https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=162.158.79.89&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T08:50:04ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1054:_The_Bacon&diff=1783411054: The Bacon2019-08-21T03:48:34Z<p>162.158.79.89: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1054<br />
| date = May 11, 2012<br />
| title = The bacon<br />
| image = thebacon.png<br />
| titletext = Normally pronounced 'THEH-buh-kon', I assume.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic plays off the American {{w|colloquialism}} "bring home the bacon", which generally means to work hard and bring money home to your family to put food on the table. If a man is out of work he may be stressed out about how to "bring home the bacon." <br />
<br />
Some men would not be assuaged if their wife takes over but at first it seems that [[White Hat]] is happy that his wife, who work as a pharmacist, does bring home the bacon, and he tells this to [[Cueball]].<br />
<br />
Later, however, Cueball finds out, that what White Hat actually was saying was "{{w|Thebacon}}", which is a common name for ''dihydrocodeinone enol acetate'' an {{w|opioid}} commonly marketed under names like Acedicon and Diacodin. As a pharmacist White Hat's wife has easy access to such drugs, and this may be the reason that he is so calm, because his wife supplies him with painkiller drugs. <br />
<br />
Thebacon is compared to the better known drug {{w|Vicodin}}, another opioid sold as a painkiller, which can (and often has) become a drug of abuse.<br />
<br />
The title text lists what [[Randall]] assumes to be the normal pronunciation for Thebacon.<br />
<br />
According to {{w|thebacon|Wikipedia}}, Randall seems to be mistaken in no less than ''three'' places (which seems to indicate that Randall has only passing knowledge of the drug and did not do extensive research beforehand):<br />
*The proper name is<br />
**Dihydrocodein<u>on</u>e enol acetate, not<br />
**Dihydrocodeine enol acetate.<br />
*It is a {{w|semisynthetic|''<u>semi</u>synthetic''}} opioid not a synthetic opioid.<br />
*The pronunciation is /ˈθiːbəkɒn/<br />
**<u>THEE</u>-buh-kon, not<br />
**THEH-buh-kon.<br />
***By saying ''I assume'', Randall indicates that he didn't research the pronunciation.<br />
***As an alternative explanation, there may be a joke/pun in the mistake.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[White Hat is holding out a hand towards Cueball while telling him about his job situation. The space between the and bacon is very small.]<br />
:White Hat: I'm out of work, but I'm not stressed about it because my wife is a pharmacist and she brings home the bacon.<br />
<br />
:[Caption below the panel:]<br />
:Only later did I learn that "Thebacon" is the common name for dihydrocodeine enol acetate, a synthetic opioid similar to Vicodin.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]<br />
[[Category:Food]]</div>162.158.79.89https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2073:_Kilogram&diff=167512Talk:2073: Kilogram2018-12-29T04:02:00Z<p>162.158.79.89: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
It's nothing short of a miracle that the US made it to the moon when the imperial system's so ingrained into our culture. Oh, wait, it was a bunch of German scientists who made that possible. Nevermind... Alex<br />
<br />
I didn't know that weights and currencies could be converted 1:1, that's cool! [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I wish they ''had'' redefined the kilogram a little bit. It would have been neat if 1 kg was exactly the weight of 1 dm^3 (1 litre) of water under one atmosphere of pressure. Right now it's soooo close. It's a good enough estimate for simple maths, but whenever you tell people that a litre of water weighs one kilogram the pedants comes out of the woodworks... [[User:Kapten-N|Kapten-N]] ([[User talk:Kapten-N|talk]]) 16:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:You'll get pedants whenever you refer to a kilogram as weight; it's a mass. The difference is that stuff weighs less on the Moon - or on tall mountains - although the mass is the same. I think the article as I just read it gets away with this. And, sure, what is the standard kilogram but a weight, that you take and weigh... rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.59|162.158.91.59]] 23:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::It ''used'' to be a mass. Now it's a ratio of the local gravitational strength versus the efficiency of an EM field. Kibble scales require EM shielding & an environment of ''precisely'' 1g, in order to be accurate. Since gravity isn't equal everywhere, our measurements of kilograms will now vary accordingly. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: No, it doesn't require an environment of precisely 1g, it relies on the fact that the effect of local gravity is well understood, can be measured precisely, and compensated for. It's a fundamental aspect of the Kibble balance and you can rest assured that it hasn't been overlooked by the physicists designing it! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.34|162.158.134.34]] 16:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
::::Oh really? ''How'' would one precisely measure the local gravity? In kilograms of force? No, sorry. This is a bad method. It leads to an insoluble quandary & clearly either ''hasn't'' been thought through by its supporters, or is an intentional exploit. ''Actually'' fixing it to Planck's constant would be great, but a Kibble scale can't do that. Weighing mass against anything but another mass is foolish.[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::::Local gravity is measured with a gravimeter, which is a kind of accelerometer that also compensates for tidal effects. You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter [[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.2|162.158.94.2]] 15:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I'm very happy that measuring a kilogram accurately now may require EM shielding. EM shielding is far too rare nowadays, in this modern world of far-beyond-van-eck-phreaking. Anything that makes shielding more prevalent and widely understood is sorely needed. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.84|172.68.65.84]] 23:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC) <br />
::::Amen to that! - ''Originally sent from inside a Faraday cage, but for some reason it didn't work until I stepped out.'' <br />
::::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Up until 1964 a litre (and therefore actually the metre too) used to be defined as the volume that water with mass 1kg takes. But this is not good for exact measurements not only because you need exactly reproducable temperature, pressure (not so problematic, because you can measure them and then calculate the divergence) and gravity (not so easy to measure, because you need an exact mass and exact masses are impossible to keep the same), but also because you need pure water free of any polutions of other stuff (hard and expensive) and even free of tiny amounts of isotopes which are deuterium and tritium (even way more expensive).<br />
Because the water that was used then was never close to pure the actual weight of water nowadays is 0.99997kg at 4°C and 1.013bar and I don't know which value for g. There is also another definition which I like, but is hard to measure in real life scenarios: E=mc². A kilogramm should be 1/c² of the mass which anything becomes heavier that you accelerate by the energy of one Joule. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.150|162.158.90.150]] 17:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:But how do you define/measure a Joule then? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 18:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:No, until 1964, meter and litre were totally independent, a meter has never been defined directly or indirectly in relation to a mass of water. It is only since 1964 that the liter is defined as a cubic decimeter.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.36|162.158.90.36]] 18:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
::The original proposition for a reproducible unit of mass (after the french Revolution, by Talleyrand) was that of the pound being the mass of a cubic foot of distilled water, Also the ''Grave'' (equal to our kilogram) was defined by the cubic decimetre of water by the French Commission of weights and measures in 1793. ("Le poid du pied cube d'eau étant ainsi connu, on a conclu celui du décimètre cube, ou la nouvelle unité de poids" https://books.google.nl/books?id=FufDNJHvgFEC p.274). So length and mass *were* interlinked by water.<br />
:Also, in E=mc², E is the energy '''at rest''' (for a stationary object of mass m), so your definition using the acceleration makes no sense.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.254|162.158.88.254]] 18:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
Actually, for the new definition of the kilo using the Kibble balance you need to measure the gravity... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.16|162.158.134.16]] 17:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Welp, looks like 1 kg, a.k.a. 1 lb, a.k.a 2.2 lb, is now officially defined to have zero mass.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.50.28|172.69.50.28]] 16:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:…or infinite. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
::What I understand: the joke is not (only) about 1 (old) kg = 1 (old) lb, but (also) about 1 new kg = 1 old lb... or 1 new lb = 1 old kg :^) Or about a ring of positive characteristic --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.102.94|188.114.102.94]] 17:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:I'm so glad other people see the problem with this supposed "official" definition. We've gone from a unit of measure problematically prone to contamination error, to a unit of measure that changes depending on where you measure it! [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
what about the ambiguity of the pound? would they reference an Avoirdupois bound or a Troy lb? --wonderkatn {{unsigned ip|172.69.50.16}}<br />
<br />
I don't believe the Imperial system is "no longer used". Gills have been retired, but yards and even chains are still in use, not to mention the Imperial <s>lb</s> pint. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 18:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:The imperial system has some good things about it. Feet are divisible by 12, and Fahrenheit is much nicer for human temperatures. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 18:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, coz it's so easier to divide by 12 than to divide by 10! {{unsigned ip|162.158.89.61}}<br />
:::No it is easier to divide by 2, 3, 4, and 6, and yes, I can divide the number of feet by 10 easily in my head. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::The idea is that with twelve parts, you can have 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, and 1/12 all be integer number of parts. This is why these types of systems developed in the past, and why so many systems also had multiples of 60 (you can do the math here.). They were easy to divide by merchants without access to any sort of calculation method. The base-10 system is great if you're only ever dealing with halves or tenths. But if you want a quarter or a third of something, you have to split the base units. It's no longer necessary in modern life, but it had a real advantage in ancient times. [[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 19:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::: No longer necessary in modern life... Which is why we should all switch to base-10 units of time! [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
::::: Or we could change everything else to base 12... (I can dream, can't I?) [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 18:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::::: I would love a base-10 time system. Especially since time=money, and money is base-10. Color me surprised a while back when my research led me to find out this had been tried in the past. They had a whole calendar system designed to renumber minutes, hours, days and weeks. I think they went to a 10 day week. Would have worked, too, except for religion. Under the new system, too many people had problems keeping track of every seventh day. SO it was scrapped. --ElectroDFW-- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.59|108.162.238.59]] 08:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC) <br />
:::::::"Swatch time" was dangerously close to a sensible set of increments. Agreed that base-10 would be better than what we use now. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Ok, I'm going to point out something. What's a meter? 1000 milimeters. What's a milimeter? .....skipping the questions all the way to the end, the answer is "the wavelength of the color orange". Or at least that's what I read. So my question is: why orange? What's so special about orange? What as a species or as a solar system or as universe does the color orange have to do with anything? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.90.10|172.68.90.10]] 21:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC) SiliconWolf<br />
<br />
: Orange is my favorite color. Enough said. Alex<br />
<br />
: "The metre was originally defined in 1793 as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole." That's why orange. Think of those lines from equator to pole... and how an orange is divided in segments beneath the peel. This is why the "Terry's Chocolate Orange" is so called, because it resembles the fruit orange. rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.59|162.158.91.59]] 23:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: The wavelength definition of the meter is not in use anymore either. Since 1983, the meter is defined as the distance the light (any light) travel in the vacuum in 1/299792458 seconds. Of course, all units have a part of arbitrary, and the value it is used to calculate the meter (the orange color, the 1/299792458 seconds...) are basically chosen because they are close to and more precise than the previous definition that existed, in order to not have to recalibrate things that don't need high precision. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.210|103.22.200.210]] 08:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I feel like we're starting to compare angstroms & millitrumps, here. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
::I don't think we need to bring politics in here. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 15:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed, but all this talk of "orange" makes it very hard not to relate the entire conversation to politics, for some of us who are particularly affected. Hopefully someday it'll just be another color that's hard to rhyme, again.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Be very careful'''<br />
<br />
An announcement to a new definition of the kilogram is published wildly (I mean what I'm saying) today. Please do not present this issue as a final fact, I'm still missing an official statement -- it's just press hype. And there are two possible definitions taken account, not only the one from the US. The final decision right now looks like some of Randall's compromises. Just sayin... --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:OK then, here's an after-the-vote November 16 web page from NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, within the US Department of Commerce. It says it's a done deal. [https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2018/11/historic-vote-ties-kilogram-and-other-units-natural-constants historic-vote-ties-kilogram-and-other-units-natural-constants]. --JohnB [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.89|162.158.79.89]] 21:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks, but my German sources still preset something like counting atoms [https://www.ptb.de/cms/forschung-entwicklung/forschung-zum-neuen-si/ptb-experimente/kilogramm-und-mol-atome-zaehlen.html Kilogram and MOL, counting atoms], just meaning I'm not sure what will be true in May 2019, do we know the truth??? And in fact it looks like Europeans are fighting against US scientists, or vice versa. This is far of a standard I would prefer. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::I'm ''extremely'' skeptical of the Kibble scale definition. It won't maintain constant mass at different locations. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It will be very funny when we find out one of those constants is not really constant ... sure, planck length is less likely to change than physical object, but it MIGHT. Like, maybe it gets longer the older the universe is ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:The definition of units is always dependent on our knowledge of physics. Perhaps the best example of this is the confusion about whether the pound is a unit of mass or weight. The lb predates the distinction and the definition bifurcated when the distinction became clear.<br />
:If Planck's constant isn't constant then we get two functionally different concepts of mass and we have to decide if we stick with the new definition or go back to (some equivalent of) the older one.<br />
:By the way the confusion over the definition of a lb was settled long ago. The lb is defined in terms of the kg and is a unit of mass. The claim that the lb is a unit of force is a deliberate obfuscation perpetuated by bad physics teachers who understand neither physics nor the history of physics. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 19:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Since they're proposing to measure the gravitational force exerted on a unit of mass against the force exerted by an electromagnetic field (instead of comparing the downward force exerted on two masses), the new definition ''isn't'' a constant. For instance, on the moon such a scale would define 1kg as about 13.3lbs! The "new official definition" is a bad one. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
You could not define the kilogram in terms of electric force when you defined the Amp in terms of the current that creates a given force. But by defining the amp in terms of numbers of elementary charges per second and setting Avogadro and other constants by fiat, you break the circle. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.190|162.158.38.190]] 23:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the Netherlands, we use the metric system. We also use the term "pond" to mean pound. However, we use metric pounds. Those are 0.500 kilogram, so it is actually easy to use. {{unsigned ip|162.158.89.61}}<br />
<br />
US weight and length units definition is strictly based on metric system:<br />
"Standards for the exact length of an inch have varied in the past, but since the adoption of the international yard during the 1950s and 1960s it has been based on the metric system and defined as exactly 2.54 cm."{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inch}<br />
"the most common today is the international avoirdupois pound, which is legally defined as exactly 0.45359237 kilograms" {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)}<br />
Therefore the conversion proposed sounds recursive.<br />
Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmSJXC6_qQ8<br />
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.178|172.68.51.178]] 13:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While it would be nice if the meter were equal to a yard, it would certainly be better if the meter were defined as 5.28 feet, so that kilometers and miles are the same.[[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 13:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Not to mention, why are highway sign distances measured in quarter-miles, but our car odometers are tenths? Grrr... --ElectroDFW-- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.59|108.162.238.59]] 08:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm guessing that they'll get around the varying g problem by defining the kg in terms of some standard acceleration equal to 9.81 m/s^2. Then when measuring an object's mass you would account for the difference between the local value of g and the standard one. This isnt a problem because we can measure gravitational acceleration quite precisely and it depends only on the units of length and time.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.190|108.162.216.190]]Carl[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.190|108.162.216.190]]<br />
: The varying g problem is already compensated for in the way you describe (otherwise the Kibble balance wouldn't be useful), ProphetZarquon is just spreading misinformation. [[User:Arcorann|Arcorann]] ([[User talk:Arcorann|talk]]) 07:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In the What If "A Mole of Moles," Randall states in his estimates, "Anything I can throw weighs one pound. One pound is one kilogram." [https://what-if.xkcd.com/4/] {{unsigned ip|162.158.75.178}}<br />
<br />
Let's see... All the things this proposed change would mess up. (even assuming that Black Hat meant 1 Kilogram = 1 mass-pound)<br />
....<br />
The newton just changed, but only in relation to the KG, so I guess the force required to lift 1 KG in 1 G is still technically about 10 newtons, only it's a DIFFERENT newton now...<br />
atmospheric pressure is no longer ~= to 100 kilopascals, because the pascal just changed.<br />
1 liter of water is no longer ~= to 1 KG.<br />
Metric and imperial Tons are no longer anywhere close to each other.<br />
1 mole of carbon-12 no longer masses 12 grams. <br />
There must be other ways the common rules-of-thumb of the metric system just got broken, any suggestions? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.82|108.162.216.82]] 19:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is already one link to a Veritasium video on this subject a few coments above, and there was a new video out just before this vote, about the new units: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_e1wITe_ig The kg is dead, long live the kg]. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The title text actually made me scream in existential horror. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.89|162.158.79.89]]Somebody who probably has an account here but can't be bothered to log in.</div>162.158.79.89https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2065:_Who_Sends_the_First_Text%3F&diff=1675112065: Who Sends the First Text?2018-12-29T03:25:20Z<p>162.158.79.89: Fixed a minor typo; corrected "through plugins thought" to "through plugins though"</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2065<br />
| date = October 29, 2018<br />
| title = Who Sends the First Text?<br />
| image = who_sends_the_first_text.png<br />
| titletext = I sort of wish my texting app showed the percentage next to each person, but also sort of don't want to know.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{w|Text messaging}} is a back-and-forth communication via SMS between two users. In this comic, Randall shows a line graph of "who sends the first text more often?" This is meant to show who Randall initiates conversations with, and who initiates conversations with him.<br />
<br />
Maintaining a friendship or relationship (whether intimate, friendship, casual, or business) typically requires communication; often that communication takes place when two individuals are not in the same location by means of an exchange of text messages. A normal balanced relationship typically involves both parties involved to have an approximately equal interest in making conversations happen, as measured in this case by "who sends the first text". The person who desires that a particular communication take place typically will send a text message, and once the other person responds the conversation happens, and the relationship progresses. If neither person initiates, the relationship will likely suffer.<br />
<br />
While this graph shows the majority of his relationships involve friends whereby both sides are prone to initiating conversations, the graph also shows some groups that are a little more at the extremes, some where Randall texts a lot but they typically don't initiate text conversations to him, and some where others text him a lot but he rarely initiates text conversations with them.<br />
<br />
On the left side of the graph are people with whom Randall initiates conversations with "100% of the time". On the right side of the graph are those who initiate conversations with Randall.<br />
<br />
The chart is separated into 5 blocks. The two blocks on the left are those who may be, or definitely are, "just politely putting up with [Randall]". This is implied that they may not be close friends with Randall, but Randall still wants to be friends with them. Their reluctance to initiate conversation with Randall is shown by the fact that Randall usually sends the first text to them.<br />
<br />
The largest block, in the middle, is "friends". These friends range from Randall initiating a lot, to them initiating a lot. There is a healthy range of who initiates first.<br />
<br />
The next block to the right is for "that really nice friend who keeps inviting me to things even though I flake constantly". This means that Randall promises to go to events that this friend invites him to, but does not always follow through. This friend is still persistent in inviting Randall. Additionally, Randall could be less close to this person, based on him not categorizing this person under "friends".<br />
<br />
The final block is "automated alerts and political campaigns". Randall would certainly not be likely to initiate "conversation" with automated systems, and would be very unlikely to initiate conversations with political campaigns. The fact that the bar is not purely 100% suggests that he has on rare occasion sent the first text to such recipients, perhaps for a campaign he believes in, or to request to be added to an automated alert system (i.e. opt-in). The fact that it includes political campaigns is a reference to the incessant texts being sent to Americans about the upcoming midterms. <br />
<br />
In the title text, Randall wishes that he would know the percentage of "who sends the first text more often", for each person that he texts. But he is also wary of the potential implications of finding out this information.<br />
(Many old school messenger like pidgin offer such statistics through plugins though)<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:'''Who sends the first text more often?'''<br />
:[A line graph with a segmented bar underneath shows a 50/50 marker in the middle while the left end is labeled "I text first 100% of the time" whereas the right end is labeled "They text first 100% of the time".]<br />
<br />
:[The bar below is divided into five sections:]<br />
<br />
:[A small part at the left, and a next, slightly larger part. The text below points to the second part:]<br />
:People who I think of as friends but secretly worry that they're just politely putting up with me<br />
<br />
:[Below this a text is shown for the first part:]<br />
:...'''''definitely''''' just politely putting up with me<br />
<br />
:[In the middle is a big part:]<br />
:Friends<br />
<br />
:[To the right the parts are symmetric, the first is larger:]<br />
:That really nice friend who keeps inviting me to things even though I flake constantly<br />
<br />
:[The last small bar at the right:]<br />
:Automated alerts and political campaigns<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Charts]]</div>162.158.79.89https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2089:_Christmas_Eve_Eve&diff=167339Talk:2089: Christmas Eve Eve2018-12-25T06:28:12Z<p>162.158.79.89: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
The "eve" count might be off by one or two. I used 365. [[User:Blacksilver|Blacksilver]] ([[User talk:Blacksilver|talk]]) 05:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Correct would be 364. Except in leap years. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.90|162.158.90.90]] 09:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)<br />
::Anyone ACTUALLY count to make sure Randall got it right? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.29|108.162.246.29]] 02:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In Germany, Christmas happens on Christmas Eve, so Cueball would be saying "eve" forever and just refer to the same date every time. "Heiligabend abends" is occasionally used to say the evening of 24th (the time of presents) and in northern Germany you sometimes say "Heiligtag", meaning "holy day" instead of "holy evening". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.90|162.158.90.90]] 09:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"The day after Christmas" - isn't that just 2nd Christmas day? --[[User:Zom-B|Zom-B]] ([[User talk:Zom-B|talk]]) 10:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Interestingly the rather amazing "Nancy" did a similar gag yesterday. https://www.gocomics.com/nancy/2018/12/23 --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.62|141.101.77.62]] 14:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see where anybody actually reported counting the number of times Randall wrote "eve", so I counted each of the 18 rows separately and then added them together. I got 11, 14, 14, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30, 32, and 27 - a grand total of 364 times, as expected. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 14:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Hat tip. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.29|108.162.246.29]] 02:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My kids call the day before Christmas Eve "Christmas Adam". --[[User:WhiteDragon|WhiteDragon]] ([[User talk:WhiteDragon|talk]]) 18:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I wonder if this explanation is the page on this wiki with the most occurrences of the letter 'v'. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.106|108.162.241.106]] 19:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)<br />
:The perl script to find the explanation with he most “v”s would not be particularly hard to write, but I might have to read documentation on the LWP module so I’m not going to bother (unless Christmas dinner at my brother-in-law’s goes particularly badly, in which case some mindless coding might be fun). Perhaps the guy who counted all the “eve”s will be more motivated than I 😀[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.89|162.158.79.89]]</div>162.158.79.89https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2078:_Popper&diff=1664702078: Popper2018-11-28T21:49:49Z<p>162.158.79.89: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2078<br />
| date = November 28, 2018<br />
| title = Popper<br />
| image = popper.png<br />
| titletext = At least, I don't think there's evidence. My claim that there's no evidence hasn't been falsified. At least, not that I know of.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|There is no evidence that this wasn’t created by a DESCENDANT OF KARL POPPER. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
{{w|Karl Popper}} was a philosopher of science who endorsed the idea that science is distinguished from non-science by treating its theories as falsifiable. This means that science does not treat any theory as definitive, because future research could show that it is false.<br />
<br />
A not uncommon reading of Popper assumes that instead of proving theories, scientists are disproving theories. This reading leads to technicalities like the ones stated in the comic: Instead of asserting that Popper was indeed born on July 28, 1902, and grew up in Vienna, a scientist can only assert that there is no evidence disproving these facts. <br />
<br />
The title text takes this reading a couple of steps further in a kind of meta-analysis. It points out that [[Miss Lenhart]]'s claim of no evidence has not been proven false, and also that we're dealing with only the knowledge of a single individual who may not be aware of evidence that might exist.<br />
<br />
Another reading of Popper points out that Popper’s philosophy discarded proofs altogether as a defining feature of science. Thus there is no such thing as definitive evidence in Popper’s notion of science: Even falsifying assertions themselves are seen as falsifiable.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
:[Miss Lenhart is teaching a class of three students: Hairy, Ponytail, and Science Girl.]<br />
<br />
:Miss Lenhart: There's no evidence that Karl Popper wasn't born on July 28th, 1902.<br />
<br />
:Miss Lenhart: No one has proven that he didn't grow up in Vienna...<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category: Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]</div>162.158.79.89https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1573:_Cyberintelligence&diff=166371Talk:1573: Cyberintelligence2018-11-26T19:24:16Z<p>162.158.79.89: </p>
<hr />
<div>No one has used the prefix "cyber-" in over a decade? I guess the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberman Cybermen] are pretty disappointed to hear that. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.217|162.158.114.217]] 06:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
: You could argue it's a "historical" term. It's have been almost 50 years since the term was formed. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
: And, at least in Germany, broadcasting of CSI Cyber starts these days. -- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.56|141.101.105.56]] 07:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
See also https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/whats-cyber-cyber-security/<br />
[[http://www.linkedin.com/in/Comet Comet]] 21:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: CSI Cyber -- is an other example of a government organization named by senior exec who probably are old men [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 13:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
: The Dr Who Cybermen originated in the 1960s. {{unsigned ip|162.158.39.231}}<br />
<br />
:Cybermen have evolved beyond the need for most crude human emotions, such as disappointment. The only emotion we have left is the one you unmodified humans express by saying "excellent" while rubbing your hands together, although we of course express it by saying "excellent" while rubbing our silvery gloves together. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52|162.158.255.52]] 11:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Control Data Corporation produced the "Cyber" line of mainframes in the 70's and 80's.<br />
[[http://www.linkedin.com/in/Comet Comet]] 21:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think "cyber intelligence" is referring to computer spying and security, not artificial intelligence. As in "our cyber intelligence operatives have located the suspect." If you google "cyber intelligence," the results are definitely more geared towards security than AI. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.105|108.162.245.105]] 07:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I see and agree. I (as a German) always tend to forget that "intelligence" can be used as a term for other things, esp. espionage stuff (or "gaining information" or similar). The German word "Intelligenz" is only related cognitive abilities, as in AI, IQ etc... Or - rarely - as a synonym for {{w|Intelligentsia}} or intellectuals [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 12:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: As a computer security researcher, I agree with this idea. The term "cybersecurity" is commonly used to refer to computer security even today. On the other hand, in many other subfields of computer science, the "cyber-" prefix has fallen into disuse. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.42|108.162.216.42]] 16:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Ironically, in Greece, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Crime_Unit_(Hellenic_Police) Cybercrime] unit has never used the Greek word "Cyber" in its local name - possibly because it would be misunderstood to mean "Government Crime" [[User:Sysin|Sysin]] ([[User talk:Sysin|talk]]) 19:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Munroe himself uses the prefix "cyber" in the title text to xkcd 1084. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.201|141.101.98.201]] 23:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
: Yes, but even there he uses it ironically, in an attempt to annoy others.<br />
<br />
I changed "coined by Gibson" to "popularized by Gibson" because Google finds sporadic use going back to 1969, then a huge jump starting in the early 1980's. [[User:Matchups|Matchups]] ([[User talk:Matchups|talk]]) 12:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is it possible that the title text is referencing the Cosmic AC from Isaac Asimov's ''[http://www.physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdf The Last Question]''? [[User:Porso9|Porso9]] ([[User talk:Porso9|talk]]) 14:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Porso9<br />
<br />
I don't know if this belongs in the explanation, but the title text pretty clearly is a paraphrase of, if not a quote from, the 9/11 report findings. [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 05:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)</div>162.158.79.89https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1341:_Types_of_Editors&diff=1661121341: Types of Editors2018-11-18T02:32:52Z<p>162.158.79.89: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1341<br />
| date = March 12, 2014<br />
| title = Types of Editors<br />
| image = types_of_editors.png<br />
| titletext = m-x machineofdeath-mode<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{w|WYSIWYG}}, pronounced, "WIZZ-ee-wig" IPA /ˈwɪziˌwɪg/, is an acronym that stands for "What you see is what you get". In regards to computers, it refers to text editors in which the user can see exactly what will be published as they are typing it. The comic compares various types of editors, each one a play-on-words on WYSIWYG.<br />
<br />
*A WYSIWYG editor displays the edited document in its final form. This could be a printed paper, a WEB page, a PDF document, and more. This is a real term used for text editors.<br />
*A WYSINWYG editor is the opposite; there is a distinct difference between what the editor displays, and what will be printed. Hence, what you see is ''not'' what you get. They are also known as source editors, such as a {{w|wiki markup}} editor or {{w|TeX|T<sub>E</sub>X}}. In the comic an HTML source editor is shown, where you enter raw HTML code and then presented with the rendered appearance of the final page. The <nowiki><em></nowiki>-tag marks text that has stress emphasis.<br />
*The WYSITUTWYG ("... is totally unrelated to ...") editor apparently takes your input and proceeds to ignore it entirely, instead displaying totally unrelated words. Possibly a commentary on the Autocorrect function. Randall seems to have made this term up. The phrase "The HORSE is a noble animal" seems to refer to the {{w|Stereotypes of animals#Horses|stereotypes}} commonly associated with horses, or possibly to {{w|Houyhnhnm}} in ''{{w|Gulliver's Travels}}'', an extreme version of that stereotypes.<br />
*WYSIHYD ("... is how you die") shows an "editor" which is not really an editor at all, but rather a pun on the multiple meanings of the word "get": If you ''see'' "eaten by wolves", you will ''get''... eaten by wolves. As in physically attacked and devoured by wolves. This is an example of the [[wikipedia:use-mention distinction|use-mention distinction]], or simply ''get'' meaning "to receive" or "to become" (compare German's different evolution: ''werden'' ("to become") but ''bekommen'' ("to receive")).<br />
<br />
The title text is a fictitious command, {{w|meta key|meta}}-x machineofdeath-mode, to the highly extensible {{w|Emacs}} text editor. Emacs operates in various "modes", which are customizations for specific purposes. Placing Emacs into "Machine of Death" mode would turn it into a WYSIHYD editor. (For another fictitious emacs command see [[378: Real Programmers]]). <br />
<br />
This is most likely also a reference to "{{w|Machine of Death}}". This book from 2010 is a collection of short stories edited by amongst other {{w|Ryan North}} (of {{w|Dinosaur Comics}}) mentioned here since the idea was based on one of [http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=675 his comics]. Since [[Randall Munroe]] wrote one of the stories the reference is very likely. All the stories are based around a device, the "Machine of Death", that can predict, with 100% accuracy though generally with extreme ambiguity, how people die from a drop of their blood. In many of the stories very unusual deaths are predicted, often in a very literal way, but not so you know when or where you will die. From the [http://machineofdeath.net/ official home page] the entire book can be downloaded for free as a [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4648190/MachineofDeath_FINAL_SPREADS.pdf PDF file]. (Randall's story begins on page 421 - or page 218 of the two sided PDF file. It is simply called "?"). In [[1525: Emojic 8 Ball]] the default question is ''How will I die?'' and can then be answered by an ''Emojic 8 Ball'', which would make it a type of Machine of Death.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[There are four panels, each with different headings and explanations of the headings above the panels.]<br />
<br />
:[The first three panels shows two titled text boxes, one above the other, with text inside. This text is formated with both small and capital letters as opposed to all capital letters in the rest of the comic.]<br />
<br />
:[Heading panel 1:]<br />
:'''WYSIWYG''' <br />
:What you see is <br />
:what you get<br />
<br />
:[Panel 1.]<br />
:What you see:<br />
:''Hi''<br />
:What you get:<br />
:''Hi''<br />
<br />
:[Heading panel 2:]<br />
:'''WYSINWYG''' <br />
:What you see is <br />
:not what you get<br />
<br />
:[Panel 2.]<br />
:What you see:<br />
:<nowiki><em>Hi</em></nowiki><br />
:What you get:<br />
:''Hi''<br />
<br />
:[Heading panel 3:]<br />
:'''WYSITUTWYG''' <br />
:What you see is totally <br />
:unrelated to what you get<br />
<br />
:[Panel 3.]<br />
:What you see:<br />
:<nowiki><em>Hi</em></nowiki><br />
:What you get:<br />
:The HORSE is a noble animal.<br />
<br />
:[The fourth panel shows two titled text areas, the top is a black rectangle with white text in a very large font, and the bottom text area is not outlined with a border.]<br />
<br />
:[Heading panel 4:]<br />
:'''WYSIHYD''' <br />
:What you see is <br />
:how you die<br />
<br />
:[Panel 4.]<br />
:What you see:<br />
:'''EATEN BY WOLVES'''<br />
:What you get:<br />
::Eaten by wolves<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*"The horse is a noble animal" is the name of a giant rocking-horse sculpture in {{w|Yorkshire}}.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Emacs]]</div>162.158.79.89https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2073:_Kilogram&diff=166061Talk:2073: Kilogram2018-11-16T21:58:55Z<p>162.158.79.89: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
I didn't know that weights and currencies could be converted 1:1, that's cool! [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I wish they ''had'' redefined the kilogram a little bit. It would have been neat if 1 kg was exactly the weight of 1 dm^3 (1 litre) of water under one atmosphere of pressure. Right now it's soooo close. It's a good enough estimate for simple maths, but whenever you tell people that a litre of water weighs one kilogram the pedants comes out of the woodworks... [[User:Kapten-N|Kapten-N]] ([[User talk:Kapten-N|talk]]) 16:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Up until 1964 a litre (and therefore actually the metre too) used to be defined as the volume that water with mass 1kg takes. But this is not good for exact measurements not only because you need exactly reproducable temperature, pressure (not so problematic, because you can measure them and then calculate the divergence) and gravity (not so easy to measure, because you need an exact mass and exact masses are impossible to keep the same), but also because you need pure water free of any polutions of other stuff (hard and expensive) and even free of tiny amounts of isotopes which are deuterium and tritium (even way more expensive).<br />
Because the water that was used then was never close to pure the actual weight of water nowadays is 0.99997kg at 4°C and 1.013bar and I don't know which value for g. There is also another definition which I like, but is hard to measure in real life scenarios: E=mc². A kilogramm should be 1/c² of the mass which anything becomes heavier that you accelerate by the energy of one Joule. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.150|162.158.90.150]] 17:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:But how do you define/measure a Joule then? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 18:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:No, until 1964, meter and litre were totally independent, a meter has never been defined directly or indirectly in relation to a mass of water. It is only since 1964 that the liter is defined as a cubic decimeter.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.36|162.158.90.36]] 18:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Also, in E=mc², E is the energy '''at rest''' (for a stationary object of mass m), so your definition using the acceleration makes no sense.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.254|162.158.88.254]] 18:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
Actually, for the new definition of the kilo using the Kibble balance you need to measure the gravity... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.16|162.158.134.16]] 17:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Welp, looks like 1 kg, a.k.a. 1 lb, a.k.a 2.2 lb, is now officially defined to have zero mass.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.50.28|172.69.50.28]] 16:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:…or infinite. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
::What I understand: the joke is not (only) about 1 (old) kg = 1 (old) lb, but (also) about 1 new kg = 1 old lb... or 1 new lb = 1 old kg :^) Or about a ring of positive characteristic --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.102.94|188.114.102.94]] 17:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
what about the ambiguity of the pound? would they reference an Avoirdupois bound or a Troy lb? --wonderkatn {{unsigned ip|172.69.50.16}}<br />
<br />
I don't believe the Imperial system is "no longer used". Gills have been retired, but yards and even chains are still in use, not to mention the Imperial <s>lb</s> pint. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 18:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:The imperial system has some good things about it. Feet are divisible by 12, and Fahrenheit is much nicer for human temperatures. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 18:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, coz it's so easier to divide by 12 than to divide by 10! {{unsigned ip|162.158.89.61}}<br />
:::No it is easier to divide by 2, 3, 4, and 6, and yes, I can divide the number of feet by 10 easily in my head. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::The idea is that with twelve parts, you can have 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, and 1/12 all be integer number of parts. This is why these types of systems developed in the past, and why so many systems also had multiples of 60 (you can do the math here.). They were easy to divide by merchants without access to any sort of calculation method. The base-10 system is great if you're only ever dealing with halves or tenths. But if you want a quarter or a third of something, you have to split the base units. It's no longer necessary in modern life, but it had a real advantage in ancient times. [[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 19:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Ok, I'm going to point out something. What's a meter? 1000 milimeters. What's a milimeter? .....skipping the questions all the way to the end, the answer is "the wavelength of the color orange". Or at least that's what I read. So my question is: why orange? What's so special about orange? What as a species or as a solar system or as universe does the color orange have to do with anything? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.90.10|172.68.90.10]] 21:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC) SiliconWolf<br />
<br />
'''Be very careful'''<br />
<br />
An announcement to a new definition of the kilogram is published wildly (I mean what I'm saying) today. Please do not present this issue as a final fact, I'm still missing an official statement -- it's just press hype. And there are two possible definitions taken account, not only the one from the US. The final decision right now looks like some of Randall's compromises. Just sayin... --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
OK then, here's an after-the-vote November 16 web page from NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, within the US Department of Commerce. It says it's a done deal. [https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2018/11/historic-vote-ties-kilogram-and-other-units-natural-constants historic-vote-ties-kilogram-and-other-units-natural-constants]. --JohnB [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.89|162.158.79.89]] 21:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)</div>162.158.79.89https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1966:_Smart_Home_Security&diff=154219Talk:1966: Smart Home Security2018-03-12T17:24:11Z<p>162.158.79.89: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
When I went to explainxkcd right after the comic posted, I saw this in the incomplete tag: "Created by ORGANIZED CRIME". Today is the day this website has officially swallowed its own tail. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 15:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Oh no! We must eradicate this enemy- We must start violent purging- No one can be trusted! [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 16:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)<br />
::(We are talking about McCarthyism right now in class while I write this... heh.) [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 16:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hmm. Isn't the concern for smart appliances usually that since they're internet-connected, they can be used to for DDoS and other nefarious purposes? I mean, a smart thermostat doesn't really have the capability to spy on its owners, right?<br />
:They can spy on your temperature preferences! (Dun dun dah!). You do have a point though. I originally was thinking more like smart home assistants, as that seems to be the craze now. That is ignoring the majority smart devices in the market though. You could get some information from most though, even it is minimal. You could get a rough floorplan from a roomba, you could get an idea what kind of products people buy with smart fridges... etc. We may never know what Randall's original intention was though. I wonder if he reads this wiki... Does he ever edit it?<br />
:A smart thermostat often knows when you are home and not. It could easily be used to develop a pattern of behavior to determine when would be the best time to rob your house. Then there's smart door locks, with the obvious consequences of hacking. But yes, botnets are one of the biggest problems. Note that the graph (accurately!) shows a not-so-great best case on day 1, as most IoT security is awful.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.67|173.245.52.67]] 17:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Agreed. A much more likely scenario is that your device is being used for a botnet. Smart appliances aren't updated as reliably as personal computers (since they're "set and forget" devices), and the owner is less likely to notice if they've been hacked (because you won't notice if your thermostat is running a little slow), so they're a prime target for hackers. That's also why the graph shows the risk increases as time goes by - the manufacturer stops patching the device, but the hacker will keep trying to get in. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.89|162.158.79.89]] 17:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)</div>162.158.79.89https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1826:_Birdwatching&diff=138996Talk:1826: Birdwatching2017-04-19T16:10:52Z<p>162.158.79.89: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--><br />
This is a big one.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.41|108.162.246.41]] 04:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I wonder if the size is a technical error, or if I am missing some subtle joke. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.184|108.162.245.184]] 04:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I guess it's the latter. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.71|162.158.166.71]] 04:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the vacuum is a further joke about scale and distance playing on the absurdity of trying to vacuum from a range of one mile. I must say I don't really understand this comic very well.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.70|108.162.245.70]] 04:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I thought the vacuum was trying to drain the atmosphere to make it so that the birds can't fly as high.[[User:1I1III1|1I1III1]] ([[User talk:1I1III1|talk]]) 05:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
: That was my thought, too. (/edit: Honestly, to think of sucking the birds in I found being too absurd, while sucking the atmosphere seemed absolutely plausible - at least for an XKCD...) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
:: If only he had a vacuum the size of the one in Space Balls. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.162|173.245.50.162]] 15:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Are these the same birds from 1824? [[User:Codrus|Codrus]] ([[User talk:Codrus|talk]]) 06:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Pretty sure the size is an error, I've seen this happen briefly before. It's 1200 dpi, suitable for archival, printing, or just what comes off the scanner [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.107|108.162.246.107]] 09:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hey folks, am I the only one thinking that Cueball also holds the binoculars the wrong way around? Usually the small end is nearest to the eyes... That would for sure make birdwatching even MORE difficult. Regarding size, I think it is intentional.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.76|162.158.150.76]] 09:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
: Hey, that's a reflex camera, isn't it? Some camera geek can comment on birdwatching situation camera? That zoom seems much too small for the job, but I've got no real clue...--[[User:Blaisorblade|Blaisorblade]] ([[User talk:Blaisorblade|talk]]) 09:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The size is intentional. it kinda freaked m out wen i saw it, though. i thought there was a problem with my phone! [[User:Will X|Will X]] ([[User talk:Will X|talk]]) 11:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the size is biting Randall in the rear. I'm getting all sorts of 503 gateway timeouts that appear to be from his Varnish web accelerator. The East coast is waking up and pounding his server... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.106|162.158.78.106]] 11:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
i would take issue with the use of the word "confused" in the transcript. perhaps "blankly" would be more descriptive. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.18|141.101.107.18]] 12:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It looks like they fixed the size. Maybe it wasn't intentional?<br />
<br />
I'm not sure, but maybe the size of the comic changes depending on the time? I mean, it does see like the size is smaller as of right now.(By the way, I'm not the guy on top that didn't sign his/her post.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.138.40|162.158.138.40]] 13:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Why is Megan wearing a knit cap? Does Randall's wife have cancer again? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.89|162.158.79.89]] 16:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)</div>162.158.79.89https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1791:_Telescopes:_Refractor_vs_Reflector&diff=1342851791: Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector2017-01-27T14:32:06Z<p>162.158.79.89: /* Adds {{Citation needed}} to claims that shadow people and Chernabog do not exist. */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1791<br />
| date = January 27, 2017<br />
| title = Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector<br />
| image = telescopes_refractor_vs_reflector.png<br />
| titletext = On the other hand, the refractor's limited light-gathering means it's unable to make out shadow people or the dark god Chernabog.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic shows two types of telescopes: {{w|Reflecting Telescope|Reflecting}} and {{w|Refracting Telescope|Refracting}}. It first looks like the comic is trying to show that refracting has many flaws, such as expense, size and visibility. However, the punchline invalidates these complaints with the (apparently major) flaw listed with the reflecting telescope: it can't see space vampires. The unstated reason for this is that vampires cannot be seen in a mirror. As space vampires do not exist {{Citation needed}}, this complaint is moot, and the reflecting telescope technically has no flaws in comparison to the refracting telescope. The title text expands on the seeing of supernatural beings, as another negative point is added to the refracting telescope- it apparently can't see shadow people or the Slavic god {{w|Chernabog}}, both of which are apparently equally important to the telescope's merit despite also not existing {{Citation needed}}. Although unclear, refracting telescopes presumably can't see shadow people or Chernabog because both are "dark", and with their smaller collecting areas, reflecting telescopes can see fainter objects than refracting telescopes.<br />
<br />
An error in the comic would seem to be that both telescope illustrations contain a mirror (in the refracting, it's at the eyepiece). This would invalidate the advantage it has over reflecting.<br />
<br />
The title text adds an additional drawback to a refracting telecsope: it cannot see {{w|Shadow person|Shadow People}} or {{w|Chernobog|Chernabog}}. In reality, "shadow people" are a psychological phenomenon wherein humans ascribe human shapes and movements to shadows in dark spaces. Chernabog is a 12th century Slavic diety, whose name translates to ''black god''. His most famous apperance in modern media was in the 1940 Disney movie {{w|Fantasia (1940 film)|''Fantasia''}}.<br />
<br />
It is worth noting that a Reflecting Telescope also has disadvantages compared to a refracting telescope. The main disadvantage is that in almost all reflecting telescope designs the focal point is directly in front of the mirror, i.e. in between the mirror and the target of interest. As a result a {{w|Secondary_mirror|secondary mirror}} is commonly used to direct the focal point somewhere outside of the field of view. However, this secondary mirror (and the struts that support it) will still block part of the field of view and result in diffraction patterns that also hinder the image quality. In fact, this is the source of the {{w|Diffraction_spike|diffraction spikes}} around stars which are commonly seen in astronomical images. Despite this disadvantage, reflecting telescopes are used almost exclusively in modern astronomy because of practical limitations in making large refracting telescopes.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript}}<br />
[The comic is one panel showing two different telescope designs.]<br />
REFRACTOR<br />
More expensive<br />
Less compact<br />
Chromatic aberration<br />
Reduced Light-gathering<br />
<br />
REFLECTOR<br />
Can't see space vampires<br />
<br />
Title text:<br />
On the other hand, the refractor's limited light-gathering means it's unable to make out shadow people or the dark god Chernabog<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]<br />
[[Category:Astronomy]]</div>162.158.79.89