https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=141.101.76.22&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T23:14:11ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2268:_Further_Research_is_Needed&diff=1904612268: Further Research is Needed2020-04-12T16:00:36Z<p>141.101.76.22: /* Explanation */ fix link appearance</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2268<br />
| date = February 14, 2020<br />
| title = Further Research is Needed<br />
| image = further_research_is_needed.png<br />
| titletext = Further research is needed to fully understand how we managed to do such a good job.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
In most scientific fields, it's very common to end research papers with the caveat that "more research is needed", or words to that effect. This is particularly true when reporting results on a topic that's not well studied, and in which there's not enough literature to form a broad consensus. This is a very reasonable suggestion, an individual research project may produce results that suggest a certain conclusion, but it would be foolhardy to take something as established fact based on a single study. Individual studies may produce misleading information, they may have flaws that don't become evident until later, they may be based on assumptions that don't hold up, or the results may end up having an alternate explanation (as when a correlation is found, but does not establish specific causation). It's all too common for science reporters, particularly in low-quality outlets, to draw broad and bold conclusions from a single study, but actual scientists quickly learn to be more cautious. Peer-reviewed papers will generally make clear that conclusions are tentative, and may be modified or even overturned by future research. <br />
<br />
This comic's fictional paper, however, ends with a statement that the paper has resolved all the problems about its topic, and that no more research is necessary. Humorously, the authors are so confident in their research skills that they believe that they have solved all the problems in that particular topic that can be solved. Munroe jokes that he'd like to see researchers with "the guts" to make such a proclamation. In real life, doing so would likely damage the reputation of the study's authors, because it would belie both a breathtaking arrogance and a lack of understanding of the research process. If nothing else, studies need to be replicated, to establish that the initial data gathering was accurate. In addition, no single study could realistically address every aspect, variation and complication in a given topic. It's simply not feasible that a single paper could "[resolve] all remaining questions" on any given topic, and making such a ridiculous claim would badly damage a researcher's credibility. At the same time, if no further research were necessary, every researcher in the field, including the author who wrote the study, would need to either change fields or change careers. The title text ironically states that "further research" ''is'' indeed needed to understand how the researchers who wrote the paper were able to resolve all the problems in that topic or field, thus allowing the researchers to justify future funding for their research.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the statement most like this made by a real scientist was by {{w|Albert A. Michelson}}, at the 1894 dedication of the University of Chicago's Reyerson Physical Laboratory: "[I]t seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice." (Variants of this statement are sometimes misattributed to {{w|William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin}}.) Even this statement is couched in much less certainty than the concluding statement presented in this comic strip, and sure enough, just eleven years later, {{w|Albert Einstein}} wrote his {{w|Annus Mirabilis papers}}. These four papers explained the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity, and mass-energy equivalence, turning established physics on its head. Ironically, Michelson made this statement despite the fact that he himself had upset a major of notion of established physics just seven years before, when the {{w|Michelson-Morley experiment}} demonstrated that the speed of light was constant, disproving the {{w|Aether theories}} then prevalent in physics. This result in turn was part of the inspiration for Einstein's theory of special relativity.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
<br />
The mentioned closure of scientific papers seems to be iconic enough to have an Wikipedia article of its own: {{w|Further research is needed}}<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[A panel, representing an excerpt from a scholarly journal, with two sentences clearly visible. Below the text is one more readable word, with a horizontal line below it, and then four numbered lines with unreadable text. Rare for xkcd the text is written with normal capitalization rather than in all caps.]<br />
:We believe this resolves all remaining questions on this topic. No further research is needed.<br />
:References<br />
:1.<br />
:2.<br />
:3.<br />
:4.<br />
<br />
:[Caption below the panel:]<br />
:Just once, I want to see a research paper with the guts to end this way.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]<br />
[[Category:Research Papers]]</div>141.101.76.22https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2286:_6-Foot_Zone&diff=1892572286: 6-Foot Zone2020-03-28T11:48:15Z<p>141.101.76.22: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2286<br />
| date = March 27, 2020<br />
| title = 6-Foot Zone<br />
| image = 6_foot_zone.png<br />
| titletext = Technically now it's a 34-foot zone.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by 8 HORSES. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
This comic is the 11th comic in a row in the [[:Category:COVID-19|series of comics]] about the {{w|2019–20 coronavirus pandemic|2020 pandemic}} of the {{w|coronavirus}} - {{w|SARS-CoV-2}}.<br />
<br />
This comic is about {{w|social distancing}}, a common practice to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 disease. It has been suggested to maintain 6 feet (i.e. 1.83 m - in countries with SI units it is 1.5 m) of distance between yourself and other people, to prevent the transmission of respiratory droplets from you to others (or vice versa).<br />
<br />
[[Randall]] takes this 6 feet of distance, and does calculations of the "area" of distancing, "border", population density, and "real estate value". With 6 feet of distance, these calculated variables are incorrect. Besides the radius of the body, only a radius of 3 feet has to be taken into account for a distance of 6 feet between two people. He finally culminates in determining the number of horses that could also fit in the space.<br />
<br />
Randall's border length and approximate area calculations are based on a zone with an outside radius of approximately 6.8 feet or 82 inches (2.07 m), meaning that the person has a radius of approximately 0.8 feet or 10 inches (0.24 m).<br />
<br />
The title text is a pun using the alternate definition of foot, noting that a human has two feet and a horse has four, so 8x4 + 2 = 34 feet.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
:Guide to the 6 foot Social Distancing Zone<br />
:Profile image of person with 6 foot distance measurements on both sides<br />
:Overhead image of person within a roughly circular shape extending 6 feet in all directions from the person. The dimensions of the person account for the non-circular shape.<br />
:Approximate area: 145 square feet<br />
:Border length: 43 feet<br />
:Population density: 190,000 people/square mile<br />
:Value at NYC real estate price per square foot: $195,000<br />
:Maximum number of horses that could fit inside it with you, estimated using the dimensions in the US Forest Service Equestrian Design Handbook: 8<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:COVID-19]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Animals]]</div>141.101.76.22https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1980:_Turkish_Delight&diff=155876Talk:1980: Turkish Delight2018-04-15T17:32:33Z<p>141.101.76.22: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
whomever[[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.71|172.68.26.71]] 15:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)<br />
:On the distinction (to or for whom something is done) one of my favorite knock-knock jokes goes: >"KnockKnock..." <"Who's there?" >"to" <"...to who?" >(quickly, with emphasis)"to ''WHOM''" [[User:Elvenivle|Elvenivle]] ([[User talk:Elvenivle|talk]]) 02:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Randall is a known Animorphs fan, and Cinnabon is portrayed in the books as being foremost among the favourite foods of Andalites when in human morph. Possibly the title text is meant to introduce the narrator as one? It wouldn't be the [[769:_War|first time]] that mousing over has revealed the identity of a character in the strip. [[User:D5xtgr|D5xtgr]] ([[User talk:D5xtgr|talk]]) 17:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Would it be useful to include an explanation of what Turkish Delights are and what they’re made from? It could help to explain why he might be let down. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.82|172.68.211.82]] 19:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)<br />
:This might be helpful for background [http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2005/12/the_lion_the_witch_and_the_really_foul_candy.html The Lion, the Witch, and the Really Foul Candy] [[User:Odysseus654|Odysseus654]] ([[User talk:Odysseus654|talk]]) 21:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
One point that might be worth mentioning, is that this happens during World War II, more specifically during The Blitz (the Kids were being sent off to the professor's to get them out of the city, since the city was being bombed to crap. This kind of thing was rather common.) Rationing had been in place for some time, and ANY sort of confectionery would've been exceedingly difficult to come by. Poor Edmund probably hadn't had any candy at all for months. -Graptor [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.95|172.68.58.95]] 22:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Candy was definitely in short supply during the war, and it was still being rationed in the UK even at the time ''The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe'' was published. But the witch offered Edmund ''any'' kind of food he might want, and what he requested was Turkish delight, which she magically conjured up. (''"What would you like best to eat?" "Turkish Delight, please, your Majesty," said Edmund. The Queen let another drop fall from her bottle onto the snow, and instantly there appeared a round box, tied with green silk ribbon, which, when opened, turned out to contain several pounds of the best Turkish Delight.'') It wasn't like the witch had only Turkish delight to offer and Edmund was grateful for it only because he had no other access to candy. He could have requested chocolate bars or some other kind of candy from the witch, if he had wanted to. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.52|172.68.150.52]] 22:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm getting ridiculous deja vous... did Randal publish this comic before? Or did he steal the punchline from somewhere? I could *SWARE* I've seen this before.... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.82|172.69.69.82]] 23:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)<br />
:I had similar Deja Vu... I don't think from another comic. It might have been this article: <br />
:[https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/cs-lewis-greatest-fiction-convincing-american-kids-that-they-would-like-turkish-delight C.S. Lewis’s Greatest Fiction Was Convincing American Kids That They Would Like Turkish Delight] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.226|108.162.241.226]] 18:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Should Narnia get its own category? Also, the title text has a noteworthy grammatically incorrect sentence: it’s “whomever” instead of “whoever.” [[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.112|172.68.211.112]] 23:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)<br />
:I'm not sure, there have been several Narnia comics before, but I'm not sure if they could stand out as a category on their own. Maybe as a subcategory of the fiction category? [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 01:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)<br />
::Five comic references I have moved to a new trivia section here, but reading those comics again gave me the conviction to this new category [[:Category:Chronicles of Narnia]]. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm not a fan of pushing the prescriptivist grammar here. The subjective/objective distinction in the who(m) words is no longer regularly used in many dialects. Simply using "whom" among these people labels one as being excessively formal. If Randal's dialect does not use "whomever," then it is hardly a mistake. [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 02:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Make them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reese's_Peanut_Butter_Cups Reese's Peanut Butter Cups] and you've got a deal. BTW, Is there a category for "comics drawn in a style uncommon to XKCD"? [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 01:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)<br />
:If there was I wouldn't put this one in it... What are you talking about? All I can see is that the sled is drawn at an angle, in a 3D style, but that doesn't seem worth mentioning... [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 03:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
OMG, ME TOO! Although it was the miniseries for me, didn't try the books until like 10 years ago. Took me 25 years before I found out I could get Turkish Delight - Rose Petal, didn't think they meant that it was the actual flavour. Tried it and... ??? My experience was better than that linked article, though, LOL! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 03:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Something funny I thought of... What if the implication is that she'll force the kid to eat more of the stuff if he betrays his family, therefore she's trying to keep him loyal? It doesn't make much sense with the context, but it's a different angle to examine this from. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.12|141.101.105.12]] 14:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Uhm...ever considered that Lewis was a devout Christian and everything he wrote had a moral, i.e. evil is *supposed* to look nice but tastes lousy? ;-) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.22|141.101.76.22]] 17:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)</div>141.101.76.22https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1921:_The_Moon_and_the_Great_Wall&diff=149154Talk:1921: The Moon and the Great Wall2017-12-13T18:23:24Z<p>141.101.76.22: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/workinginspace/great_wall.html<br />
<br />
gives something like an authoritative explanation togeter with photos taken from the ISS.<br />
<br />
Summary: the great wall can't really be seen from space. But you may be able to spot its shape if the conditions are right. Such as light from the right direction (see the shadow), or snow accumulating on one side of the wall but not the other.<br />
<br />
Jyrki Lahtonen<br />
<br />
<br />
"The statement in the comic, however, is actually true." - It might be, but the part about the Great Wall in it is somewhat irrelevant - it is equally true also from anywhere else in the world. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.210.88|162.158.210.88]] 09:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
Yeah it's simply a reversal of the myth. "The Great Wall of China" could be replaced with "anywhere on Earth". But that would be less funny. [[User:Jdluk|Jdluk]] ([[User talk:Jdluk|talk]]) 10:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The Great Wall is 13,000+ miles long, but only 35 feet wide. It's the narrowness that make it impossible to see from space. If we use thread (approx 1/100th of an inch wide) as an analogue, the GWC can be represent by a piece of thread 732 ft long (1.5 inches equals one mile), viewed from 5.5 feet away (equivalent to the 100 miles "edge of space"), or 1222 ft (22,000 miles geosynchronious orbit) or 2.5 miles (238,855 miles orbit of the moon) [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 15:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: 732 feet long viewed from 5.5 feet away doesn't sound credible. And the "edge of space" is 100 kilometres up, not 100 miles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.40|198.41.238.40]] 03:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
:: What part of that don't you find credible? Are you questioning my math? And I guess, the definition of "Edge of Space" has been revised since I first did the calculations when I was in college. [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 17:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: "The wall is a maximum 9.1 m (29 ft 10 in) wide ... The apparent width of the Great Wall from the Moon is the same as that of a human hair viewed from 3 km (2 mi) away." - Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.40|198.41.238.40]] 03:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That's simply false. The Great Wall of China is another structure on the surface of a celestial body that can be seen with the naked eye from the Great Wall of China. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.34|172.68.54.34]] 19:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: definition of celestial body: "A natural object which is located OUTSIDE OF EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE, such as the Moon, the Sun, an asteroid, planet, or star."<br />
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/celestial_body<br />
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/celestial?s=t [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.168|172.68.65.168]] 21:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: As opposed to terrestrial body, which is, well, the earth XD [[Special:Contributions/172.68.2.22|172.68.2.22]]<br />
::: Actually, there are four terrestrial bodies in our solar system alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_planet https://www.space.com/17028-terrestrial-planets.html [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.239|141.101.104.239]] 15:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
:: Could be possibly correct if they were referring to the Celestial Empire (China). Can't tell with mixed case. Probably unlikely.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.227|162.158.79.227]] 03:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Those merlons are way too small. They are not going to protect Megan & Ponytail from incoming arrows. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.34|172.68.54.34]] 19:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
: Depends how high the wall is... Perhaps in order to reach the top of the wall archers might need to be so close that the merlons are actually sufficient. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
::Looking at the pictures on the wiki-page, the merlons are indeed taller than what one would infer from the comic. Obviously the characters are standing on loose stones or crates or something. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.22|141.101.76.22]] 18:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)</div>141.101.76.22