https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=172.68.133.139&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T09:27:50ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=656:_October_30th&diff=271971656: October 30th2022-05-20T23:46:54Z<p>172.68.133.139: Undo revision 271233 by Explain xkcd server admin (talk) Another crapper >:(</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number =656<br />
| date =October 30, 2009<br />
| title =October 30th<br />
| image =october_30th.png<br />
| titletext =Not enough houses on your block? Just hit them at 30-year intervals from here to 2300 and get 10x the candy.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
For Halloween, a child has dressed up as Dr. Emmett L. Brown (played by {{w|Christopher Lloyd}}) from the ''{{w|Back to the Future}}'' film trilogy. In the films, Brown created a {{w|time machine}} out of a {{w|DeLorean DMC-12}} car, which he and teenage protagonist Marty McFly use to travel through time.<br />
<br />
The joke of the comic is that Halloween is on October 31st, and by showing up dressed as Doc Brown on October 30th, the kid can make the joke that he "overshot" the time machine and went back one more day than he meant to. Doc is heard throughout the movie franchise saying "Great Scott" as an exclamation of surprise.<br />
<br />
The title text suggests an inventive use of time-travel to get ten times the candy — hitting each house at a 30-year interval up until 2300. The interval matches that of the first two BttF movies, which take place in the years 1955, 1985 (the present at the time), and 2015.<br />
<br />
Of course, one would have no idea starting off if Halloween is still being celebrated in 2300, or indeed if the human race even still exists.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[A kid dressed up in a lab coat and goggles is standing on a neighbor's doorstep.]<br />
:Kid: Trick or treat!<br />
:Neighbor: Nice Doc Brown costume, but today's October 30th.<br />
:Kid: Great Scott, I must have overshot!<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Back to the Future]]<br />
[[Category:Time travel]]</div>172.68.133.139https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2518:_Lumpers_and_Splitters&diff=218257Talk:2518: Lumpers and Splitters2021-09-21T03:14:33Z<p>172.68.133.139: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Lumping and splitting doesn't just apply to groups of people. It describes the way people categorize things in general. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I really thought this was about the different focus in individuals and other systems (notably AI research), to either pay attention to individual diverse detail, often involving great memory, or form patterns to generalize everything, often involving great ingenuity. It is the latter path ("lumping") where one used to imagine an AI transfering learning to its own processes ("meta"), and then taking off as a hyperintelligence that improves itself exponentially more rapidly. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.173|172.70.110.173]] 00:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I've been a lurker here for many years but I've never edited, so I don't know what's appropriate. Is it notable that the term "splitter" is used in the same sense in the movie "Monty Python's Life of Brian"? Maybe not, but if so, it would say something like "A notable use of the term splitter is in [LoB] when the 'People's Party of Judea' is used to satirize contemporary (1970s) factional communist parties." I've never heard the term lumper before this comic.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.139|172.68.133.139]] 03:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)</div>172.68.133.139https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2516:_Hubble_Tension&diff=2180932516: Hubble Tension2021-09-16T05:59:23Z<p>172.68.133.139: /* Transcript */ cleanup</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2516<br />
| date = September 15, 2021<br />
| title = Hubble Tension<br />
| image = hubble_tension.png<br />
| titletext = Oh, wait, I might've had it set to kph instead of mph. But that would make the discrepancy even wider!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by Dave - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
The fact that most galaxies are receeding from us, and that the distance to the galaxy is directly proportional to the speed (as measured by redshift) was discovered in the 1920s by Edwin Hubble and others. This constant of proportionality is known as the Hubble Constant.<br />
<br />
One way of measuring the Hubble Constant is to measure the distance to (relatively) nearby galaxies. Once distance is obtained, speed can be easily obtained by measuring the redshift and thus the Hubble Constant calculated. Measuring the distance turns out to be feindishly difficult because a distant bright star looks the same as a dim star that is closer.<br />
<br />
In practice, astronomers have a number of ways of measuring distance that work at different scales, and they can be built upon to measure distance to far away galaxies. This is known as the cosmological distance ladder. <br />
<br />
The first rung is parallax. As the Earth orbits around the Sun, nearby stars appear to move slightly relative to distant stars; a star that moves by one second of arc is said to have a distance of 1 Parsec, or about 4 light years. <br />
<br />
The next rung is Cepheid variables, which periodically brighten and dim. The frequency of variation is related to the absolute brightness of the star, and thus by comparing the absolute to the relative brightness the distance can be measured. <br />
<br />
The final rung is Type 1a Supernovae, which occur when an accreting white dwarf exceeds 1.4 solar masses. Because the initial mass is always identical, the absolute brightness of the explosion is as well, so the distance can be calculated.<br />
<br />
Putting these together, the best measurement of the Hubble Constant is 73 km/s/Mparsec.<br />
<br />
This is in conflict with the other main way of measuring the Hubble Constant, using the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, which yields a value of 68 km/s/Mparsec. The difference is statistically significant, and well outside the error bounds of each measurement.<br />
<br />
Since the CMB technique relies on our understanding and assumptions about the early universe, as well as on the cosmological effects of General Relativity on large scales, if this discrepancy proved real it could be the gateway to new discoveries in cosmology, gravity, and possibly shed light on the origin of the universe and a theory of everything. Cosmologists got quite excited about this. It might also be that there was a previously unaccounted-for error in any of the rungs of the cosmological distance ladder, and that once that is fixed, the two results will be consistent.<br />
<br />
This also disagrees with Dave.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
:[Cueball and Ponytail are walking to the right. Ponytail has her palm raised]<br />
:Ponytail: There are three main estimates of the universe's expansion rate and they all disagree.<br />
<br />
:[They keeping walking to the right.]<br />
:Ponytail: Measurements of star distances suggest the universe is expanding at 73 km/s/megaparsec.<br />
<br />
:[They are still walking to the right.]<br />
:Ponytail: Measurements of the cosmic microwave background suggest it's expanding at 68 km/s/megaparsec.<br />
<br />
:[They continue walking to the right. Ponytail points to Dave, off screen]<br />
:Ponytail: And Dave, who has a radar gun, says it's expanding at 85 mph in all directions.<br />
:Dave (off-screen): ''Those galaxies are really booking it!''<br />
:Ponytail: Thanks, Dave.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]<br />
[[Category:Astronomy]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]</div>172.68.133.139https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2515:_Vaccine_Research&diff=218065Talk:2515: Vaccine Research2021-09-15T17:57:02Z<p>172.68.133.139: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Too bad White Hat and Randall didn't bother to research the other half of the question. YES, vaccines work to save lives. But There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, and you need to research *both* sides of any question, not just the side you agree with.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 12:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
: I really don't want this to turn into a long debate, but how do you know White Hat/Randall didn't find anything about the risks of vaccines? They never claim that and the fact that White Hat calls the vaccines "pretty good" instead of something like "perfect" would suggest he's aware of the downsides but considers the benefits to outweigh the risks. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 13:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
:: Since that's left ambiguous (deliberately?), one possible reading of the comic is as a joke on how "my own research" just reinforces prior beliefs, whatever they were. This reading doesn't play as well with the understatement in the punchline, though. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.157|172.69.71.157]] 21:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't trust the "scientists", so I decided to do my own research. Anyway, I need 5000 people for a double-blind clinical trial, so DM me if you know anyone interested.<br />
[[User:Svízel přítula|Svízel přítula]] ([[User talk:Svízel přítula|talk]]) 13:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
: That's exactly where I thought this comic was going to go when I read the first panel. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.217|172.68.133.217]] 18:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
:It so happens that I did register to participate in vaccine trials. They didn't call on me yet, so I'm available. Reach out to the Coronavirus Prevention Network here: https://www.coronaviruspreventionnetwork.org/ and maybe I can be one of your subjects. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm unsure whether I'd call Cueball's response "nonchalant", nor that there's any indication as to his motives being deceptive. I read it more as US-style "irony", or UK-style "understatement as intensifier". --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.157|172.69.71.157]] 21:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
: I read it as sarcastic, too. Perhaps the explanation should be updated. Sarcasm would also suggest that clearly White Hat doesn't know about the effort because they've spent so much time reading the already produced research on the "100s of Studies" [[User:Sem 1983|Sem 1983]] ([[User talk:Sem 1983|talk]]) 21:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
:: Yeah, I did that. Hope my rework didn't suck. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.193|108.162.221.193]] 21:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Should we tag this as a Tuesday comic, or as a Monday comic? This comic was posted on the site on Tuesday, but the "official publication date" per https://xkcd.com/archive/ says it to be 9/13 (Monday). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.183|172.69.34.183]] 22:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
:If Randall states it is a Monday comic I think we should leave it as such, but it could be stated in a trivia that the comic was first released on Tuesday. Do we know exactly when it was released, and was it for sure Tuesday all over the world at that moment? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
::It was later than its usual timeframe (hello from the UK where the ''exception'' seems to be that "today's" comic arrives "today" - usually they're an hour or three post-midnight) but if Randall the same nonchanlent attitude towards waking hours as me then even post 5AM might be 'intended' to count... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.5|162.158.88.5]] 10:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
::: The bot that posted this comic posted it at 11:00 UTC on 9/14 (Tuesday), which corresponds to 4am Pacific Time and 7am Eastern. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.139|172.68.133.139]] 17:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Did Randall misspell “sheepish” or is there a subtle joke in the title text? It reads “sheapish” as of this comment. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.87|172.70.130.87]] 23:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
:Says "sheepish" at 03:22 UTC Tuesday. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
::It also was the correct spelling when [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2515:_Vaccine_Research&oldid=218005 this page was created] by the bot here on explain. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
:::I’m feeling gaslit. May need to check my eyesight.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.209|172.70.130.209]] 13:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I missed the use of "sheepish" on my first read, until this comment pointed it out. I suspect this is a reference to how some people refer to others as "sheep" for believing what experts are telling them. This should probably be included somehow. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 12:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
::maybe a double entendre but I’m pretty sure Randall means the usual usage of sheepish - affected by or showing embarrassment caused by consciousness of fault [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.198|162.158.74.198]] 13:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I wonder if this is related with some declarations from rapper Nicki Minaj, unvaccinated, who, after becoming covid-positive, wrote in her Twitter that would leave music aside for a while to investigate by herself the effects of the vaccines.</div>172.68.133.139https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2515:_Vaccine_Research&diff=218064Talk:2515: Vaccine Research2021-09-15T17:53:48Z<p>172.68.133.139: ce</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Too bad White Hat and Randall didn't bother to research the other half of the question. YES, vaccines work to save lives. But There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, and you need to research *both* sides of any question, not just the side you agree with.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 12:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
: I really don't want this to turn into a long debate, but how do you know White Hat/Randall didn't find anything about the risks of vaccines? They never claim that and the fact that White Hat calls the vaccines "pretty good" instead of something like "perfect" would suggest he's aware of the downsides but considers the benefits to outweigh the risks. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 13:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
:: Since that's left ambiguous (deliberately?), one possible reading of the comic is as a joke on how "my own research" just reinforces prior beliefs, whatever they were. This reading doesn't play as well with the understatement in the punchline, though. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.157|172.69.71.157]] 21:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't trust the "scientists", so I decided to do my own research. Anyway, I need 5000 people for a double-blind clinical trial, so DM me if you know anyone interested.<br />
[[User:Svízel přítula|Svízel přítula]] ([[User talk:Svízel přítula|talk]]) 13:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
: That's exactly where I thought this comic was going to go when I read the first panel. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.217|172.68.133.217]] 18:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
:It so happens that I did register to participate in vaccine trials. They didn't call on me yet, so I'm available. Reach out to the Coronavirus Prevention Network here: https://www.coronaviruspreventionnetwork.org/ and maybe I can be one of your subjects. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm unsure whether I'd call Cueball's response "nonchalant", nor that there's any indication as to his motives being deceptive. I read it more as US-style "irony", or UK-style "understatement as intensifier". --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.157|172.69.71.157]] 21:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
: I read it as sarcastic, too. Perhaps the explanation should be updated. Sarcasm would also suggest that clearly White Hat doesn't know about the effort because they've spent so much time reading the already produced research on the "100s of Studies" [[User:Sem 1983|Sem 1983]] ([[User talk:Sem 1983|talk]]) 21:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
:: Yeah, I did that. Hope my rework didn't suck. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.193|108.162.221.193]] 21:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Should we tag this as a Tuesday comic, or as a Monday comic? This comic was posted on the site on Tuesday, but the "official publication date" per https://xkcd.com/archive/ says it to be 9/13 (Monday). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.183|172.69.34.183]] 22:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
:If Randall states it is a Monday comic I think we should leave it as such, but it could be stated in a trivia that the comic was first released on Tuesday. Do we know exactly when it was released, and was it for sure Tuesday all over the world at that moment? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
::It was later than its usual timeframe (hello from the UK where the ''exception'' seems to be that "today's" comic arrives "today" - usually they're an hour or three post-midnight) but if Randall the same nonchanlent attitude towards waking hours as me then even post 5AM might be 'intended' to count... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.5|162.158.88.5]] 10:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
::: The bot that posted this comic posted it at 11:00 UTC on 9/14 (Tuesday). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.139|172.68.133.139]] 17:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Did Randall misspell “sheepish” or is there a subtle joke in the title text? It reads “sheapish” as of this comment. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.87|172.70.130.87]] 23:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
:Says "sheepish" at 03:22 UTC Tuesday. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
::It also was the correct spelling when [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2515:_Vaccine_Research&oldid=218005 this page was created] by the bot here on explain. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
:::I’m feeling gaslit. May need to check my eyesight.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.209|172.70.130.209]] 13:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I missed the use of "sheepish" on my first read, until this comment pointed it out. I suspect this is a reference to how some people refer to others as "sheep" for believing what experts are telling them. This should probably be included somehow. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 12:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
::maybe a double entendre but I’m pretty sure Randall means the usual usage of sheepish - affected by or showing embarrassment caused by consciousness of fault [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.198|162.158.74.198]] 13:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I wonder if this is related with some declarations from rapper Nicki Minaj, unvaccinated, who, after becoming covid-positive, wrote in her Twitter that would leave music aside for a while to investigate by herself the effects of the vaccines.</div>172.68.133.139