https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=172.68.211.10&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2020-02-17T21:39:05ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2063:_Carnot_Cycle&diff=164717Talk:2063: Carnot Cycle2018-10-24T21:48:49Z<p>172.68.211.10: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
The Carnot cycle is a theoretical construct from thermodynamics describing an ideal way to produce work using a temperature differential. The shape of the diagram matches diagrams of said cycle. The different stages in the Carnot cycle are either isentropic or isothermal. 'Isometric', 'Isotonic', and 'Isopropyl' all play on the 'iso' prefix. 'Isometric' also describes the shape of the diagram. 'Isotonic' seems to have something to do with muscles... which I suppose have some relation to engines as well—they both do work.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.218.52|172.69.218.52]] 16:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Did anyone notice that there is a note on the top of XKCD about how to register to vote? [[User:Zachweix|Zachweix]] ([[User talk:Zachweix|talk]]) 17:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Randall often gives some hints to elections, in this case it's the {{w|United States House of Representatives elections, 2018}} on November 6, 2018. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)<br />
::There are other things being voted on, aside from the House of Representatives. One third of the United States Senate is also up for election (as happens every two years), as well as numerous state offices.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.171|173.245.48.171]] 20:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Please read the [[explain xkcd:Editor FAQ|Editor FAQ]] about tables, this here was a good example where tables should not be used (check the history at this comic for the former layout.) Furthermore we should explain the comic but not the real Carnot Cycle, that's done in the Wiki link or at least it should be done in a separate chapter. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)<br />
:I'm sure it doesn't need a full explanation, but because the pairings of the stages are part of the joke, I think it's necessary to explain what each stage is. But just enough to explain the contrast. –[[User:P1h3r1e3d13|P1h3r1e3d13]] ([[User talk:P1h3r1e3d13|talk]]) 18:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)<br />
::I agree. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::Thermodynamics is the hell! I've always hated it. But I entered the essential original terms with a short explanation. And now I feel we should reverse-translate Randalls words to the real thing, or more precise: a similar sentence using accurate words. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Inflation is probably wrong explained'''<br />
<br />
One section before dark energy is mentioned, in Cosmology this energy causes the ''cosmic inflation''. I'm sure Randall talks about this. But maybe we just should mention both. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is there a pun in the title text on token-ring (Tolkien ring) networks? [[User:Mlv|Mlv]] ([[User talk:Mlv|talk]]) 18:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Nice idea, but I don't see that because there is no IBM here. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Wagner Ring Cycle probably refers to a part of the Five-Minute Comics: Part 1 in which Cueball and Bach are running away from Wagner, who is on his ring cycle.</div>172.68.211.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2056:_Horror_Movies&diff=1638642056: Horror Movies2018-10-08T22:39:46Z<p>172.68.211.10: /* Explanation */ grammar</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2056<br />
| date = October 8, 2018<br />
| title = Horror Movies<br />
| image = horror_movies.png<br />
| titletext = "Isn't the original Jurassic Park your favorite movie of all time?" "Yes, but that's because I like dinosaurs and I WANT there to be an island full of them. If John Hammond's lab had been breeding serial killers in creepy masks, I wouldn't have watched!" "Wait, are you sure? That could actually be good." "Ok, I WOULD watch the scenes where Jeff Goldblum tries to convince a bunch of executives that the park is a bad idea."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Please edit the explanation below and only mention here why it isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
[[Randall]], represented by [[Cueball]], seems to find {{w|horror movies}}' ruthless exploitations of viewers' nightmares, fears, revulsions and terror of the unknown, or, more concisely, a crude desire to see "terrible things happen to people."<br />
<br />
A {{w|Horror_film|Horror movie}} is a {{w|Film_genre|genre}} of {{w|movie|movie or film}} which attempts to elicit the emotional response of {{w|fear}} in the viewer. Some enjoy that type of movie because it allows them to experience and release that emotion, perhaps as a form of {{w|catharsis}} or release. Others take a more detached view and enjoy watching bad things happen to other people, perhaps deriving humor or enjoyment out of a situation that they are glad not to be in themselves.<br />
<br />
The title text refers to the ''{{w|Jurassic Park (film)|Jurassic Park film}}'', which could be considered a "horror" film, as there are elements of fear and terror. However, it is usually placed in the adventure or science fiction genre. Randall, instead of claiming that ''Jurassic Park'' isn't a horror film, replies by saying that he likes dinosaurs and would be pleased to visit an amusement park for dinosaurs. "Serial killers in creepy masks" refers to a horror movie trope from the ''{{w|Halloween (franchise)|Halloween}}'' and the ''{{w|Friday the 13th (franchise)|Friday the 13th}}'' series of films, among others. Randall's final comment indicates that though he does not like horror films, he does like {{w|Jeff Goldblum}} (more correctly, {{w|Ian Malcolm (Jurassic Park character)|Ian Malcolm}}), and would watch his ill-fated attempts to prevent the brilliant idea of breeding serial killers.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[White Hat and Cueball are standing together and talking. White Hat points at Cueball who has raised his arms.]<br />
:White Hat: Wanna see a horror movie?<br />
:Cueball: Sure! I love watching terrible things happen to people and feeling afraid!<br />
<br />
:[Caption below the frame:]<br />
:I know everyone's into what they're into, but I have never understood horror movies.<br />
<br />
== Trivia ==<br />
In early issues, [[Randall]] frequently referenced his fear of [[:Category:Velociraptors|velociraptors]].<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]<br />
[[Category:Jurassic Park]]<br />
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]</div>172.68.211.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2048:_Curve-Fitting&diff=1629552048: Curve-Fitting2018-09-19T21:38:46Z<p>172.68.211.10: /* Cauchy-Lorentz */ wlink</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2048<br />
| date = September 19, 2018<br />
| title = Curve-Fitting<br />
| image = curve_fitting.png<br />
| titletext = Cauchy-Lorentz: "Something alarmingly mathematical is happening, and you should probably pause to Google my name and check what field I originally worked in."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Please edit the explanation below and only mention here why it isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
An illustration of several plots of the same data with curves fitted to the points, paired with conclusions that you might draw about the person who made them. <br />
<br />
When modeling a phenomenon statistically, it is common to search for trends, and fitted curves can help reveal these trends. Much of the work of a data scientist or statistician is knowing which fitting method to use for the data in question. Here we see various hypothetical scientists or statisticians each applying their own interpretations, and the comic mocks each of them for their various personal biases or other assorted excuses.<br />
<br />
In general, the researcher will specify the form of an equation for the line to be drawn, and an algorithm will produce the actual line.<br />
<br />
This comic is similar to [[977: Map Projections]] which also uses a scientific method not commonly thought about by the general public to determine specific characteristics of one's personality and approach to science.<br />
<br />
===Linear===<br />
<math>f(x) = mx + b</math> <p>Linear regression is the most basic form of regression; it tries to find the straight line that best approximates the data.</p><p>As it's the simplest, most widely taught form of regression, and in general derivable function are locally well approximated by a straight line, it's usually the first and most trivial attempt of fit.</p><br />
===Quadratic===<br />
<math>f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c</math> <p>Quadratic fit (i.e. fitting a parabola through the data) is the lowest grade polynomial that can be used to fit data through a curved line; if the data exhibits clearly "curved" behavior (or if the experimenter feels that its growth should be more than linear), a parabola is often the first stab at fitting the data.</p><br />
===Logarithmic===<br />
<math>f(x) = a*\log_b(x) + c</math> <p>A logarithmic curve is typical of a phenomenon whose growth gets slower and slower as time passes (indeed, its derivative - i.e. its growth rate - is <math>\propto \frac{1}{x} \rightarrow 0</math> for <math>x \rightarrow +\infty</math>), but still grows without bound rather than approaching a horizontal asymptote. (If it did approach a horizontal asymptote, then one of the other models subtracted from a constant would probably be better, e.g. <math>f(x) = a - \frac{b}{x}</math> or <math>f(x) = a - b^{-cx}</math>.) If the experimenter wants to find confirmation of this fact, they may try to fit a logarithmic curve.</p><br />
<br />
===Exponential===<br />
<math>f(x) = a*b^x + c</math> <p>An exponential curve, on the contrary, is typical of a phenomenon whose growth gets rapidly faster and faster - a common case is a process that generates stuff that contributes to the process itself, think bacteria growth or compound interest.</p><br />
*The logarithmic and exponential interpretations could very easily be fudged or engineered by a researcher with an agenda (such as by taking a misleading subset or even outright lying about the regression), which the comic mocks by juxtaposing them side-by-side on the same set of data.<br />
===LOESS===<br />
<math>w(x) = (1-|d|^3)^3</math> (notice: this is just the function used for the weights, not the actually fitted curve formula, as it's a piecewise polynomial) <p>A {{w|Local regression|LOESS fit}} doesn't use a single formula to fit all the data, but approximates data points locally using different polynomials for each "zone" (weighting differently data points as they get further from it) and patching them together</p><p>As it has much more degrees of freedom compared to a single polynomial, it generally "fits better" to any data set, although it is generally impossible to derive any strong, "clean" mathematical correlation from it - it is just a nice smooth line that approximates well the data points, with a good degree of rejection from outliers.</p><br />
<br />
===Linear, No Slope===<br />
<math>f(x) = c</math> <p>Apparently, the person making this line figured out pretty early on that their data analysis was turning into a scatter plot, and wanted to escape their personal stigma of scatter plots by drawing an obviously false regression line on top of it. Alternatively, they were hoping the data would be flat, and are trying to pretend that there's no real trend to the data by drawing a horizontal trend line.</p><br />
===Logistic===<br />
<math>f(x) = L / (1 + e^{-k(x-b)})</math> <p>A logistic curve provides a smooth, S-shaped transition curve between two flat intervals; indeed the caption says that the experimenter just wants to find a mathematically-respectable way to link two flat lines.</p><br />
===Confidence Interval===<br />
Not a type of curve fitting, but a method of depicting the predictive power of a curve. <p>Providing a confidence interval over the graph shows the uncertainty of the acquired data, thus acknowledging the uncertain results of the experiment, and showing the will not to "cheat" with "easy" regression curves.</p><br />
===Piecewise===<br />
Mapping different curves to different segments of the data. This is a legitimate strategy, but the different segments should be meaningful, such as if they were pulled from different populations. <br />
===Connecting lines===<br />
Not useful whatsoever, but it looks nice!<br />
===Ad-Hoc Filter===<br />
Drawing a bunch of different lines by hand, keeping in only the data points perceived as "good". Also not useful.<br />
===House of Cards===<br />
Not a real method, but a common consequence of mis-application of statistical methods: a curve can be generated that fits the data extremely well, but immediately becomes absurd as soon as one glances outside the training data sample range, and your analysis comes crashing down "like a house of cards". This is a type of ''overfitting''.<br />
===Cauchy-Lorentz===<br />
{{w|Cauchy_distribution|Cauchy-Lorentz}} is a continuous probability distribution which does not have an expected value or a defined variance. This means that the law of large numbers does not hold and that estimating e.g. the sample mean will diverge (be all over the place) the more data points you have. Hence very troublesome (mathematically alarming). <br />
<br />
Since so many different models can fit this data set at first glance, Randall may be making a point about how if a data set is sufficiently messy, you can read any trend you want into it, and the trend that is chosen may say more about the researcher than about the data. This is a similar sentiment to [[1725: Linear Regression]], which also pokes fun at dubious trend lines on scatterplots.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
:'''Curve-Fitting Methods'''<br />
:and the messages they send<br />
<br />
:[In a single frame twelve scatter plots with unlabeled x- and y-axes are shown. Each plot consists of the same data-set of approximately thirty points located all over the plot but slightly more distributed around the diagonal. Every plot shows in red a different fitting method which is labeled on top in gray.]<br />
<br />
:[The first plot shows a line starting at the left bottom above the x-axis rising towards the points to the right.]<br />
:Linear<br />
:"Hey, I did a regression."<br />
<br />
:[The second plot shows a curve falling slightly down and then rising up to the right.]<br />
:Quadratic<br />
:"I wanted a curved line, so I made one with Math."<br />
<br />
:[At the third plot the curve starts near the left bottom and increases more and more less to the right.]<br />
:Logarithmic<br />
:"Look, it's tapering off!"<br />
<br />
:[The fourth plot shows a curve starting near the left bottom and increases more and more steeper to the right.]<br />
:Exponential<br />
:"Look, it's growing uncontrollably!"<br />
<br />
:[The fifth plot uses a fitting to match many points. It starts at the left bottom, increases, then decreases, then rapidly increasing again, and finally reaching a plateau.]<br />
:LOESS<br />
:"I'm sophisticated, not like those bumbling polynomial people."<br />
<br />
:[The sixth plot simply shows a line above but parallel to the x-axis.]<br />
:Linear, no slope<br />
:"I'm making a scatter plot but I don't want to."<br />
<br />
:[At plot #7 starts at a plateau above the x-axis, then increases, and finally reaches a higher plateau.]<br />
:Logistic<br />
:"I need to connect these two lines, but my first idea didn't have enough Math."<br />
<br />
:[Plot #8 shows two red lines embedding most points and the area between is painted as a red shadow.]<br />
:Confidence interval<br />
:"Listen, science is hard. But I'm a serious person doing my best."<br />
<br />
:[Plot #9 shows two not connected lines, one at the lower left half, and one higher at the right. Both have smaller curved lines in light red above and below.]<br />
:Piecewise<br />
:"I have a theory, and this is the only data I could find."<br />
<br />
:[The plot at the left bottom shows a line connecting all points from left to right, resulting in a curve going many times up and down.]<br />
:Connecting lines<br />
:"I clicked 'Smooth Lines' in Excel."<br />
<br />
:[The next to last plot shows a echelon form, connecting a few real and some imaginary points.]<br />
:Ad-Hoc filter<br />
:"I had an idea for how to clean up the data. What do you think?"<br />
<br />
:[The last plot shows a wave with increasing peak values.]<br />
:House of Cards<br />
:"As you can see, this model smoothly fits the- ''wait no no don't extend it AAAAAA!!''"<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Scatter plots]]<br />
[[Category:Math]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>172.68.211.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2048:_Curve-Fitting&diff=1629442048: Curve-Fitting2018-09-19T20:31:25Z<p>172.68.211.10: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2048<br />
| date = September 19, 2018<br />
| title = Curve-Fitting<br />
| image = curve_fitting.png<br />
| titletext = Cauchy-Lorentz: "Something alarmingly mathematical is happening, and you should probably pause to Google my name and check what field I originally worked in."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Please edit the explanation below and only mention here why it isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
A illustration of several plots of the same data with curves fitted to the points, paired with conclusions that you might draw about the person who made them. <br />
<br />
When modeling a phenomenon statistically, it is common to search for trends, and fitted curves can help reveal these trends. Much of the work of a data scientist or statistician is knowing which fitting method to use for the data in question. Here we see various hypothetical scientists or statisticians each applying their own interpretations, and the comic mocks each of them for their various personal biases or other assorted excuses.<br />
<br />
In general, the researcher will specify the form of an equation for the line to be drawn, and an algorithm will produce the actual line.<br />
<br />
This comic is similar to [[977: Map Projections]] which also uses a scientific method not commonly thought about by the general public to determine specific characteristics of one's personality and approach to science.<br />
<br />
* Linear: <math>f(x) = mx + b</math> <p>Linear regression is the most basic form of regression; it tries to find the straight line that best approximates the data.</p><p>As it's the simplest, most widely taught form of regression, and in general derivable function are locally well approximated by a straight line, it's usually the first and most trivial attempt of fit.</p><br />
* Quadratic: <math>f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c</math> <p>Quadratic fit (i.e. fitting a parabola through the data) is the lowest grade polynomial that can be used to fit data through a curved line; if the data exhibits clearly "curved" behavior (or if the experimenter feels that its growth should be more than linear), a parabola is often the first stab at fitting the data.</p><br />
* Logarithmic: <math>f(x) = a*\log_b(x) + c</math> <p>A logarithmic curve is typical of a phenomenon whose growth gets slower and slower as time passes (indeed, its derivative - i.e. its growth rate - is <math>\propto \frac{1}{x} \rightarrow 0</math> for <math>x \rightarrow +\infty</math>); if the experimenter wants to find confirmation of this fact, they may try to fit a logarithmic curve.</p><br />
* Exponential: <math>f(x) = a*b^x + c</math> <p>An exponential curve, on the contrary, is typical of a phenomenon whose growth gets rapidly faster and faster - a common case is a process that generates stuff that contributes to the process itself, think bacteria growth or composite interest.</p><br />
**The logarithmic and exponential interpretations could very easily be fudged or engineered by a researcher with an agenda (such as by taking a misleading subset or even outright lieing about the regression), which the comic mocks by juxtaposing them side-by-side on the same set of data.<br />
* LOESS: <math>w(x) = (1-|d|^3)^3</math> (notice: this is just the function used for the weights, not the actually fitted curve formula, as it's a piecewise polynomial) <p>A LOESS fit doesn't use a single formula to fit all the data, but approximates data points locally using different polynomials for each "zone" (weighting differently data points as they get further from it) and patching them together</p><p>As it has much more degrees of freedom compared to a single polynomial, it generally "fits better" to any data set, although it is generally impossible to derive any strong, "clean" mathematical correlation from it - it is just a nice smooth line that approximates well the data points, with a good degree of rejection from outliers.</p><br />
* Linear, No Slope: <math>f(x) = c</math> <p>Apparently, the person making this line figured out pretty early on that their data analysis was turning into a scatter plot, and wanted to escape their personal stigma of scatter plots by drawing an obviously false regression line on top of it. Alternatively, they were hoping the data would be flat, and are trying to pretend that there's no real trend to the data by drawing a horizontal trend line.</p><br />
* Logistic: <math>f(x) = L / (1 + e^{-k(x-b)})</math> <p>A logistic curve provides a smooth, S-shaped transition curve between two flat intervals; indeed the caption says that the experimenter just wants to find a mathematically-respectable way to link two flat lines.</p><br />
* Confidence Interval: not a type of curve fitting, but a method of depicting the predictive power of a curve. <p>Providing a confidence interval over the graph shows the uncertainty of the acquired data, thus acknowledging the uncertain results of the experiment, and showing the will not to "cheat" with "easy" regression curves.</p><br />
* Piecewise: Mapping different curves to different segments of the data. This is a legitimate strategy, but the different segments should be meaningful, such as if they were pulled from different populations. <br />
* Connecting lines: Not useful whatsoever, but it looks nice!<br />
* Ad-Hoc Filter: Drawing a bunch of different lines by hand, keeping in only the data points perceived as "good". Also not useful.<br />
* House of Cards: Not a real method, but a common consequence of mis-application of statistical methods: a curve can be generated that fits the data extremely well, but immediately becomes absurd as soon as one glances outside the training data sample range, and your analysis comes crashing down "like a house of cards". This is a type of ''overfitting''.<br />
* Cauchy-Lorentz: Is a continuous probability distribution which does not have an expected value or a defined variance. This means that the law of large numbers does not hold and that estimating e.g. the sample mean will diverge (be all over the place) the more data points you have. Hence very troublesome (mathematically alarming). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_distribution<br />
<br />
Since so many different models can fit this data set at first glance, Randall may be making a point about how if a data set is sufficiently messy, you can read any trend you want into it, and the trend that is chosen may say more about the researcher than about the data. This is a similar sentiment to [[1725: Linear Regression]], which also pokes fun at dubious trend lines on scatterplots.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
:'''Curve-Fitting Methods'''<br />
:and the messages they send<br />
<br />
:[In a single frame twelve scatter plots with unlabeled x- and y-axes are shown. Each plot consists of the same data-set of approximately thirty points located all over the plot but slightly more distributed around the diagonal. Every plot shows in red a different fitting method which is labeled on top in gray.]<br />
<br />
:[The first plot shows a line starting at the left bottom above the x-axis rising towards the points to the right.]<br />
:Linear<br />
:"Hey, I did a regression."<br />
<br />
:[The second plot shows a curve falling slightly down and then rising up to the right.]<br />
:Quadratic<br />
:"I wanted a curved line, so I made one with Math."<br />
<br />
:[At the third plot the curve starts near the left bottom and increases more and more less to the right.]<br />
:Logarithmic<br />
:"Look, it's tapering off!"<br />
<br />
:[The fourth plot shows a curve starting near the left bottom and increases more and more steeper to the right.]<br />
:Exponential<br />
:"Look, it's growing uncontrollably!"<br />
<br />
:[The fifth plot uses a fitting to match many points. It starts at the left bottom, increases, then decreases, then rapidly increasing again, and finally reaching a plateau.]<br />
:LOESS<br />
:"I'm sophisticated, not like those bumbling polynomial people."<br />
<br />
:[The sixth plot simply shows a line above but parallel to the x-axis.]<br />
:Linear, no slope<br />
:"I'm making a scatter plot but I don't want to."<br />
<br />
:[At plot #7 starts at a plateau above the x-axis, then increases, and finally reaches a higher plateau.]<br />
:Logistic<br />
:"I need to connect these two lines, but my first idea didn't have enough Math."<br />
<br />
:[Plot #8 shows two red lines embedding most points and the area between is painted as a red shadow.]<br />
:Confidence interval<br />
:"Listen, science is hard. But I'm a serious person doing my best."<br />
<br />
:[Plot #9 shows two not connected lines, one at the lower left half, and one higher at the right. Both have smaller curved lines in light red above and below.]<br />
:Piecewise<br />
:"I have a theory, and this is the only data I could find."<br />
<br />
:[The plot at the left bottom shows a line connecting all points from left to right, resulting in a curve going many times up and down.]<br />
:Connecting lines<br />
:"I clicked 'Smooth Lines' in Excel."<br />
<br />
:[The next to last plot shows a echelon form, connecting a few real and some imaginary points.]<br />
:Ad-Hoc filter<br />
:"I had an idea for how to clean up the data. What do you think?"<br />
<br />
:[The last plot shows a wave with increasing peak values.]<br />
:House of Cards<br />
:"As you can see, this model smoothly fits the- ''wait no no don't extend it AAAAAA!!''"<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Scatter plots]]<br />
[[Category:Math]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>172.68.211.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2041:_Frontiers&diff=1622542041: Frontiers2018-09-03T18:00:55Z<p>172.68.211.10: /* Explanation */ italics</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2041<br />
| date = September 3, 2018<br />
| title = Frontiers<br />
| image = frontiers.png<br />
| titletext = Star Trek V is a small part of the space frontier, but it's been a while since that movie came out so I assume we've finished exploring it by now.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
This comic refers to the "final frontiers" of human discovery: outer space, the oceans, the human mind, and Alaska. These places / regions have been only partially explored.<br />
<br />
The title text refers to the title of ''Star Trek V'', titled ''{{w|Star Trek V: The Final Frontier}}''. Randall (mis)interprets this title as Star Trek V the movie as one of the final frontiers, but since the film was released in 1989, he states that this frontier has probably been explored already. The phrase, "the final frontier," is used in the opening narration for the original ''Star Trek'' TV series:<br />
<br />
''Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before!''<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>172.68.211.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2041:_Frontiers&diff=1622532041: Frontiers2018-09-03T18:00:26Z<p>172.68.211.10: /* Explanation */ basic</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2041<br />
| date = September 3, 2018<br />
| title = Frontiers<br />
| image = frontiers.png<br />
| titletext = Star Trek V is a small part of the space frontier, but it's been a while since that movie came out so I assume we've finished exploring it by now.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
This comic refers to the "final frontiers" of human discovery: outer space, the oceans, the human mind, and Alaska. These places / regions have been only partially explored.<br />
<br />
The title text refers to the title of ''Star Trek V'', titled ''{{w|Star Trek V: The Final Frontier}}''. Randall (mis)interprets this title as Star Trek V the movie as one of the final frontiers, but since the film was released in 1989, he states that this frontier has probably been explored already. The phrase, "the final frontier," is used in the opening narration for the original ''Star Trek'' TV series:<br />
<br />
Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before!<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>172.68.211.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2014:_JWST_Delays&diff=159555Talk:2014: JWST Delays2018-07-03T00:30:12Z<p>172.68.211.10: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
Haha - I made this same graph 2 weeks ago! [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 17:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Suggest the last sentence be made more general: "The title text refers to a fundamental question of the Big Bang Theory; will the universe expand forever, or will is collapse back on itself? The likely answer to this question has changed over the decades as new measurements have been made, and new theories such as dark matter and dark energy developed to explain the new measurements. Apparently, and for an analogous reason, between 2018 and 2020 the likely answer to the fundamental JWST question will change." [[User:GODZILLA|GODZILLA]] ([[User talk:GODZILLA|talk]]) 17:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Does today's prediction of 2026 count? If that is included in the data set, it would then skew the best-fit line to be steeper. If a new prediction is made using that new best-fit line, that would further skew the line, and so on, causing the acceleration the title text anticipates between 2018 and 2020.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.88|162.158.63.88]] 20:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
> Until the slope of the line becomes more than one and the prediction goes to the past, right? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.16|108.162.216.16]] 21:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:No, it doesn't count, because it's just '''prediction''', while the data set is of (official) '''planned launch dates'''. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[wikipedia:Heinz von Foerster#Doomsday equation|Von Foersters's doomsday]] is Friday 13th of November 2026. (cue Twilight Zone intro) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.175|162.158.89.175]] 21:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Why does he keep saying it's 2021? Is he trying to skip Trump's term or what? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.10|172.68.211.10]] 00:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)</div>172.68.211.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2004:_Sun_and_Earth&diff=158640Talk:2004: Sun and Earth2018-06-11T01:30:29Z<p>172.68.211.10: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
There seems to be a glitch with the bar at the top (the one with the previous comic button and so on), it displays in a messed up way. Is this just something with my browser, or have other people been seeing this too? [[User:VannaWho|VannaWho]] ([[User talk:VannaWho|talk]])<br />
:I'm using K-Meleon76 in Win7x64 (in a non-Admin account), it looks good to me. It does help to sign with 4 tildes, it does this for you: [[Special:Contributions/172.68.2.106|172.68.2.106]] 11:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks IP, by using the 4 tildes OR the sign button at the top also a timestamp will be shown.<br />
::VannaWho: What is messed up? What happens? And what browser do you use? I also can't see any problems. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 12:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)<br />
::: I'm on Google Chrome from my phone, and the bar has a little extra bit above it. It's hard to explain, is there a way to attach a screenshot? --[[User:VannaWho|VannaWho]] ([[User talk:VannaWho|talk]]) 06:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)<br />
::::Thanks for your complaint. I can see it now and it also happens by using Google Chrome on a desktop when reducing the size of the browser window. Firefox doesn't look better. It's now on my ToDo list and I'm looking forward to implement a mobile version in the future. Stay tuned... --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The current explanation suggests that solar flares and volcanic eruptions are always quite benign. My interpretation of this comic, when I read it, was that volcanic eruptions can indeed be very deadly and potentially kill most humans (supervolcano, mini ice age... etc). But they are indeed rare enough that all humans currently alive and many generations to come are pretty safe from that risk. <br />
Not sure if a solar eruption could actually threaten humanity, beyond damaging our satellites. {{unsigned ip|141.101.88.88}}<br />
:A huge {{w|Coronal mass ejection}}, like the {{w|Solar storm of 1859}} that {{w|down Coronal_mass_ejection#First_traces|took down parts of the recently created US telegraph network}}, if occurring today would cause widespread disruptions and damage to a modern and technology-dependent society. It could simply melt down the transformers that distribute all electricity on Earth, potentially leaving us without electricity... Like no one has electricity. This would not be something we could fix, since the transformers are melted down. So yes mass starvation could occur when all refrigerators stop working. So potentially as lethal as a super volcano on the short term... Of course we can do absolutely nothing about this. Just like with super volcanoes. Only thing we are sure of is that both events will happen again sometime. Have a nice day ;-) [http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/lloyds/reports/emerging%20risk%20reports/solar%20storm%20risk%20to%20the%20north%20american%20electric%20grid.pdf] --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)<br />
::The problems with the burgeoning North American telegraph network were because the wires covered such a great distances. In forthcoming geomagnetic events it will be similar processes causing problems. I'm curious though, we have lightning arresters on transmission lines for literally breaking the circuit when the voltage is too high, is there nothing similar that would prevent damage from a solar storm? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.33|162.158.158.33]] 14:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::Important to point out that only '''''connected''''' components are damaged in such an event (likewise with EMPs); '''Spare parts sitting insulated in boxes are unaffected.''' Also, yes, there are a lot more safeties in place now. Nothing short of our practical extinction will leave ''all'' technology inoperable, much less irreparable. It is urban legend that an EMP or solar flare of anything less than "burn everything within 100ft of the surface" would do more than temporary damage, & if that happened we'd have much bigger concerns, like our own biological nervous systems failing, & most of the biosphere dying immediately. Things far underground, airgapped from any long conductors near the surface would be fine. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 19:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
After the major blackout of the Eastern US Coast, the connections between electrical stations were redesigned so that overloads would not cascade. A similar change was made to long distance land telephone centers when an incorrect update brought down telephone service. [[User:The Dining Logician|The Dining Logician]] ([[User talk:The Dining Logician|talk]]) 15:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I feel like the fact that without Earth's own magnetic field, which is generated by processes related to Earth being massive convecting system, protecting us from solar flares, the damage from them would be much worse, should be noted. Wait. Once again: I feel that following fact should be noted: The damage from solar flares would be much worse if we wouldn't be protected by Earth's own magnetic field, which is generated by processes related to Earth being massive convecting system. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 05:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
And so Randall's solution is to [https://what-if.xkcd.com/49/ extinguish the sun]... thus creating a safer world free from the threat of solar flares! [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 03:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;New Misc Points (3 of them)<br />
1) We should not, as the current explanation does, say that the particles gain energy. The Law of Conservation of Energy strictly demands that we say, instead, that they convert gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy, but only as much as the resulting pressure, resisting gravitational collapse, allows. <br />
<br />
2) I know that the Sun, as a star, is powered by gravitational collapse. (Massy bodies, really? Why not "Huge, and therefore heavy, cloud of gas"?) I have never heard of the Earth's core being powered by gravitational collapse, obvious on hindsight as it may appear. It would also imply that Earth's radius is decreasing (measurable/measured?). Some citation to geophysical articles saying the same would be very much appreciated. <br />
<br />
3) I thought that a different enjoyment of the jokes in this comic, should be mentioned. It looks very much, in the comic, like the Sun and the Earth are heating elements sandwiching humans and the Earth's atmosphere within. Global warming aside, this is funny because it feels like we are in an oven of sorts, though we actually are not being cooked. For food, for one non-reason. {{unsigned ip|162.158.165.226}}<br />
<br />
The second and third paragraphs as written are completely wrong. <br />
It take much more than a energy gradient to result in convection - both gravity and different density regions in the medium must be present - generally convective system are in media that become less dense at higher temperatures, and are heated in the region of lower gravitational potential. The media expands as it heats becoming less dense then rises against gravity as cooler higher density media flows to replace it. Since the two flows can not occur simultaneously in the same location, generally the flow self organizes into cells or adjacent regions of counter flow.<br />
Neither the sun which is a main sequence star in its stable Hydrogen burning phase nor the Earth are appreciably heated by gravitational collapse. For the sun gravity does provide the pressures needed for, and contains, the resulting fusion processes that do provide the energy released by the sun. The Earth core is heated by the decay of radioactive elements and the energy released is in very near equilibrium with the energy lost to the surface and ultimately radiated away along with the energy received from external sources (overwhelmingly from the sun). This has resulted in a stable internal temperature profile and surprisingly stable surface temperatures with in a very few degrees (<15C) for billions of years.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 17:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Someone ought to do a 'citation needed' joke about the Earth being hot --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.10|172.68.211.10]] 01:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)</div>172.68.211.10