explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1960: Code Golf

2018-02-26T14:02:48Z

Thawn:

What's the programming language? It seems to me like a special reverse golf variant of Python, where <code>def</code> is replaced by <code>define</code>, just to make it longer. Or is there a real language with that syntax? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.106|172.68.110.106]] 08:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Lisp/some derivatives (I'm most familiar with scheme) use <code>define<define> as does Slate, however both have a different syntax. Most likely, this is just pseudo-code. [[User:Baldrickk|Baldrickk]] ([[User talk:Baldrickk|talk]]) 09:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely going to have to include a link to the actual longest language: Unary, which is literally just a certain length of 1s. No one actually writes in it: you write in another language and then it gets converted. [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 10:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This might be directed at a code golfing challenge currently taking place: https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/152856/write-moby-dick-approximately. The goal is to write a program that outputs a text, that is as closly as possible to moby dick, while no containing it, and of course beeing as small as possible.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.150|141.101.105.150]] 13:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why JSFuck is included in the explanation. Not sure how it really has any relevance here as it is not mentioned in the text and is not the programming language being used by Randall in the comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 13:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

: agreed, JSFuck is not relevant in the explanation. moved it to the discussion (see below) [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 13:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

:: Instead of {{w|Python (programming language)|Python}}, one could use {{w|JSFuck}} though, which is valid {{w|JavaScript}} code - but written with only six different characters. Even mundane variable names like `LowestDenominator` will take up hundreds, if not thousands, of bytes in JSFuck.

Off Topic: I just realized that statistical thermodynamics is nothing else than reverse molecule golf: The entropy of a given system is equal to the maximum score you can achieve in reverse molecule golf. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 13:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:1960: Code Golf

2018-02-26T14:01:24Z

Thawn:

Talk:1960: Code Golf

2018-02-26T13:59:14Z

Thawn:

What's the programming language? It seems to me like a special reverse golf variant of Python, where <code>def</code> is replaced by <code>define</code>, just to make it longer. Or is there a real language with that syntax? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.106|172.68.110.106]] 08:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Lisp/some derivatives (I'm most familiar with scheme) use <code>define<define> as does Slate, however both have a different syntax. Most likely, this is just pseudo-code. [[User:Baldrickk|Baldrickk]] ([[User talk:Baldrickk|talk]]) 09:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely going to have to include a link to the actual longest language: Unary, which is literally just a certain length of 1s. No one actually writes in it: you write in another language and then it gets converted. [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 10:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This might be directed at a code golfing challenge currently taking place: https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/152856/write-moby-dick-approximately. The goal is to write a program that outputs a text, that is as closly as possible to moby dick, while no containing it, and of course beeing as small as possible.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.150|141.101.105.150]] 13:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why JSFuck is included in the explanation. Not sure how it really has any relevance here as it is not mentioned in the text and is not the programming language being used by Randall in the comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 13:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

: agreed, JSFuck is not relevant in the explanation. moved it to the discussion [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 13:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

:: Instead of {{w|Python (programming language)|Python}}, one could use {{w|JSFuck}} though, which is valid {{w|JavaScript}} - but written with only six different characters. Even mundane variable names like <code>LowestDenominator</code> will take up hundreds, if not thousands, of bytes in JSFuck.

Off Topic: I just realized that statistical thermodynamics is nothing else than reverse molecule golf: The entropy of a given system is equal to the maximum score you can achieve in reverse molecule golf. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 13:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:1960: Code Golf

2018-02-26T13:57:49Z

Thawn:

What's the programming language? It seems to me like a special reverse golf variant of Python, where <code>def</code> is replaced by <code>define</code>, just to make it longer. Or is there a real language with that syntax? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.106|172.68.110.106]] 08:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Lisp/some derivatives (I'm most familiar with scheme) use <code>define<define> as does Slate, however both have a different syntax. Most likely, this is just pseudo-code. [[User:Baldrickk|Baldrickk]] ([[User talk:Baldrickk|talk]]) 09:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely going to have to include a link to the actual longest language: Unary, which is literally just a certain length of 1s. No one actually writes in it: you write in another language and then it gets converted. [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 10:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This might be directed at a code golfing challenge currently taking place: https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/152856/write-moby-dick-approximately. The goal is to write a program that outputs a text, that is as closly as possible to moby dick, while no containing it, and of course beeing as small as possible.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.150|141.101.105.150]] 13:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why JSFuck is included in the explanation. Not sure how it really has any relevance here as it is not mentioned in the text and is not the programming language being used by Randall in the comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 13:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

: agreed, JSFuck is not relevant in the explanation. moved it to the discussion [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 13:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

: here is the JSFuck bit:Instead of {{w|Python (programming language)|Python}}, one could use {{w|JSFuck}} though, which is valid {{w|JavaScript}} code - but written with only six different characters. Even mundane variable names like <code>LowestDenominator</code> will take up hundreds, if not thousands, of bytes in JSFuck.

Off Topic: I just realized that statistical thermodynamics is nothing else than reverse molecule golf: The entropy of a given system is equal to the maximum score you can achieve in reverse molecule golf. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 13:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

1960: Code Golf

2018-02-26T13:56:55Z

Thawn:

{{comic
| number = 1960
| date = February 26, 2018
| title = Code Golf
| image = code_golf.png
| titletext = I also enjoy Reverse Regular Golf. I've been playing for years all across the country and I'm still on the first hole.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic refers to {{w|code golf}}, the idea of using as few characters as possible to achieve your code goal, similar to how in {{w|golf|regular golf}}, the goal is to get to the end with as few strokes as possible. Reverse code golf would be to use as many characters as possible, which he does in the code example with overly long function names that are [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moby-Dick/Chapter_1 the beginning lines] of {{w|Herman Melville}}'s notoriously long-winded whaling novel ''{{w|Moby-Dick}}''.

Code golf is a game among programmers where contestants try to solve a given problem or challenge with as little code as possible (usually decided by measuring the program in bytes). In the comic's version, Reverse Code Golf, the object is to complete some mundane task in as many bytes as possible, hence the ridiculously long method and variable names.

Additionally, the first two functions defined implement “zero” and “successor”, the two basic operations of {{w|Peano axioms|Peano arithmetic}}. Presumably, the programmer will next implement natural number addition, then integers, then whichever branches of mathematics the original problem needs, all from scratch.

The title text refers to the concept of "Reverse Golf", a variation on golf where the aim is to take as many strokes as possible to get the ball in the hole.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[ Program text in a black box ]
:define callMeIshmaelSomeYearsAgoNeverMindHowLongPrecisely():
::return 0
:define havingLittleOrNoMoneyInMyPurseAndNothingParticular(toInterestMeOnShoreIThoughtIWouldSail):
::return 1+toInterestMeOnShoreIThoughtIWouldSail
:define aLittleAndSeeTheWateryPartOfTheWorld(

Caption under the black box: My hobby: Reverse Code Golf
{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:My Hobby]]

Talk:1960: Code Golf

2018-02-26T13:56:09Z

Thawn:

What's the programming language? It seems to me like a special reverse golf variant of Python, where <code>def</code> is replaced by <code>define</code>, just to make it longer. Or is there a real language with that syntax? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.106|172.68.110.106]] 08:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Lisp/some derivatives (I'm most familiar with scheme) use <code>define<define> as does Slate, however both have a different syntax. Most likely, this is just pseudo-code. [[User:Baldrickk|Baldrickk]] ([[User talk:Baldrickk|talk]]) 09:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely going to have to include a link to the actual longest language: Unary, which is literally just a certain length of 1s. No one actually writes in it: you write in another language and then it gets converted. [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 10:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This might be directed at a code golfing challenge currently taking place: https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/152856/write-moby-dick-approximately. The goal is to write a program that outputs a text, that is as closly as possible to moby dick, while no containing it, and of course beeing as small as possible.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.150|141.101.105.150]] 13:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why JSFuck is included in the explanation. Not sure how it really has any relevance here as it is not mentioned in the text and is not the programming language being used by Randall in the comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 13:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

: agreed, JSFuck is not relevant in the explanation. moved it to the discussion [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 13:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Off Topic: I just realized that statistical thermodynamics is nothing else than reverse molecule golf: The entropy of a given system is equal to the maximum score you can achieve in reverse molecule golf. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 13:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:1945: Scientific Paper Graph Quality

2018-01-23T09:38:00Z

Thawn:

What happened circa 2015 that marks the *end* of the PowerPoint/MSPaint era? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.59|108.162.238.59]] 16:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

: More and more journals explicitly forbade the use of powerpoint. Also, more scientists are familiar with software better suited for creating scientific graphs. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 16:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

:: The problem was never that it was impossible to good quality graphs with those tools. The problem was that people ''didn't actually'' do so, in part because the tools made it really easy to produce something superficially good but actually so information-free as to be utterly bad, as well as making it rather more difficult than one would hope for to make camera-ready graphs (journals having higher-resolution print reproduction than most computer screens of the time). But before anyone gets fancy about this, you could commit very similar sins with other tools; merely using a specialist plotting program doesn't automatically make the output truly comprehensible (or relevant). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.107|141.101.104.107]] 22:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

:::If, however, creating graph is harder, you are likely to focus on what to put into them and make them only if it makes sense. One reason for decreased quality of graph might be that there was more of them for same amount of data. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 01:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

::: With enough effort, it is possible to make a good graph with any tool. However, the point is that with Powerpoint it is much easier to make a superficial graph than a good graph. With other tools such as R, Matlab, Origin etc. it is equally easy to make a good or a bad graph. Therefore, the average quality of graphs created with Powerpoint is much lower than with other tools. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

An interesting thing to note is that you can see from this chart that even slightly before the paint/powerpoint era the quality started going down. But it could be because this graph is meant to be just like the point it is making and therefore is not 100% accurate. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.76|108.162.219.76]] 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

:I came down here to make exactly this point - Randall appears to be deliberately trying to misleadingly imply a conclusion that isn't actually supported by the data. ;o) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16|141.101.76.16]] 09:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

: actually, the peak of the graph is somewhere around 1990 which is 5 years after the release of paint and close to the release of powerpoint. Assuming that the tools gradually went into widespread use, this is perfectly consistent. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You might find http://www.norvig.com/Gettysburg/ amusing. It is the Gettysburg Address done as a PowerPoint presentation.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.154|108.162.216.154]] 18:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Gene Wirchenko genew@telus.net

Does anyone have good examples of papers showing this? It would really help the explanation...[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.166|172.68.211.166]]

Also amusing is how low quality the image of this comic is. It is only 360*240 pixels, which is fitting for a graph describing low quality graphs.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.28|172.68.34.28]] 02:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Something of which I find at least somewhat noteworthy: early xkcd was notorius for these vague, informationless graphs. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.6|172.68.47.6]] 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:1945: Scientific Paper Graph Quality

2018-01-23T09:36:41Z

Thawn:

What happened circa 2015 that marks the *end* of the PowerPoint/MSPaint era? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.59|108.162.238.59]] 16:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

: More and more journals explicitly forbade the use of powerpoint. Also, more scientists are familiar with software better suited for creating scientific graphs. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 16:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

:: The problem was never that it was impossible to good quality graphs with those tools. The problem was that people ''didn't actually'' do so, in part because the tools made it really easy to produce something superficially good but actually so information-free as to be utterly bad, as well as making it rather more difficult than one would hope for to make camera-ready graphs (journals having higher-resolution print reproduction than most computer screens of the time). But before anyone gets fancy about this, you could commit very similar sins with other tools; merely using a specialist plotting program doesn't automatically make the output truly comprehensible (or relevant). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.107|141.101.104.107]] 22:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

:::If, however, creating graph is harder, you are likely to focus on what to put into them and make them only if it makes sense. One reason for decreased quality of graph might be that there was more of them for same amount of data. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 01:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

::: With enough effort, it is possible to make a good graph with any tool. However, the point is that with Powerpoint it is much easier to make a superficial graph than a good graph. With other tools such as R, Matlab, Origin etc. it is equally easy to make a good or a bad graph. Therefore, the average quality of graphs created with Powerpoint is much lower than with other tools. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

An interesting thing to note is that you can see from this chart that even slightly before the paint/powerpoint era the quality started going down. But it could be because this graph is meant to be just like the point it is making and therefore is not 100% accurate. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.76|108.162.219.76]] 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

:I came down here to make exactly this point - Randall appears to be deliberately trying to misleadingly imply a conclusion that isn't actually supported by the data. ;o) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16|141.101.76.16]] 09:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

: actually, the peak of the graph is somewhere around 1990 which is 5 years after the release of paint and close to the release of powerpoint. Assuming that the tools did not immediately go into widespread use, this is perfectly consistent. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You might find http://www.norvig.com/Gettysburg/ amusing. It is the Gettysburg Address done as a PowerPoint presentation.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.154|108.162.216.154]] 18:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Gene Wirchenko genew@telus.net

Does anyone have good examples of papers showing this? It would really help the explanation...[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.166|172.68.211.166]]

Also amusing is how low quality the image of this comic is. It is only 360*240 pixels, which is fitting for a graph describing low quality graphs.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.28|172.68.34.28]] 02:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Something of which I find at least somewhat noteworthy: early xkcd was notorius for these vague, informationless graphs. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.6|172.68.47.6]] 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:1945: Scientific Paper Graph Quality

2018-01-23T09:36:05Z

Thawn:

What happened circa 2015 that marks the *end* of the PowerPoint/MSPaint era? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.59|108.162.238.59]] 16:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

--> More and more journals explicitly forbade the use of powerpoint. Also, more scientists are familiar with software better suited for creating scientific graphs. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 16:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

: The problem was never that it was impossible to good quality graphs with those tools. The problem was that people ''didn't actually'' do so, in part because the tools made it really easy to produce something superficially good but actually so information-free as to be utterly bad, as well as making it rather more difficult than one would hope for to make camera-ready graphs (journals having higher-resolution print reproduction than most computer screens of the time). But before anyone gets fancy about this, you could commit very similar sins with other tools; merely using a specialist plotting program doesn't automatically make the output truly comprehensible (or relevant). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.107|141.101.104.107]] 22:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

::If, however, creating graph is harder, you are likely to focus on what to put into them and make them only if it makes sense. One reason for decreased quality of graph might be that there was more of them for same amount of data. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 01:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

::: With enough effort, it is possible to make a good graph with any tool. However, the point is that with Powerpoint it is much easier to make a superficial graph than a good graph. With other tools such as R, Matlab, Origin etc. it is equally easy to make a good or a bad graph. Therefore, the average quality of graphs created with Powerpoint is much lower than with other tools. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

An interesting thing to note is that you can see from this chart that even slightly before the paint/powerpoint era the quality started going down. But it could be because this graph is meant to be just like the point it is making and therefore is not 100% accurate. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.76|108.162.219.76]] 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

:I came down here to make exactly this point - Randall appears to be deliberately trying to misleadingly imply a conclusion that isn't actually supported by the data. ;o) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.16|141.101.76.16]] 09:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

: actually, the peak of the graph is somewhere around 1990 which is 5 years after the release of paint and close to the release of powerpoint. Assuming that the tools did not immediately go into widespread use, this is perfectly consistent. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 09:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You might find http://www.norvig.com/Gettysburg/ amusing. It is the Gettysburg Address done as a PowerPoint presentation.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.154|108.162.216.154]] 18:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Gene Wirchenko genew@telus.net

Does anyone have good examples of papers showing this? It would really help the explanation...[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.166|172.68.211.166]]

Also amusing is how low quality the image of this comic is. It is only 360*240 pixels, which is fitting for a graph describing low quality graphs.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.28|172.68.34.28]] 02:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:1945: Scientific Paper Graph Quality

2018-01-22T16:34:58Z

Thawn:

1945: Scientific Paper Graph Quality

2018-01-22T16:31:00Z

Thawn: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 1945
| date = January 22, 2018
| title = Scientific Paper Graph Quality
| image = scientific_paper_graph_quality.png
| titletext = The worst are graphs with qualitative, vaguely-labeled axes and very little actual data.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Microsoft Paint}} was first introduced in 1985, and {{w|Microsoft PowerPoint}} debuted in 1990, allowing for the easy creation of graphs by computer users. The comic suggests that these easy-to-use tools are responsible for decreasing the overall quality of graphs, presumably by enabling a large number of inexperienced designers.

{{w|Microsoft_PowerPoint#Use_it_less|Critics of PowerPoint}}, such as {{w|Edward_Tufte#Criticism_of_PowerPoint|Edward Tufte}}, have argued that the software is ill-suited for reporting scientific analyses. Many scientific journals nowadays [https://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/prep_revfigs.xhtml explicitly forbid the use of powerpoint in their instructions for authors].

The title text states that among the bad quality graphs, the ones "with qualitative, vaguely-labeled axes and very little actual data" are the worst. While this may indicate that the problem with powerpoint era graphs is that they seem to focus on getting the point accross (qualitative as in "you get the idea") over accuracy (little actual data), this graph fits precisely into this category. Meaning its quality is doubtful, and it might represent more of an impression, or opinion, than an actual fact.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:General quality of charts and
:graphs in scientific papers

:[A graph is shown with the y-axis on the origo labeled "bad", on the arrowhead labeled "good", and the x-axis being a timeline labeled with decades from 1950s to 2010s.]

:[The pre-1993 and post-2015 parts are white, with increasing quality before 1990 and after 2015. The 1993-2015 part indicates bad quality and is highlighted in grey, labeled "PowerPoint/MSPaint era".]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Timelines]]

1945: Scientific Paper Graph Quality

2018-01-22T16:29:19Z

Thawn:

{{comic
| number = 1945
| date = January 22, 2018
| title = Scientific Paper Graph Quality
| image = scientific_paper_graph_quality.png
| titletext = The worst are graphs with qualitative, vaguely-labeled axes and very little actual data.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Microsoft Paint}} was first introduced in 1985, and {{w|Microsoft PowerPoint}} debuted in 1990, allowing for the easy creation of graphs by computer users. The comic suggests that these easy-to-use tools are responsible for decreasing the overall quality of graphs, presumably by enabling a large number of inexperienced designers.

{{w|Microsoft_PowerPoint#Use_it_less|Critics of PowerPoint}}, such as {{w|Edward_Tufte#Criticism_of_PowerPoint|Edward Tufte}}, have argued that the software is ill-suited for reporting scientific analyses. Many scientific journals nowadays [https://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/prep_revfigs.xhtml explicitly forbid the use of powerpoint in their instructions for authors].

The title text states that among the bad quality graphs, the ones with "with qualitative, vaguely-labeled axes and very little actual data" are the worst. While this may indicate that the problem with powerpoint era graphs is that they seem to focus on getting the point accross (qualitative as in "you get the idea") over accuracy (little actual data), this graph fits precisely into this category. Meaning its quality is doubtful, and it might represent more of an impression, or opinion, than an actual fact.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:General quality of charts and
:graphs in scientific papers

:[A graph is shown with the y-axis on the origo labeled "bad", on the arrowhead labeled "good", and the x-axis being a timeline labeled with decades from 1950s to 2010s.]

:[The pre-1993 and post-2015 parts are white, with increasing quality before 1990. The 1993-2015 part is grey, labeled "PowerPoint/MSPaint era". The quality decreases between 1990 and 2003, but increases from 2003 to present.]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Timelines]]

Talk:1856: Existence Proof

2017-06-28T20:23:23Z

Thawn:

Whoever added the citation needed got more of a laugh out of me then Randall did this morning. Well done. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.29|172.68.142.29]] 17:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Does the function have any special hidden meaning, or is it just some random function?
[[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 20:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

1363: xkcd Phone

2014-05-02T18:31:48Z

Thawn: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1363
| date = May 2, 2014
| title = xkcd Phone
| image = xkcd_phone.png
| titletext = Presented in partnership with Qualcomm, Craigslist, Whirlpool, Hostess, LifeStyles, and the US Chamber of Commerce. Manufactured on equipment which also processes peanuts. Price includes 2-year Knicks contract. Phone may extinguish nearby birthday candles. If phone ships with Siri, return immediately; do not speak to her and ignore any instructions she gives. Do not remove lead casing. Phone may attract/trap insects; this is normal. Volume adjustable (requires root). If you experience sudden tingling, nausea, or vomiting, perform a factory reset immediately. Do not submerge in water; phone will drown. Exterior may be frictionless. Prolonged use can cause mood swings, short-term memory loss, and seizures. Avert eyes while replacing battery. Under certain circumstances, wireless transmitter may control God.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|No longer created by a BOT, but probably still needs more editing.}}

This comic is a parody of a multitude of mobile-technology related issues that, when brought together, create a general satire of smartphone advertising. The advertised features here either make previously useful capabilities useless or add features nobody wants. Except for "your mobile world (going) digital", which is old news.

From bottom left, going clockwise:

* '''FlightAware partnership:''' This is a reference to the [http://www.flightaware.com/ FlightAware] flight tracking service. This FlightAware partnership results in the phone playing airplane engine noise whenever a flight passes over the phone's current location, making this an annoying and intrusive feature that no one wants.
* '''Realistic case:''' possibly a joke on various audiovisual devices like gaming consoles that advertise realistic sound, graphics, etc. Of course, applying "realistic" to an actual physical case is ridiculous. Either the case is actually real, or it doesn't actually function as a case.
* '''Clear screen:''' This is a pointless descriptor from the perspective of the consumer. Of course the screen is clear. This joke works in tandem with the previous joke, as a play on "clear case, realistic screen," which are both hypothetically viable selling points.
* '''Side Facing Camera:''' There was a recent controversy surrounding an [https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/spy-cam-peek-i Indiegogo for a surreptitious, side-mounted camera device] for smartphones due to the advertisement of the device as a good way to take creep shots, which are illegal in many places. Widespread dissemination of these devices as a built-in feature would likely result in a sharp increase in delinquency of this nature. May also be an ''ad absurdum'' extension of devices with both forward and backward facing cameras.
* '''Custom blend OS:''' iOS and Android are offered by different conglomerates and run on different kernels. A "custom blend" would probably be a nightmare to work with.
* '''Simulates alternative speed of light:''' This renders the clock useless. The speed of light is roughly 2.99x108 meters per second. Relativistic effects, such as time dilation, only occur at significant fractions of the speed of light. Since the phone is simulating a much slower speed of light, driving at highway speeds will cause time dilation. For example, driving at 90mph (90% of the default simulated speed of light) gives a time dilation of about 2.29. So while you are driving at 90mph your clock will run 2.29 times slower than a stationary one. Travelling faster than the simulated speed of light will make the clock run backwards.
* '''Wireless:''' as in cordless phone. This is the bare minimum a phone has to have in order to be a mobile phone, so advertising it as a feature feels dated by decades. Or, perhaps Munroe is implying the entire phone is without wires, in which case it wouldn't function.
* '''Accelerometer screams in free fall:''' Another useless function. Rather than having some sort of feature to prevent breakage or cracking when a drop is detected, the phone just makes you more aware of its potential imminent doom.
* '''When exposed to light, phone says "hi":''' Bait and switch, and also a build from the previous joke. The implied feature is that the screen or camera will automatically adjust, but instead the phone is weirdly anthropomorphized.

The ominous warnings and disclaimers in the title text are probably a reference to the ''Saturday Night Live'' parody ad for {{w|Happy Fun Ball}} ([http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/pictures/50-greatest-saturday-night-live-sketches-of-all-time-20140203/happy-fun-ball-0459912 original video hosted on rollingstone.com]).

* '''Presented in partnership with Qualcomm, Craigslist, Whirlpool, Hostess, LifeStyles, and the US Chamber of Commerce.''' {{w|Qualcomm}} is a semiconductor company that designs and produces chips for mobile phones, but the other companies mentioned here have no association with mobile phones.
* '''Manufactured on equipment which also processes peanuts.''' A warning often seen on candy and other foods for people with a peanut allergy. It is highly unlikely that equipment used to produce mobile phones would also process food.
* '''Price includes 2-year Knicks contract.''' Mobile phones are often sold by phone companies in combination with a cell phone plan, but a contract with the {{w|New_York_Knicks|Knicks}} would only appeal to pro basketball players.
* '''Phone may extinguish nearby birthday candles.''' A rather oddly specific capability, which might also be annoying for anyone attempting to host a birthday party. As to how it would do this, a very powerful directional speaker would be able to blow out a nearby candle, but the speakers in mobile phones aren't going to be that big.
* '''If phone ships with Siri, return immediately; do not speak to her and ignore any instructions she gives.''' {{w|Siri}} is a virtual personal assistant application for Apple devices. Not speaking to it and not following its instructions would defeat its purpose. It may suggest that a malevolent "Siri AI" has sneaked itself onto some devices, at the manufacturing stage, for some diabolical purpose. May be a reference to the Companion Cube in the game Portal, in which the player is instructed to disregard it's advice if the cube appears to be animate.
* '''Do not remove lead casing.'''A mobile phone encased in lead would not function because it could not transmit data. Devices that emit high levels of ionizing radiation are often encased in lead, but a phone that would emit that level of radiation would be unhealthy to carry around and be probably too heavy as well. This might be reference to [https://xkcd.com/925/ xkcd comic no 925: Cell phones] where Randall makes fun of the WHO claiming that cell phones might cause cancer despite huge studies showing the opposite. This could also mean the device is an actual bananaphone as regular phones emit no ionizing radiation ([http://xkcd.com/radiation xkcd Radiation Dose Chart]). Regrettably, the lead casing would render the phone inedible.
* '''Phone may attract/trap insects; this is normal.''' Some plants, like the {{w|Venus_flytrap|Venus flytrap}}, attract and trap insects, but mobile phones are not known to exhibit this behaviour. May be a reference to "crazy ants" which are attracted to electronics.
* '''Volume adjustable (requires root).''' {{w|Android_rooting|Rooting}} is the method to gain privileged access on Android phones. Adjusting the volume should be available to any user and would not be restricted to root access only.
* '''If you experience sudden tingling, nausea, or vomiting, perform a factory reset immediately.''' These symptoms are usually associated with chemical or radiation poisoning. Neither of these would be cured by a {{w|Factory_reset|factory reset}}.
* '''Do not submerge in water; phone will drown.''' Most phones are not waterproof and will probably short-circuit when submerged. Drowning however, would imply that the phone breathes air (which actually would be possible if it had a {{w|Lithium-air_battery|Li-air battery}}).
* '''Exterior may be frictionless.''' The front of a smartphone is usually made of glass and should have a surface with very low friction. The back of a phone is usually made from a material that has higher friction to make it pleasant to hold and to make sure it doesn't slide off objects it is placed on. A completely frictionless surface would make it <s>almost</s> impossible to hold and would make it very susceptible to drops.
* '''Prolonged use can cause mood swings, short-term memory loss, and seizures.''' These are all side effects that are associated with certain kinds of medication or radiation treatment of the brain and would not be acceptable for mobile phones.
* '''Avert eyes while replacing battery.''' Actions that would warrant averting your eyes are usually associated with high levels of radiation (e.g. making an {{w|X-ray}} photo). A hint that the phone might be powered by a radionuclide battery which would explain the lead casing and the possible radiation side effects. A phone that emits X-ray radiation would not be healthy to be around. Or it may be a reference to the {{w|Ark_of_the_Covenant|Ark Of The Covenant}}.
* '''Under certain circumstances, wireless transmitter may control God.''' According to most religions, God (or Gods) are usually in control of us. Gods are usually viewed as not directly controllable.

==Transcript==
'''The xkcd Phone'''
Your mobile world just went digital®

* Flightaware partnership: Makes airplane noises when flights pass overhead
* Realistic case
* Clear screen
* Side-facing camera
* Runs custom blend of Android and iOS
* Simulates alternate speeds of light (default: 100 miles per hour) and ajusts clock as phone accelerates
* Wireless
* Accelerometer detects when phone is in free fall and makes it scream
* When exposed to light, phone says "hi!"

{{comic discussion}}

936: Password Strength

2014-04-12T19:41:03Z

Thawn: added possible explanation of the title text

{{comic
| number = 936
| date = August 10, 2011
| title = Password Strength
| image = password strength.png
| titletext = To anyone who understands information theory and security and is in an infuriating argument with someone who does not (possibly involving mixed case), I sincerely apologize.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|The title text is not explained. Why the need to apologize?}}
Computer security consultant Mark Burnett has posted a [http://xato.net/passwords/analyzing-the-xkcd-comic/ discussion and analysis] of this comic on his blog.

This comic is saying that the password in the top frames "Tr0ub4dor&3" is easier for password cracking software to guess because it has less entropy than "correcthorsebatterystaple" and also more difficult for a human to remember, leading to insecure practices like writing the password down on a post-it attached to the monitor.

In simple cases the {{w|Entropy (information theory)|entropy}} of a password is calculated as ''a^b'' where ''a'' is the number of allowed symbols and ''b'' is its length. A dictionary word (however long) has an entropy of around 65000, i.e. 16 bits. A truly random string of length 11 (not like "Tr0ub4dor&3", but more like "J4I/tyJ&Acy") has 94^11 = 72.1 bits. However the comic shows that "Tr0ub4dor&3" has only 28 bits of entropy. Another way of selecting a password is to have 2048 "symbols" (common words) and select only 4 of those symbols. 2048^4 = 44 bits, much better than 28.

It is absolutely true that people make passwords hard to remember because they think they are "safer", and it is certainly true that length, all other things being equal, tends to make for very strong passwords and this can confirmed by using [http://rumkin.com/tools/password/passchk.php rumkin.com's password strength checker]. Even if the individual characters are all limited to [a-z], the exponent implied in "we added another lowercase character, so multiply by 26 again" tends to dominate the results.

In addition to being easier to remember, long strings of lowercase characters are also easier to type on smartphones and {{w|Virtual keyboard|soft keyboards}}.

xkcd's password generation scheme requires the user to have a list of 2048 common words (log2(2048) = 11). For any attack we must assume that the attacker knows our password generation algorithm, but not the exact password. In this case the attacker knows the 2048 words, and knows that we selected 4 words, but not which words. The number of combinations of 4 words from this list of words is 211×4 = 44 bits. For comparison, the [http://world.std.com/~reinhold/dicewarefaq.html#calculatingentropy entropy offered by Diceware's 7776 word list is 13 bits per word]. If the attacker doesn't know the algorithm used, and only knows that lowercase letters are selected, the "common words" password would take even longer to crack than depicted. 25 ''random'' lowercase characters would have [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=log2%2826^25%29 117 bits of entropy], vs 44 bits for the common words list.

{{w|Steve Gibson (computer programmer)|Steve Gibson}} from the {{w|Security Now}} podcast did a lot of work in this arena and found that the password <code>D0g.....................</code> (24 characters long) is stronger than <code>PrXyc.N(n4k77#L!eVdAfp9</code> (23 characters long) because both have at least one uppercase letter, lowercase letter, number, and "special" character, so length trumps perceived complexity. Steve Gibson makes this very clear in his password haystack [https://www.grc.com/haystack.htm reference guide and tester]:
:"Once an exhaustive password search begins, '''the most important factor''' is password length!"

The important thing to take away from this comic is that longer passwords are better because each additional character adds much more time to the breaking of the password. That's what [[Randall]] is trying to get through here. Complexity does not matter unless you have length in passwords. Complexity is more difficult for humans to remember, but length is not.

;Example
Below there is a detailed example which shows how different rules of complexity work to generate a password with supposed 44 bits of entropy. The examples of expected passwords were generated in random.org.(*)

If ''n'' is the number of symbols and ''L'' is the length of the password, then ''L'' = 44 / log2(n).

{|class="wikitable"
!Symbols
!Number of symbols
!Minimum length
!colspan="2"|Examples of expected passwords
!Example of an actual password
!Actual bits of entropy
!Comment
|-
|a||26||9.3||mdniclapwz||jxtvesveiv||troubadorx||16+4.7 = 20.7||Extra letter to meet length requirement; log2(26) = 4.7
|-
|rowspan="2"|a 9
|rowspan="2"|36
|rowspan="2"|8.5
|rowspan="2"|qih7cbrmd
|rowspan="2"|ewpltiayq
|tr0ub4d0r||16+3=19||3 = common substitutions in the comic
|-
|troubador1||16+3.3=19.3||log2(10) = 3.3
|-
|a A||52||7.7||jAwwBYne||NeTvgcrq||Troubador||16+1=17||1 = caps? in the comic
|-
|a &||58||7.5||j.h?nv),||c/~/fg\:||troubador&||16+4=20||4 = punctuation in the comic
|-
|a A 9||62||7.3||cDe8CgAf||RONygLMi||Tr0ub4d0r||16+1+3=20||1 = caps?; 3 = common substitutions
|-
|a 9 &||68||7.2||_@~"#^.2||un$l|!f]||tr0ub4d0r&||16+3+4=23||3 = common substitutions; 4 = punctuation
|-
|a A 9 &||94||6.7||Re-:aRo||^$rV{3?||Tr0ub4d0r&||16+1+3+4=24||1 = caps?; 3 = common substitutions; 4 = punctuation
|-
|rowspan="2"|common words
|rowspan="2"|2048
|rowspan="2"|4
|rowspan="2"|reasonableretailsometimespossibly
|rowspan="2"|constantyieldspecifypriority||reasonableretailsometimespossibly||11×4=44||Go to random.org and select 4 random integers between 1 and 2048; then go to your list of common words
|-
|correcthorsebatterystaple
|0
|Because of this comic this password has no entropy
|}

:a = lowercase letters
:A = uppercase letters
:9 = digits
:& = the 32 special characters in an American keyboard; Randall assumes only the 16 most common characters are used in practice (4 bits)

:(*) The use of random.org explains why <code>jAwwBYne</code> has two consecutive w's, why <code>Re-:aRo</code> has two R's, why <code>_@~"#^.2</code> has no letters, why <code>ewpltiayq</code> has no numbers, why "constant yield" is part of a password, etc. A human would have attempted at passwords that looked random.

The title text likely refers to the fact that this comic could cause people who understand information theory (and agree with the message of the comic) to get into an infuriating argument with people who do not (and disagree with the comic).

==Transcript==
:The comic illustrates the relative strength of passwords assuming basic knowledge of the system used to generate them.
:A set of boxes is used to indicate how many bits of entropy a section of the password provides.
:The comic is laid out with 6 panels arranged in a 3x2 grid.
:On each row, the first panel explains the breakdown of a password, the second panel shows how long it would take for a computer to guess, and the third panel provides an example scene showing someone trying to remember the password.

:[The password "Tr0ub4dor&3" is shown in the center of the panel. A line from each annotation indicates the word section the comment applies to.]

:Uncommon (non-gibberish) base word
:[Highlighting the base word - 16 bits of entropy.]
:Caps?
:[Highlighting the first letter - 1 bit of entropy.]
:Common Substitutions
:[Highlighting the letters 'a' (substituted by '4') and both 'o's (the first of which is substituted by '0') - 3 bits of entropy.]
:Punctuation
:[Highlighting the symbol appended to the word - 4 bits of entropy.]
:Numeral
:[Highlighting the number appended to the word - 3 bits of entropy.]
:Order unknown
:[Highlighting the appended characters - 1 bit of entropy.]
:(You can add a few more bits to account for the fact that this is only one of a few common formats.)

:~28 bits of entropy
:228 = 3 days at 1000 guesses sec
:(Plausible attack on a weak remote web service. Yes, cracking a stolen hash is faster, but it's not what the average user should worry about.)
:Difficulty to guess: Easy.

:[Cueball stands scratching his head trying to remember the password.]
:Cueball: Was it trombone? No, Troubador. And one of the O's was a zero?
:Cueball: And there was some symbol...
:Difficulty to remember: Hard.

:[The passphrase "correct horse battery staple" is shown in the center of the panel.]
:Four random common words {Each word has 11 bits of entropy.}

:~44 bits of entropy
:244 = 550 years at 1000 guesses sec
:Difficulty to guess: Hard.

:[Cueball is thinking, in his thought bubble a horse is standing to one side talking to an off-screen observer. An arrow points to a staple attached to the side of a battery.]
:Horse: That's a battery staple.
:Observer: Correct!
:Difficulty to remember: You've already memorized it

:Through 20 years of effort, we've successfully trained everyone to use passwords that are hard for humans to remember, but easy for computers to guess.

==External links==
*Some info was used from the highest voted answer given to the question of "how accurate is this XKCD comic" at StackExchange [http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/6095/xkcd-936-short-complex-password-or-long-dictionary-passphrase].
*Similarly, a question of "how right this comic is" was made at AskMetaFilter [http://ask.metafilter.com/193052/Oh-Randall-you-do-confound-me-so] and [[Randall]] responded [http://ask.metafilter.com/193052/Oh-Randall-you-do-confound-me-so#2779020 there].
*Also the Wikipedia article on '{{w|Passphrase}}' is useful.
*In case you missed it in the explanation, GRC's Steve Gibson has a fantastic page [https://www.grc.com/haystack.htm] about this (and may have prompted this comic, as his podcast [http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-303.htm] about this was posted the month before this comic).

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Computers]]