https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=141.101.107.216&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T12:07:29ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2105:_Modern_OSI_Model&diff=168984Talk:2105: Modern OSI Model2019-02-02T13:13:39Z<p>141.101.107.216: spoilers</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Randall seems to be saying that a startup doesn't need to create a new computer system to service their customers, all they have to do is put up a Facebook page which uses Google to find products and then has Amazon deliver them. The middle layer "Transport" is a joke because Amazon literally ships physical boxes, but the OSI model is not about actual boxes; it's about information and the way the information is presented to the user vs what goes on behind the scenes.<br />
But I don't get the part about the horcruxes. Is it just the fact that there are seven of them? Or is there some subtle connection I'm missing here? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.180|162.158.106.180]] 05:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
: 'Transport' has nothing to do with Amazon, in this case, though the juxtaposition is amusing; also, the networking model has nothing to do with the user interface. The seven layers are from the 'standard' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model OSI networking model], which was introduced in the late 1970s to describe how networking systems work (or were expected to at the time). In practice, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite#Key_architectural_principles Internet Protocol Suite] model is used, which has more or less the same ideas despite evolving separately, though with only four formal layers (Link, Internet, Transport, and Application) instead of seven (Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport, Session, Presentation, and Application). <br />
:In the OSI model, the Transport layer is Layer 4 (going up from the lowest level, Physical) and represents the part responsible for checking the consistency of data delivery - that is to say, it decides whether or not to check for dropped packets, and whether to resend dropped ones. In the actual Internet model, the rough equivalent is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol Transmission Control Protocol] (for 'connected' transmissions which do check and resend) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Datagram_Protocol User Datagram Protocol] (for 'connectionless' ones which don't). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 16:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:(Spoilers alert) Voldemort uses signifying objects of his life, heritage and his school's founders as horcruces. When the OSI layers are used as horcruces, one problem would be that Google/Amazon would have taken control of two horcruces, the other that some of the layers are frayed at the sides. Randall should not have put his horcruces in living standards - that was a very dangerous move. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is there a meaning of the widths of the layers - not a block or a triangle/pyramid? Are there more layers than the named ones? Or the named ones multiple times? This would correspond to the design of ever more layers, virtualizations, abstractions and overall complexity of computer systems as time moved forward. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:It looks like a jenga tower to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.223|162.158.89.223]] 12:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:: Could some reference to this, or at least some speculation on the irregularity of the tower on general, be added? I would propose something like the following:<br />
::: ''The significance of the irregular pattern of the Google/Amazon blob isn't clear. It is likely that it is in reference to the irregular way in which their modifications to the OSI stack have evolved. However, it is also notable that the irregular structure of the stack is arranged so as to resemble a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenga Jenga] tower. Jenga, for those unfamiliar, is a game in which blocks are added and removed from a vertical pile until the whole collapses. This may be a commentary on the instability of the stack in general, or on how Google and Amazon's additions and changes to it have destabilized the networking protocols.'' -- [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 16:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
::::I think you may be reading too much into the shape, it looks much more irregular than a Jenga tower. If anything I would guess it's just a rough reflection of how much influence Google and Amazon have at each level -- more Google influence means the blob goes farther left, more Amazon influence means it goes farther right.<br />
<br />
I think Google & Amazon are the grey blob that is slowly absorbing all of the layers [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 07:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
: Excellent remark! Google & Amazon are inserted between the Data Link and Network layers, and while it seems like an eight layer from the shape profile, they do not sit in their own bordered rectangle. Another view point is maybe Randall tried to display the fight between the Infrastructure providers to capture a new layer in gestation. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 08:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. There is no way that Randall wanted the label for the gray blob to just apply to a couple of layers. It's clearly labeling the entire gray blob as "Google and Amazon". Otherwise, he would have put in another dividing line or two. So all the glue between the layers is being described as "Google and Amazon". Meaning that the layers wouldn't even be able to talk to each other and function correctly without G+A glue between them. Maybe this is "glue" in the technical sense of trivial code which converts from one API to another. The basic point here is that Google lays cable in some places and writes Chrome and owns You Tube, so it's definitely at both ends. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to say if it owns/writes stuff in the middle. And I'd be surprised if this was true of Amazon. But it's not my place to comment on the veracity of Randall's remarks, I'm just trying to sort out what he's saying.<br />
<br />
: That's how I understood it as well. By having there hands in *everything* G+A defeat the whole purpose of having a layered (ie. divided) model, making the 'modern model' just bits and pieces added to G+A code.<br />
<br />
Trivia: (Major Spoiler alert) Voldemort originally intended to create six horcruces to divide his soul into 7 (including his own body) pieces. The 6th unintended horcrux is Harry Potter by Voldemort killing his parents. Later on after his revival Voldemort made the snake Nagini to his seemingly 6th horcrux, which was actually his 7th. Does that mean Randall embodies one of the OSI layers from the beginning of his existence? :-) Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 08:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Just a point of contention with the current explanation. Right now, Google and Facebook are two of the major players in cloud-based computing: I have seen tutorials on leveraging Google's cloud services to home-brew your own proxy service.<br />
As such, a lot of internet services are running ON Google or Amazon, so Google and Amazon DO effectively own, or at least manage, several layers.<br />
I do not know if Facebook is one of those, and I would tend to doubt it, considering its size.<br />
<br />
Why does the bot have seven layers???<br />
<br />
PRESENTATION, SESSION, and NETWORK are not contained within GOOGLE & AMAZON the way the rest of the layers are; there are openings to the outside for those three.<br />
<br />
: This is true of front facing web pages, but web services exist that may communicate, potentially exclusively, with other services on the same platform. In that case, they would in effect encapsulate all of the layers for that service! This brings up a notable exclusion though, as Microsoft has not been represented here. If you throw them into the mix with Google and Amazon, Thanks to their own Azure cloud services and the ubiquitous Windows and IE/Edge, it would basically only leave argument for the Network layer. [[User:Kateract|Kateract]] ([[User talk:Kateract|talk]]) 15:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I go with Jenga. The three blocks would collapse the tower. The four blocks that don't are because (Randall says) Google and Amazon essentially replace them. Makes sense to me, for those, so I put it in the answer already. [[User:PGilm|PGilm]] ([[User talk:PGilm|talk]]) 21:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is it worth mentioning that Voldemort (spoilers) only meant to create 6 horcruxes. The idea was to split his soul into seven pieces, with the last piece still residing within his own body. The seventh Horcrux, Harry, was both an accident and his downfall. Thus, Randall may be implying that the top layer (Facebook) might be accidental, and the downfall of Google & Amazon. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.216|141.101.107.216]] 13:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)</div>141.101.107.216https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2105:_Modern_OSI_Model&diff=168983Talk:2105: Modern OSI Model2019-02-02T13:12:28Z<p>141.101.107.216: Seven Horcruxes</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Randall seems to be saying that a startup doesn't need to create a new computer system to service their customers, all they have to do is put up a Facebook page which uses Google to find products and then has Amazon deliver them. The middle layer "Transport" is a joke because Amazon literally ships physical boxes, but the OSI model is not about actual boxes; it's about information and the way the information is presented to the user vs what goes on behind the scenes.<br />
But I don't get the part about the horcruxes. Is it just the fact that there are seven of them? Or is there some subtle connection I'm missing here? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.180|162.158.106.180]] 05:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
: 'Transport' has nothing to do with Amazon, in this case, though the juxtaposition is amusing; also, the networking model has nothing to do with the user interface. The seven layers are from the 'standard' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model OSI networking model], which was introduced in the late 1970s to describe how networking systems work (or were expected to at the time). In practice, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite#Key_architectural_principles Internet Protocol Suite] model is used, which has more or less the same ideas despite evolving separately, though with only four formal layers (Link, Internet, Transport, and Application) instead of seven (Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport, Session, Presentation, and Application). <br />
:In the OSI model, the Transport layer is Layer 4 (going up from the lowest level, Physical) and represents the part responsible for checking the consistency of data delivery - that is to say, it decides whether or not to check for dropped packets, and whether to resend dropped ones. In the actual Internet model, the rough equivalent is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol Transmission Control Protocol] (for 'connected' transmissions which do check and resend) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Datagram_Protocol User Datagram Protocol] (for 'connectionless' ones which don't). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 16:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:(Spoilers alert) Voldemort uses signifying objects of his life, heritage and his school's founders as horcruces. When the OSI layers are used as horcruces, one problem would be that Google/Amazon would have taken control of two horcruces, the other that some of the layers are frayed at the sides. Randall should not have put his horcruces in living standards - that was a very dangerous move. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is there a meaning of the widths of the layers - not a block or a triangle/pyramid? Are there more layers than the named ones? Or the named ones multiple times? This would correspond to the design of ever more layers, virtualizations, abstractions and overall complexity of computer systems as time moved forward. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:It looks like a jenga tower to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.223|162.158.89.223]] 12:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:: Could some reference to this, or at least some speculation on the irregularity of the tower on general, be added? I would propose something like the following:<br />
::: ''The significance of the irregular pattern of the Google/Amazon blob isn't clear. It is likely that it is in reference to the irregular way in which their modifications to the OSI stack have evolved. However, it is also notable that the irregular structure of the stack is arranged so as to resemble a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenga Jenga] tower. Jenga, for those unfamiliar, is a game in which blocks are added and removed from a vertical pile until the whole collapses. This may be a commentary on the instability of the stack in general, or on how Google and Amazon's additions and changes to it have destabilized the networking protocols.'' -- [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 16:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
::::I think you may be reading too much into the shape, it looks much more irregular than a Jenga tower. If anything I would guess it's just a rough reflection of how much influence Google and Amazon have at each level -- more Google influence means the blob goes farther left, more Amazon influence means it goes farther right.<br />
<br />
I think Google & Amazon are the grey blob that is slowly absorbing all of the layers [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 07:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
: Excellent remark! Google & Amazon are inserted between the Data Link and Network layers, and while it seems like an eight layer from the shape profile, they do not sit in their own bordered rectangle. Another view point is maybe Randall tried to display the fight between the Infrastructure providers to capture a new layer in gestation. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 08:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. There is no way that Randall wanted the label for the gray blob to just apply to a couple of layers. It's clearly labeling the entire gray blob as "Google and Amazon". Otherwise, he would have put in another dividing line or two. So all the glue between the layers is being described as "Google and Amazon". Meaning that the layers wouldn't even be able to talk to each other and function correctly without G+A glue between them. Maybe this is "glue" in the technical sense of trivial code which converts from one API to another. The basic point here is that Google lays cable in some places and writes Chrome and owns You Tube, so it's definitely at both ends. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to say if it owns/writes stuff in the middle. And I'd be surprised if this was true of Amazon. But it's not my place to comment on the veracity of Randall's remarks, I'm just trying to sort out what he's saying.<br />
<br />
: That's how I understood it as well. By having there hands in *everything* G+A defeat the whole purpose of having a layered (ie. divided) model, making the 'modern model' just bits and pieces added to G+A code.<br />
<br />
Trivia: (Major Spoiler alert) Voldemort originally intended to create six horcruces to divide his soul into 7 (including his own body) pieces. The 6th unintended horcrux is Harry Potter by Voldemort killing his parents. Later on after his revival Voldemort made the snake Nagini to his seemingly 6th horcrux, which was actually his 7th. Does that mean Randall embodies one of the OSI layers from the beginning of his existence? :-) Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 08:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Just a point of contention with the current explanation. Right now, Google and Facebook are two of the major players in cloud-based computing: I have seen tutorials on leveraging Google's cloud services to home-brew your own proxy service.<br />
As such, a lot of internet services are running ON Google or Amazon, so Google and Amazon DO effectively own, or at least manage, several layers.<br />
I do not know if Facebook is one of those, and I would tend to doubt it, considering its size.<br />
<br />
Why does the bot have seven layers???<br />
<br />
PRESENTATION, SESSION, and NETWORK are not contained within GOOGLE & AMAZON the way the rest of the layers are; there are openings to the outside for those three.<br />
<br />
: This is true of front facing web pages, but web services exist that may communicate, potentially exclusively, with other services on the same platform. In that case, they would in effect encapsulate all of the layers for that service! This brings up a notable exclusion though, as Microsoft has not been represented here. If you throw them into the mix with Google and Amazon, Thanks to their own Azure cloud services and the ubiquitous Windows and IE/Edge, it would basically only leave argument for the Network layer. [[User:Kateract|Kateract]] ([[User talk:Kateract|talk]]) 15:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I go with Jenga. The three blocks would collapse the tower. The four blocks that don't are because (Randall says) Google and Amazon essentially replace them. Makes sense to me, for those, so I put it in the answer already. [[User:PGilm|PGilm]] ([[User talk:PGilm|talk]]) 21:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is it worth mentioning that Voldemort only meant to create 6 horcruxes (spoilers). The idea was to split his soul into seven pieces, with the last piece still residing within his own body. The seventh Horcrux, Harry, was both an accident and his downfall. Thus, Randall may be implying that the top layer (Facebook) might be accidental, and the downfall of Google & Amazon. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.216|141.101.107.216]] 13:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)</div>141.101.107.216https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1964:_Spatial_Orientation&diff=1539981964: Spatial Orientation2018-03-08T16:42:26Z<p>141.101.107.216: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1964<br />
| date = March 7, 2018<br />
| title = Spatial Orientation<br />
| image = spatial_orientation.png<br />
| titletext = Here, if you know the number of days until the vernal equinox, I can point you to the theater using my pocket Stonehenge.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|The table needs extending to include each thing Cueball lists. If someone could clarify on the stonehenge... Also, link (more?) comics related to Cueball/Randal overthinking things. - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
Location in space is always relative, as we cannot observe empty space itself and find an "absolute" location. There is so much going on in space, planets orbits and rotations etc. that it can be very hard to define an "absolute" location.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
!style="width:30%"|Frame of reference<br />
!style="width:70%"|Explanation<br />
|-<br />
|The Earth (rotation)<br />
|Cueball starts by sating that as he is facing west, the earths spin will be carrying him backwards.<br />
|-<br />
|The Earth (orbit)<br />
|Cueball then seemingly corrects himself in his head, having accounted for the fact that the earth is also rotating around the sun.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Cueball internally attempts to orient himself amidst the galatic chaos but is confused and has to restart.<br />
It is then revealed to the reader, that some passersby were only trying to ask Cueball for directions to the theater, and he was just grossly overthinking it. (A recurring theme in xkcd. See: [[222: Small Talk|#222: Small Talk]], [[439: Thinking Ahead|#439: Thinking Ahead]], [[1643: Degrees|#1643: Degrees]]). One can imagine Cueball having his mind in astrophysics so much that he needs to calculate the angle of the road relative to the plane of the galaxy to determine which way a destination is in conversational terms.<br />
<br />
In the title text, Cueball mentions he has a pocket Stonehenge. During the equinoxes the sun lines up with the actual Stonehenge's pillars. Assuming you were at the actual monument, armed with the date you could calculate the cardinal directions based on the sun's location relative to the pillars.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
:[Cueball appears to be tilted on a flat surface.]<br />
<br />
:Cueball (thinking): I'm facing West so the Earth's spin is carrying me backward. But our orbit is carrying me forward around the Sun.<br />
::The Sun is passing over my left shoulder. I'm at 39ºN, so I'm tilted. But wait, Earth's axis is tilted by 23º. Do I add or subtract that to get the tilt of the Solar System?<br />
::Ok, I see the Moon. It follows the Sun's path, but is it moving toward it or away? I know it orbits counterclockwise from the North...<br />
::My head hurts. Let me start over.<br />
<br />
:Off-screen voice #1: He's just standing there. Hey, do you know which way the theater is or not?<br />
:Off-screen voice #2: Let's ask someone else.<br />
<br />
:[Caption below:] <br />
:I spend way too much time trying to work out my orientation relative to other stuff in the universe.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]</div>141.101.107.216https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1825:_7_Eleven&diff=138915Talk:1825: 7 Eleven2017-04-18T09:27:26Z<p>141.101.107.216: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--><br />
<br />
I don't think the title-text references leap seconds, as it says that "many" are wrong, not "all". It seems more likely it refers to stores that claim to be open 365 days per year, and are hence wrong in leap years.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.42|141.101.105.42]] 20:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I agree that it would be closed for 39 (and a bit) minutes a day if it was open for exactly 24 hours. I think Randall made a mistake. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.40|198.41.238.40]] 21:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The parts in the description that talk about mixing "Earth and Mars time units" and "Mars-hours" don't make sense; I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as a Mars-hour. Despite the classical definition of an hour (which has since been replaced), an hour is defined as a number of seconds, and seconds are an SI unit based on the characteristics of Caesium-133 atoms...NOT defined as being a fixed fraction of a day. Even the unit "day" is often used to refer to a fixed unit of time nowadays (defined by the SI to be 86 401 s)...I believe this is one of the reasons why the solar day on Mars is referred to as a "sol" instead of a "day". [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.192|172.68.133.192]] 22:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
:Nitpicking a bit, but the day is usually only 86400 seconds long (see [[1481]]).<br />
:NASA's Mars Mission do divide the "sol" into 24 "Hours". I thought about adding this as a clarification the the Mars-Hours but that made the sentence somewhat unwieldy.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.216|141.101.107.216]] 09:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Fun fact that might be interesting to add to the note about Arizona and DST. As stated already, the Navajo reservation observes DST, since it extends into Utah and New Mexico. However, the Hopi reservation, which is entirely enclosed by the Navajo reservation, does NOT follow DST. So in the one state in the Mountain Time Zone that does not observe DST, there is a region that follows DST, and inside that is another region that does not follow DST. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.185|162.158.79.185]] 01:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
:And looking at a [http://cronkitenewsonline.com/2012/03/what-time-is-it-in-arizona-it-depends-on-where-youre-standing/ DST map of Arizona], it appears there is at least one small area contained within that inner-most non-observing region that does observe DST... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.63|162.158.69.63]] 08:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)</div>141.101.107.216