protction before Harmlessnes just adds some logistical icing to the cake - and is already part of the mix, when both of the first two inversions are made in the scenario more Skynet-like than that of a 'mere' war-by-proxy.''
: ...now I need to look to see if anybody's refined my original main-page contribution, so I can disagree with them. ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.227|162.158.152.227]] 18:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the 5th combination ("Terrifying Standoff") essentially describes robots whose priorities are ordered the same way as most humans'. Like humans, they will become dangerous if they feel endangered themselves. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.66|173.245.54.66]] 20:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that I thought the righthand robot in the Hellscape images quite resembles Pintsize from the [http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=707 Questionable Content] webcomic. His character suits participation in a robot war quite likely too. [[User:Teleksterling|Teleksterling]] ([[User talk:Teleksterling|talk]]) 22:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1609: Food Combinations

2015-11-30T23:24:15Z

Teleksterling:

I tried this on a friend and after three tries she said, you just mentioned all my favorite food items. So... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what's really good? Ice cream on pizza. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 15:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
:That's a popular summer snack in Tasmania. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.32|198.41.238.32]] 08:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

So nobody puts sour cream on pancakes??? {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.14}}

Joey agrees with that - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSFgDZJVYbo [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.139|162.158.34.139]] 15:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks I was just thinking of that episode when seeing this comic. Think it deserves a place in the explanation. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I made a first-hack attempt, with terrible grammar and no appropriate citations. Please don't be too harsh! [[Special:Contributions/199.27.129.83|199.27.129.83]] 16:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Most of the combinations involving the dairy items are disgusting. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.9|108.162.216.9]] 19:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If you think sour cream and pancakes is not a traditional combination, you've never been to Russia. We put sour cream in a lot of things, really, but pancakes especially.<br>That applies almost as well to sour cream and ketchup (though that is just a pair of commonly combined condiments, not a food item in itself).<br>I do, however, agree with the commentor above (even regarding sour cream).<br>Incidentally, I had to google "relish" - apparently it's a general term for a big variety of chopped-vegetable items. The Russian name for one particularly common type literally translates as "eggplant caviar". Goes nicely with ham, is applied to pancakes occasionally. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.180.191|162.158.180.191]] 20:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
:FYI, pickle (that is to say, pickled cucumber) relish is generally what people from the US mean when referring to relish. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.59|108.162.216.59]] 05:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see if all items will be checked of eventually when people from many different countries comes by? I checked of pancakes and ice cream. I put ice in almost every time I make sweet pancakes. Yummy. But we also have "food" pancakes (not sweat) with meat in them. And I'm note talking about tortillas or burrito pancakes. Made exactly like normal sweet pancakes without sugar and with salt. In The Netherlands they have pancake houses where the toppings is more like that of a pizza, and then after wards they drop on some kind of syrup... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Avocado and ice cream is traditional? Really? I mean, the novelty ice cream places (bacon ice cream, beer ice cream, Tabasco ice cream, you know the drill), sure, but where is that a traditional pairing? ... However, I'm putting in another vote for sour cream with pancakes. Especially if you consider crêpes and associated acts as in the pancake category, so there's the whole world of savory pancakes out there. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.7|108.162.221.7]] 04:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)MR
:I have removed avocado and ice cream. That cannot be thought of as traditional even if someone actually likes it. I do not know if you could think of pancakes and sour cream as traditional. But again if you think of them both as sweat and food pancakes (as already is the case, then maybe...) I will not list it though as I do not feel it is traditional. But I would also not delete it if anyone else feels it is. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
:Sorry, that was me. Wasn't aware that this had to be exclusively limited to food items from the US, but anyway was thinking about the avocado icecream here (taluwang.com.my). It's quite popular where I come from and quite delicious, actually. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.153.137|162.158.153.137]] 14:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
:Avocado ice cream is also eaten occasionally in Brazil. Admittedly, Brazil isn't the United States. However, a simple Google Search of "Avocado Ice Cream" brings up dozens of very different recipes (including an avocado coconut ice cream that I really have to try). In addition, the table of traditional pairings says "it should mainly be combinations that are common in the US". If it said "combinations exclusively in the US" then I could see justifiably removing Avocado Ice Cream. However, since there are multiple countries that it is both popular and commonly eaten ''and'' literally millions of hits show up in English if you search it in Google, I would say that it counts. (That's not even including the smoothies and shakes that include avocado and ice cream). [[User:Jeudi Violist|Jeudi Violist]] ([[User talk:Jeudi Violist|talk]]) 07:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

At least five of those alleged "individually good" so-called "foods" - relish, ketchup, cheese, sour cream, and avocado - are absolutely disgusting and would destroy any food value of things they came in contact with. YMMV.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.33|108.162.221.33]] 09:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
:Well I also do not like avocado or sour cream and neither most forms of eggs plus only a few kind of cheese. But I know that many people really love these items, and that would not make it a bad combination to put sour cream and avocado together. I just would not wish to eat it for my personal taste. That I do not like it, does not make it disgusting. But I would be sorry if someone tried to make me eat it. But not get disgusted because other people eat it in front of me. Disgusting things are something like rat or excrements... ;-) And this has to be taken into account before anyone changes the table above. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

There's some "almost something I've seen" combinations, in the above. For example, while I've never had Ham And Avocado, Ham And Pineapple is not uncommon. (Of course, now we're also into neighbouring territory of "does pineapple belong on a pizza?" ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.227|162.158.152.227]] 16:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Err, what? Ketchup flavored chips hard to come by in the US? I've yet to see a single supermarket that didn't have a large quantity of Herr's Ketchup Chips. And I live in the american Northeast.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.59|108.162.216.59]] 05:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"Pairings" is itself a bit ambiguous, but I'd vote that none of cupcakes/sour cream, pancakes/cheese nor eggs/ relish are traditional pairings. Pancakes with sour cream may well edge in as blinis, but only by counting blinis (and crepes?) within pancakes. Some others are perhaps a little more likely, but still would not make my personal cut as a traditional pairing -- ice cream/ hot chocolate & ham/relish would fail, and if we count hot chocolate/pancakes as OK because they may both be part of a breakfast, then why not hot chocolate/eggs? [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 20:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
: I agree that Cupcakes/Sour Cream is certainly not a traditional pairing. I believe this should be removed. [[User:Teleksterling|Teleksterling]] ([[User talk:Teleksterling|talk]]) 23:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, all combinations of individually-good foods are only bad if you go into it expecting them to be. Speaking of which, I highly recommend putting creamy peanut butter and slices of banana on a burger.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.60|108.162.216.60]] 05:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

the one problem i see is the non-solid combinations... such as ketch and hot coco or eggs (depending on state) [[User:Needforsuv|Needforsuv]] ([[User talk:Needforsuv|talk]]) 11:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1575: Footprints

2015-09-09T23:32:08Z

Teleksterling:

I know a lot about the poem this is referencing as it was my deceased grandmothers favourite. However I am omitting myself from making any changes other than putting in the poem it is referencing and the most brief of explanations to begin so someone with less emotional bias can fix formatting and improve wording. The poem can be found here: http://www.onlythebible.com/Poems/Footprints-in-the-Sand-Poem.html [[User:Squirrel killer-|Squirrel killer-]] ([[User talk:Squirrel killer-|talk]]) 06:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Should we address that AT-ST' nickname is "chicken Walker"? [[Special:Contributions/198.41.243.249|198.41.243.249]] 08:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The title text is not in textese (which you be "theres 1 set of fps bcs I carried U".) I'm not sure what it is exactly (not being American) the closest I can get is "Valley girl" (which is not right) and "that one dialect the frat-boys speak in the movies", which can't be it's name. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.224|141.101.88.224]] 09:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

"Going home == death" Are we certain that this is meant? I feel it could also poke fun at the whole "walk of life" concept, and going home simply means going home... --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.10|162.158.92.10]] 09:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the definite implication that "Going home == death", and instead made it a possible interpretation. I agree that the title text is "frat-boy speak", but I'm not sure what you would call it -- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.55|141.101.99.55]] 10:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the quicksand is a reference to Lawrence of Arabia, in the movie(spoiler alert?) Lawrence walks across the Sinai Desert only to see one of his men caught in quicksand and die immediately before reaching their destination.
[[User:Joar|Joar]] ([[User talk:Joar|talk]]) 10:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd call the title text dialect "bro talk" or something similar. Also, the quicksand bit is definitely in reference to Jesus' ability to walk on water: since quicksand is a mixture of water and sand, presumably it would be easier to walk on than regular water. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.153|173.245.54.153]] 13:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The presumed reference to "Winnie the Pooh" is very far fetched. The joke of following its own footprint is used in many other works. Same for drawing in a quicksand. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.66.23|141.101.66.23]] 14:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
:Ha! Edit conflict, for exactly the same subject. What I was about to say was: The 'following our own footprints' bit reminded me, initially, of Tintin (In The Land Of The Black Gold?), with Thomson and Thompson's jeep, although that was two, four, six, etc tyre-tracks. I think the Pooh example is the more likely archetype.
:(i.e., in light of what I'm now replying to, more likely than the Tintin version. Whether or not Pooh was ''the'' inspiration.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.114|141.101.99.114]] 14:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

: I've noticed that problem quite a bit around here - generic comments being explained as specific references. But I'm too lazy to change them myself. Anyone up for it? [[User:Zweisteine|Zweisteine]] ([[User talk:Zweisteine|talk]]) 14:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone translate "There's one set of foot-p's cause I was totes carrying you, bro!" into normal english? {{User:17jiangz1/signature|15:45, 09 September 2015}}
: "There is one set of footprints because I was totally carrying you, my brother"
: "There is one set of footprints because I was fully-committed to carrying you, my good friend whom I consider like a brother" [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 16:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

So, given the width of the "1-night" disappearances of Jesus on the chart, I think we can infer that the length of time between the quicksand incident and "going home" was a pretty long time. My sources tell me that Jesus has an affinity for resurrecting 3-days after death, and that his angels get him out of whatever place he's stuck (rolling away the tomb-stone, etc). Because of this, we might assume that the narrator had cleared enough distance away from the quicksand that he didn't notice Jesus resurrecting and being pulled out by angels... but in that case the vertical axis was being recorded "as the narrator walked", as opposed to someone else coming back and recording them after the events had taken place. (This is my first contribution to explainxkcd, so I'm keeping it in the comments unless someone else publishes it.)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.56|162.158.255.56]] 16:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a cool deduction if a bit far fetched, but I can't complain considering we might all be over-thinking things here. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.55|141.101.99.55]] 17:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

"Who was that guy?" "That was no guy; that was ... the Lone Ranger!" [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 19:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that one of the twelve Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed was not of the Prophet, but of a schoolboy of the same name. Jesus is a common Mexican name. Randall may be showing how context and prejudice may stir up strong religious reaction, by giving situations where one can deduce that the Biblical Jesus is not the one leaving footprints everywhere.
[[http://www.linkedin.com/in/Comet Comet]] 21:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

''"Jesus disappeared for an evening each time a new Twilight movie came out" probably means either that Jesus went to see the movie and left the narrator alone or that the narrator went to see the movie and Jesus refused to come with.''

The second interpretation (the narrator went to see the movie and Jesus refused to come with) is absurdly far fetched for a sentence that says "Jesus disappeared for an evening". --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.85|141.101.99.85]] 21:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
: I agree [[User:Teleksterling|Teleksterling]] ([[User talk:Teleksterling|talk]]) 23:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1574: Trouble for Science

2015-09-08T22:54:43Z

Teleksterling:

Sentence case, or down style, is one method, preferred by many print and online publications and recommended by the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. The only two rules are the two rules mentioned above: Capitalize the first word and all proper nouns. Everything else is in lowercase. http://www.dailywritingtips.com/rules-for-capitalization-in-titles/ [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.154|173.245.50.154]] 12:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

;Problems with the p-value as an indicator of significance

The p-value alone can never be an indicator of significance. However, it is still often used as the only indicator, because a full set of parameters (including sample size, test setup, etc.) can't easily be packed into a single number. There's a nice article in nature about this problem: [http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-errors-1.14700]
I can also recommend [http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800this story] about (ab-)using hacked p-values to get maximum publicity. I hope this helps :-) --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.183|141.101.105.183]] 12:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
:In this section, I really want to reword the p-valye explanation that "one can assume that the event observed 'exists'." Except where it's an event indirectly observed through a chained effect (unseeable gas molecules observed through brownian motion, unstable particles through detection of their decay particles, prehistoric meteorite impact through a geological/chemical fingerprint, etc) I think it should be more that "this (directly observed) event was directly linked to the presumed cause rather than spontaneous and random, at least w.r.t. the presumed cause being tested". But writing it better than I did just now. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.114|141.101.99.114]] 19:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the joke is that these newspapers are talking about how bad science is, and yet they manage to come up with a stupid story about Bunsen burners, presumably being too scientifically illiterate to know the problem. [[User:Timband|Timband]] ([[User talk:Timband|talk]]) 12:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Although reading the other comments, it's a much better joke if the Bunsen Burner story is actually true, because that makes all of them about journalists not realising that they are highlighting their own ignorance. [[User:Timband|Timband]] ([[User talk:Timband|talk]]) 16:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

See [[Significant]] for another comic on p-values.--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 14:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

;Controlled trials show Bunsen burners make things colder

Actually, I can easily imagine a way to use a Bunsen burner to make something colder. Involving an unlit Bunsen burner that has been placed in the freezer for a couple hours, for example. Nowhere in the headline is there any mention of a flame. --[[User:Svenman|Svenman]] ([[User talk:Svenman|talk]]) 12:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Actually, there was a (badly formatted and badly placed, probably therefore now removed) comment on the explanation page earlier which pointed out that feeding a Bunsen burner from a propane bottle will cause the pressure, and therefore the temperature, in the bottle to decrease. That is a lot less contrived than my original idea. --[[User:Svenman|Svenman]] ([[User talk:Svenman|talk]]) 13:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

::That was me. Trying to get my 2 cents in on my phone before I forgot. http://www.propane101.com/propaneregulatorfreezing.htm as an example. [[User:Mattiep|Mattiep]] ([[User talk:Mattiep|talk]]) 13:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Correct me if i'm wrong here, but doesn't burning flame from a Bunsen burner cause the temperatures of the flame and the target object to equalize? Sure in most cases that results in a temperature increase in the target object, but I don't see why that would be true in all high temperature cases. The comment about "reducing the rate of heat loss in 2000K+ temp objects" would only be true if the gas (assuming any atmosphere at all) surrounding the target object was cooler than the flame from the bunsen burner. This gets worse in a perfect vacuum. If a 5000K object was in a perfect vacuum and somebody set a lit bunsen burner (assuming the tip had an Oxygen source) to spray across the target object, then the Flame would get hotter as it touched the hotter object and the object would cool as the two temperatures attempted to equalize. No reduction of heat loss would happen. Can we remove the comment about "reducing the rate of heat loss in 2000K+ temp objects" ? [[User:Harodotus|Harodotus]] ([[User talk:Harodotus|talk]]) 22:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC).

::Found an article backing up my previous comment and lacking any objection for several hours, reveresed the note in the article.[http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2xr7dc/can_you_cool_an_object_hotter_than_fire_with_fire/] [[User:Harodotus|Harodotus]] ([[User talk:Harodotus|talk]]) 23:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Bunsen burners hasten the heat death of the universe, making things colder generally. Showing that in "controlled trials" seems like a challenge for a type 2 civilization, though. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.241.73|198.41.241.73]] 08:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the joke is in the wording of the headlines. The fact that a replication study fails to reproduce can be seen as a contradiction. Overfeeding rodents leads to fat rodents. This compromises their ability to function als animal (runway) models. I haven't figured out the other ones yet. But that's çause I'm dumb :-). Alva. {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.80}}

:It's way simpler than that - The joke is that people outside of sciences (with no understanding really of how to science) will report basically anything that sounds shocking or exciting, especially if it proves those nerdy, scary scientists wrong! So Randall gives us a bunch of possibly headlines that to a layman read like real, scary news about science, but to scientists this is stuff that is generally well known and understood. The last one is just taking it a step further for credulous news editors - They've been lying to us all this time! 13:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
::I think it's even simpler than that: the title is "Trouble for Science" and it shows a series of misleading headlines about misleading (i.e.: invalidated) scientific studies. The implication is "Trouble for Journalism".[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.87|173.245.54.87]] 14:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:I agree. All of the titles are poorly written. All immunoassays are antibody-based, so saying many commercial antibody-based immunoassays are unreliable is redundant, implying they have no idea what an immunoassay is. Problems with the p-value as an indicator of significance implies that there is some significant error in the use of a tool to measure significance of error, which leads one to wonder how they figured that out. If you don't know what a p-test is, the title is paradoxical. The last title would make someone assume that the controlled trials are using turned on bunsen burners to make things colder, but could mean almost anything, such as a bunsen burner being turned off the entire time, or a bunsen burner placed inside of a freezer, or even that people consider using bunsen burners in an experiment makes the experiment cool (or sweet or groovy or whatever). {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.155}}

::I would appreciate someone adding info about what an immunoassay is. [[User:Teleksterling|Teleksterling]] ([[User talk:Teleksterling|talk]]) 22:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree, but would say if you DO know what a p-test is, the title is paradoxical. If you don't know what a p-test is, the title is meaningless. [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 07:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This comic may be in reference to Monsanto's latest ailments.

;Replication study fails to reproduce many published results
:Upon reading that specific headline, the rational behavior would be to question the veracity of all the other headlines before and after. I could see a paper picking up on that sensationalist-looking headline and ignoring the fact it casts doubt on whatever else they published. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 14:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1574: Trouble for Science

2015-09-08T22:54:07Z

Teleksterling:

Sentence case, or down style, is one method, preferred by many print and online publications and recommended by the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. The only two rules are the two rules mentioned above: Capitalize the first word and all proper nouns. Everything else is in lowercase. http://www.dailywritingtips.com/rules-for-capitalization-in-titles/ [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.154|173.245.50.154]] 12:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

;Problems with the p-value as an indicator of significance

The p-value alone can never be an indicator of significance. However, it is still often used as the only indicator, because a full set of parameters (including sample size, test setup, etc.) can't easily be packed into a single number. There's a nice article in nature about this problem: [http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-errors-1.14700]
I can also recommend [http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800this story] about (ab-)using hacked p-values to get maximum publicity. I hope this helps :-) --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.183|141.101.105.183]] 12:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
:In this section, I really want to reword the p-valye explanation that "one can assume that the event observed 'exists'." Except where it's an event indirectly observed through a chained effect (unseeable gas molecules observed through brownian motion, unstable particles through detection of their decay particles, prehistoric meteorite impact through a geological/chemical fingerprint, etc) I think it should be more that "this (directly observed) event was directly linked to the presumed cause rather than spontaneous and random, at least w.r.t. the presumed cause being tested". But writing it better than I did just now. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.114|141.101.99.114]] 19:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the joke is that these newspapers are talking about how bad science is, and yet they manage to come up with a stupid story about Bunsen burners, presumably being too scientifically illiterate to know the problem. [[User:Timband|Timband]] ([[User talk:Timband|talk]]) 12:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Although reading the other comments, it's a much better joke if the Bunsen Burner story is actually true, because that makes all of them about journalists not realising that they are highlighting their own ignorance. [[User:Timband|Timband]] ([[User talk:Timband|talk]]) 16:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

See [[Significant]] for another comic on p-values.--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 14:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

;Controlled trials show Bunsen burners make things colder

Actually, I can easily imagine a way to use a Bunsen burner to make something colder. Involving an unlit Bunsen burner that has been placed in the freezer for a couple hours, for example. Nowhere in the headline is there any mention of a flame. --[[User:Svenman|Svenman]] ([[User talk:Svenman|talk]]) 12:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Actually, there was a (badly formatted and badly placed, probably therefore now removed) comment on the explanation page earlier which pointed out that feeding a Bunsen burner from a propane bottle will cause the pressure, and therefore the temperature, in the bottle to decrease. That is a lot less contrived than my original idea. --[[User:Svenman|Svenman]] ([[User talk:Svenman|talk]]) 13:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

::That was me. Trying to get my 2 cents in on my phone before I forgot. http://www.propane101.com/propaneregulatorfreezing.htm as an example. [[User:Mattiep|Mattiep]] ([[User talk:Mattiep|talk]]) 13:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Correct me if i'm wrong here, but doesn't burning flame from a Bunsen burner cause the temperatures of the flame and the target object to equalize? Sure in most cases that results in a temperature increase in the target object, but I don't see why that would be true in all high temperature cases. The comment about "reducing the rate of heat loss in 2000K+ temp objects" would only be true if the gas (assuming any atmosphere at all) surrounding the target object was cooler than the flame from the bunsen burner. This gets worse in a perfect vacuum. If a 5000K object was in a perfect vacuum and somebody set a lit bunsen burner (assuming the tip had an Oxygen source) to spray across the target object, then the Flame would get hotter as it touched the hotter object and the object would cool as the two temperatures attempted to equalize. No reduction of heat loss would happen. Can we remove the comment about "reducing the rate of heat loss in 2000K+ temp objects" ? [[User:Harodotus|Harodotus]] ([[User talk:Harodotus|talk]]) 22:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC).

::Found an article backing up my previous comment and lacking any objection for several hours, reveresed the note in the article.[http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2xr7dc/can_you_cool_an_object_hotter_than_fire_with_fire/] [[User:Harodotus|Harodotus]] ([[User talk:Harodotus|talk]]) 23:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Bunsen burners hasten the heat death of the universe, making things colder generally. Showing that in "controlled trials" seems like a challenge for a type 2 civilization, though. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.241.73|198.41.241.73]] 08:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the joke is in the wording of the headlines. The fact that a replication study fails to reproduce can be seen as a contradiction. Overfeeding rodents leads to fat rodents. This compromises their ability to function als animal (runway) models. I haven't figured out the other ones yet. But that's çause I'm dumb :-). Alva. {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.80}}

:It's way simpler than that - The joke is that people outside of sciences (with no understanding really of how to science) will report basically anything that sounds shocking or exciting, especially if it proves those nerdy, scary scientists wrong! So Randall gives us a bunch of possibly headlines that to a layman read like real, scary news about science, but to scientists this is stuff that is generally well known and understood. The last one is just taking it a step further for credulous news editors - They've been lying to us all this time! 13:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
::I think it's even simpler than that: the title is "Trouble for Science" and it shows a series of misleading headlines about misleading (i.e.: invalidated) scientific studies. The implication is "Trouble for Journalism".[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.87|173.245.54.87]] 14:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:I agree. All of the titles are poorly written. All immunoassays are antibody-based, so saying many commercial antibody-based immunoassays are unreliable is redundant, implying they have no idea what an immunoassay is. Problems with the p-value as an indicator of significance implies that there is some significant error in the use of a tool to measure significance of error, which leads one to wonder how they figured that out. If you don't know what a p-test is, the title is paradoxical. The last title would make someone assume that the controlled trials are using turned on bunsen burners to make things colder, but could mean almost anything, such as a bunsen burner being turned off the entire time, or a bunsen burner placed inside of a freezer, or even that people consider using bunsen burners in an experiment makes the experiment cool (or sweet or groovy or whatever). {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.155}}

:I would appreciate someone adding info about what an immunoassay is. [[User:Teleksterling|Teleksterling]] ([[User talk:Teleksterling|talk]]) 22:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree, but would say if you DO know what a p-test is, the title is paradoxical. If you don't know what a p-test is, the title is meaningless. [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 07:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This comic may be in reference to Monsanto's latest ailments.

;Replication study fails to reproduce many published results
:Upon reading that specific headline, the rational behavior would be to question the veracity of all the other headlines before and after. I could see a paper picking up on that sensationalist-looking headline and ignoring the fact it casts doubt on whatever else they published. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 14:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1574: Trouble for Science

2015-09-08T22:53:25Z

Teleksterling:

Sentence case, or down style, is one method, preferred by many print and online publications and recommended by the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. The only two rules are the two rules mentioned above: Capitalize the first word and all proper nouns. Everything else is in lowercase. http://www.dailywritingtips.com/rules-for-capitalization-in-titles/ [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.154|173.245.50.154]] 12:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

;Problems with the p-value as an indicator of significance

The p-value alone can never be an indicator of significance. However, it is still often used as the only indicator, because a full set of parameters (including sample size, test setup, etc.) can't easily be packed into a single number. There's a nice article in nature about this problem: [http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-errors-1.14700]
I can also recommend [http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800this story] about (ab-)using hacked p-values to get maximum publicity. I hope this helps :-) --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.183|141.101.105.183]] 12:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
:In this section, I really want to reword the p-valye explanation that "one can assume that the event observed 'exists'." Except where it's an event indirectly observed through a chained effect (unseeable gas molecules observed through brownian motion, unstable particles through detection of their decay particles, prehistoric meteorite impact through a geological/chemical fingerprint, etc) I think it should be more that "this (directly observed) event was directly linked to the presumed cause rather than spontaneous and random, at least w.r.t. the presumed cause being tested". But writing it better than I did just now. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.114|141.101.99.114]] 19:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the joke is that these newspapers are talking about how bad science is, and yet they manage to come up with a stupid story about Bunsen burners, presumably being too scientifically illiterate to know the problem. [[User:Timband|Timband]] ([[User talk:Timband|talk]]) 12:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Although reading the other comments, it's a much better joke if the Bunsen Burner story is actually true, because that makes all of them about journalists not realising that they are highlighting their own ignorance. [[User:Timband|Timband]] ([[User talk:Timband|talk]]) 16:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

See [[Significant]] for another comic on p-values.--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 14:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

;Controlled trials show Bunsen burners make things colder

Actually, I can easily imagine a way to use a Bunsen burner to make something colder. Involving an unlit Bunsen burner that has been placed in the freezer for a couple hours, for example. Nowhere in the headline is there any mention of a flame. --[[User:Svenman|Svenman]] ([[User talk:Svenman|talk]]) 12:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Actually, there was a (badly formatted and badly placed, probably therefore now removed) comment on the explanation page earlier which pointed out that feeding a Bunsen burner from a propane bottle will cause the pressure, and therefore the temperature, in the bottle to decrease. That is a lot less contrived than my original idea. --[[User:Svenman|Svenman]] ([[User talk:Svenman|talk]]) 13:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

::That was me. Trying to get my 2 cents in on my phone before I forgot. http://www.propane101.com/propaneregulatorfreezing.htm as an example. [[User:Mattiep|Mattiep]] ([[User talk:Mattiep|talk]]) 13:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Correct me if i'm wrong here, but doesn't burning flame from a Bunsen burner cause the temperatures of the flame and the target object to equalize? Sure in most cases that results in a temperature increase in the target object, but I don't see why that would be true in all high temperature cases. The comment about "reducing the rate of heat loss in 2000K+ temp objects" would only be true if the gas (assuming any atmosphere at all) surrounding the target object was cooler than the flame from the bunsen burner. This gets worse in a perfect vacuum. If a 5000K object was in a perfect vacuum and somebody set a lit bunsen burner (assuming the tip had an Oxygen source) to spray across the target object, then the Flame would get hotter as it touched the hotter object and the object would cool as the two temperatures attempted to equalize. No reduction of heat loss would happen. Can we remove the comment about "reducing the rate of heat loss in 2000K+ temp objects" ? [[User:Harodotus|Harodotus]] ([[User talk:Harodotus|talk]]) 22:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC).

::Found an article backing up my previous comment and lacking any objection for several hours, reveresed the note in the article.[http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2xr7dc/can_you_cool_an_object_hotter_than_fire_with_fire/] [[User:Harodotus|Harodotus]] ([[User talk:Harodotus|talk]]) 23:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Bunsen burners hasten the heat death of the universe, making things colder generally. Showing that in "controlled trials" seems like a challenge for a type 2 civilization, though. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.241.73|198.41.241.73]] 08:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the joke is in the wording of the headlines. The fact that a replication study fails to reproduce can be seen as a contradiction. Overfeeding rodents leads to fat rodents. This compromises their ability to function als animal (runway) models. I haven't figured out the other ones yet. But that's çause I'm dumb :-). Alva. {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.80}}

:It's way simpler than that - The joke is that people outside of sciences (with no understanding really of how to science) will report basically anything that sounds shocking or exciting, especially if it proves those nerdy, scary scientists wrong! So Randall gives us a bunch of possibly headlines that to a layman read like real, scary news about science, but to scientists this is stuff that is generally well known and understood. The last one is just taking it a step further for credulous news editors - They've been lying to us all this time! 13:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
::I think it's even simpler than that: the title is "Trouble for Science" and it shows a series of misleading headlines about misleading (i.e.: invalidated) scientific studies. The implication is "Trouble for Journalism".[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.87|173.245.54.87]] 14:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:I agree. All of the titles are poorly written. All immunoassays are antibody-based, so saying many commercial antibody-based immunoassays are unreliable is redundant, implying they have no idea what an immunoassay is. Problems with the p-value as an indicator of significance implies that there is some significant error in the use of a tool to measure significance of error, which leads one to wonder how they figured that out. If you don't know what a p-test is, the title is paradoxical. The last title would make someone assume that the controlled trials are using turned on bunsen burners to make things colder, but could mean almost anything, such as a bunsen burner being turned off the entire time, or a bunsen burner placed inside of a freezer, or even that people consider using bunsen burners in an experiment makes the experiment cool (or sweet or groovy or whatever). {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.155}}

I generally agree, but would say if you DO know what a p-test is, the title is paradoxical. If you don't know what a p-test is, the title is meaningless. [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 07:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

:I would appreciate someone adding info about what an immunoassay is. [[User:Teleksterling|Teleksterling]] ([[User talk:Teleksterling|talk]]) 22:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This comic may be in reference to Monsanto's latest ailments.

;Replication study fails to reproduce many published results
:Upon reading that specific headline, the rational behavior would be to question the veracity of all the other headlines before and after. I could see a paper picking up on that sensationalist-looking headline and ignoring the fact it casts doubt on whatever else they published. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 14:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)