https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=172.69.50.52&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2020-03-31T06:56:12ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2285:_Recurring_Nightmare&diff=1891662285: Recurring Nightmare2020-03-26T11:08:03Z<p>172.69.50.52: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2285<br />
| date = March 25, 2020<br />
| title = Recurring Nightmare<br />
| image = recurring_nightmare.png<br />
| titletext = Oh thank goodness, I forgot my clothes, so now everyone's looking embarrassed and backing away.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created IN ISOLATION. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
It is an allegedly {{tvtropes|NotWearingPantsDream|frequent dream-trope}} to be in a situation of otherwise polite company and discover oneself naked in the midst of the crowd. This can be added to something such as a general "[https://www.dreamdictionary.org/common/test-dreams/ forgotten to prepare for the exam you're sitting]" to build upon various levels of worst-case scenario anxieties amongst your peers, parents or other persons who ''will'' judge you badly for your ''faux pas''.<br />
<br />
In light of the current [[:Category: COVID-19|Coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic]], the stated problem here is actually that of being in a crowd, at what is presumably one of the very few schools that is still holding in-person classes (at the time of this comic, most schools had switched to online instruction or closed due to the pandemic). {{w|Social distancing}} has been widely practiced around the world as a way to slow the spread of the virus. In fact the nudity, perhaps similar to the actual real-life 'health tip' of eating excessive garlic, has the unintentional but beneficial effect of having neighbouring crowd-members stand back and out of your personal space out of shock and/or mutual embarrassment - which may somewhat mitigate ''some'' of the issues of viral transmission, if not others.<br />
<br />
The "[https://storiesonline.net/universe/2/naked-in-school naked in school]" trope is popular on [https://storiesonline.net Stories on Line] (Warning! Often with heavy sexual content.)<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Megan, standing next to Cueball, is gesturing with her arms wide.]<br />
:Megan: I keep having nightmares that I show up at school, and then suddenly panic as I realize&ndash;<br />
<br />
:Cueball: &ndash;That you're naked?<br />
<br />
:Megan: '''''That I'm in a crowded room!'''''<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*nightmares about school were also the topic of [[557: Students]], specifically stating that people have dreams about school, even when not going to school anymore.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:COVID-19]]<br />
[[Category:Dreams]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]</div>172.69.50.52https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2126:_Google_Trends_Maps&diff=171445Talk:2126: Google Trends Maps2019-03-21T04:42:14Z<p>172.69.50.52: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
I'm not quite sure I understand the comic. And no, the irony of saying that on a wiki dedicated to explaining them is not lost on me. Do the maps show which word/phrase is more common in google in each state by comparing only the options to each other or where they actually the top searched words/phrases at some point in time?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 10:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Pretty sure they're all top searched words/phrases in some states at some point in the past. It's just that Randall has merged maps from different time periods. For example in the first map, "heat stroke" and "frostbite" are two real results, but the former is likely a result that appeared in summer, while the latter is likely one that appeared in winter. By merging the two maps you get a map that doesn't make sense, as it looks like they were the top searches in the same time period while in reality they weren't. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 11:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)<br />
::I think that Randall is just clarifying that each map may be showing trends for a different time range (otherwise people might try to compare the maps to each other, which isn't the point of the comic). I don't think he's saying that the individual results in each map are from different time ranges. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 11:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah, if the results were from different time periods, you could pretty much manipulate them however you want. It would make it much less interesting. Not that statistician don't already manipulate data in any way possible...[[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 16:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)<br />
From what it looks like, these are year-long averages. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 12:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is an example for the Google Trends on the first example. [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=frostbite,heat%20stroke] It looks like he picked last 5 years for that one. There should be a table with links to all of them. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.59.142|162.158.59.142]] 17:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
For those that find the actual image to be mysteriously missing, that's because the image source URL is https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/a/ad/google_trends_maps.png , and some ad blockers will silently block it because it looks like a path to advertising images. So maybe turn off your adblocker on this site? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.170.64|172.69.170.64]] 22:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is it just me, or does the sexting graph look like the midwest is "giving it" to the southeast, with Arkansas and Tennessee playing the naughty bits? I wonder if Randall did this intentionally or if I'm just a perv. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.108|162.158.186.108]] 01:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)<br />
: I'm pretty sure the best answer to the above is the last line of https://xkcd.com/960/ ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.50.52|172.69.50.52]] 04:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)</div>172.69.50.52https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2126:_Google_Trends_Maps&diff=171444Talk:2126: Google Trends Maps2019-03-21T04:40:58Z<p>172.69.50.52: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
I'm not quite sure I understand the comic. And no, the irony of saying that on a wiki dedicated to explaining them is not lost on me. Do the maps show which word/phrase is more common in google in each state by comparing only the options to each other or where they actually the top searched words/phrases at some point in time?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 10:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Pretty sure they're all top searched words/phrases in some states at some point in the past. It's just that Randall has merged maps from different time periods. For example in the first map, "heat stroke" and "frostbite" are two real results, but the former is likely a result that appeared in summer, while the latter is likely one that appeared in winter. By merging the two maps you get a map that doesn't make sense, as it looks like they were the top searches in the same time period while in reality they weren't. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 11:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)<br />
::I think that Randall is just clarifying that each map may be showing trends for a different time range (otherwise people might try to compare the maps to each other, which isn't the point of the comic). I don't think he's saying that the individual results in each map are from different time ranges. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 11:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah, if the results were from different time periods, you could pretty much manipulate them however you want. It would make it much less interesting. Not that statistician don't already manipulate data in any way possible...[[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 16:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)<br />
From what it looks like, these are year-long averages. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 12:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Here is an example for the Google Trends on the first example. [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=frostbite,heat%20stroke] It looks like he picked last 5 years for that one. There should be a table with links to all of them. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.59.142|162.158.59.142]] 17:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
For those that find the actual image to be mysteriously missing, that's because the image source URL is https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/a/ad/google_trends_maps.png , and some ad blockers will silently block it because it looks like a path to advertising images. So maybe turn off your adblocker on this site? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.170.64|172.69.170.64]] 22:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is it just me, or does the sexting graph look like the midwest is "giving it" to the southeast, with Arkansas and Tennessee playing the naughty bits? I wonder if Randall did this intentionally or if I'm just a perv. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.108|162.158.186.108]] 01:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)<br />
: I'm pretty sure the correct answer to the above is the alt-text from https://xkcd.com/960/ :) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.50.52|172.69.50.52]] 04:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)</div>172.69.50.52https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2117:_Differentiation_and_Integration&diff=1707872117: Differentiation and Integration2019-03-08T17:04:01Z<p>172.69.50.52: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2117<br />
| date = February 27, 2019<br />
| title = Differentiation and Integration<br />
| image = differentiation_and_integration.png<br />
| titletext = "Symbolic integration" is when you theatrically go through the motions of finding integrals, but the actual result you get doesn't matter because it's purely symbolic.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
This comic illustrates the old saying [https://mathoverflow.net/q/66377 "Differentiation is mechanics, integration is art."] It does so by providing a {{w|flowchart}} purporting to show the process of differentiation, and another for integration.<br />
<br />
{{w|Derivative|Differentiation}} and {{w|Antiderivative|Integration}} are two major components of {{w|calculus}}. As many Calculus 2 students are painfully aware, integration is much more complicated than the differentiation it undoes.<br />
<br />
However, Randall dramatically overstates this point here. After the first step of integration, Randall assumes that any integration can not be solved so simply, and then dives into a step named "????", suggesting that it is unknowable how to proceed. The rest of the flowchart is (we can assume deliberately) even harder to follow, and does not reach a conclusion. This is in contrast to the simple, straightforward flowchart for differentiation. The fact that the arrows in the bottom of the integration part leads to nowhere indicates that "Phone calls to mathematicians", "Oh no" and "Burn the evidence" are not final steps in the difficult journey. The flowchart could be extended by Randall to God-know-where extents.<br />
<br />
It should be noted that Randall slightly undermines his point by providing four different methods, and an "etc", and a "No"-branch for attempting differentiation with no guidelines for selecting between them.<br />
<br />
===Differentiation===<br />
'''{{w|Chain rule}}'''<br />
<br />
For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}(f(g(x)))=f'(g(x))\cdot g'(x)</math>.<br />
<br />
'''{{w|Power Rule}}'''<br />
<br />
For any <math> f(x)=x^a </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=a\cdot x^{a-1} </math>.<br />
<br />
'''{{w|Quotient rule}}'''<br />
<br />
For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)}=\frac{f'(x)\cdot g(x)-f(x)\cdot g'(x)}{(g(x))^2}</math> if <math>g(x)\ne 0</math>.<br />
<br />
'''{{w|Product rule}}'''<br />
<br />
For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}(f(x)\cdot g(x))=f'(x)\cdot g(x)+f(x)\cdot g'(x)</math>.<br />
<br />
===Integration===<br />
'''{{w|Integration by parts}}'''<br />
<br />
The "product rule" run backwards. Since <math>(uv)' = uv' + u'v</math>, it follows that by integrating both sides you get <math> uv = \int u dv + \int v du</math>, which is more commonly written as <math>\int u dv = uv - \int v du</math>. By finding appropriate values for functions <math>u, v</math> such that your problem is in the form <math>\int u dv</math>, your problem ''may'' be simplified. The catch is, there exists no algorithm for determining what functions they might possibly be, so this approach quickly devolves into a guessing game - this has been the topic of an earlier comic, [[1201: Integration by Parts]].<br />
<br />
'''{{w|Integration by substitution|Substitution}}'''<br />
<br />
The "chain rule" run backwards. Since <math> d(f(u)) = (df(u))du</math>, it follows that <math>f(u) = \int df(u) du</math>. By finding appropriate values for functions <math>f, u</math> such that your problem is in the form <math>\int df(u) du</math> your problem ''may'' be simplified.<br />
<br />
'''{{w|Cauchy's integral formula|Cauchy's Formula}}'''<br />
<br />
Cauchy's Integral formula is a result in complex analysis that relates the value of a contour integral in the complex plane to properties of the singularities in the interior of the contour. It is often used to compute integrals on the real line by extending the path of the integral from the real line into the complex plane to apply the formula, then proving that the integral from the parts of the contour not on the real line has value zero. <br />
<br />
'''{{w|Partial_fraction_decomposition#Application_to_symbolic_integration|Partial Fractions}}'''<br />
<br />
Partial fractions is a technique for breaking up a function that comprises one polynomial divided by another into a sum of functions comprising constants over the factors of the original denominator, which can easily be integrated into logarithms.<br />
<br />
'''Install {{w|Mathematica}}'''<br />
<br />
Mathematica is a modern technical computing system spanning most areas. One of its features is to compute mathematical functions. This step in the flowchart is to install and use Mathematica to do the integration for you. Here is a description about the [https://reference.wolfram.com/language/tutorial/IntegralsThatCanAndCannotBeDone.html intricacies of integration and how Mathematica handles those]. (It would be quicker to try [https://www.wolframalpha.com Wolfram Alpha] instead of installing Mathematica, which uses the same backend for mathematical calculations.)<br />
<br />
'''{{w|Riemann integral|Riemann Integration}}'''<br />
<br />
The Riemann integral is a definition of definite integration. <math>\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} f(t_i) \left(x_{i+1}-x_i\right).</math> Elementary textbooks on calculus sometimes present finding a definite integral as a process of approximating an area by strips of equal width and then taking the limit as the strips become narrower. Riemann integration removes the requirement that the strips have equal width, and so is a more flexible definition. However there are still many functions for which the Riemann integral doesn't converge, and consideration of these functions leads to the {{w|Lebesgue integration|Lebesgue integral}}. Riemann integration is not a method of calculus appropriate for finding the anti-derivative of an elementary function.<br />
<br />
'''{{w|Stokes' Theorem}}'''<br />
<br />
Stokes' theorem is a statement about the integration of differential forms on manifolds. <math>\int_{\partial \Omega}\omega=\int_\Omega d\omega\,.</math> It is invoked in science and engineering during control volume analysis (that is, to track the rate of change of a quantity within a control volume, it suffices to track the fluxes in and out of the control volume boundary), but is rarely used directly (and even when it is used directly, the functions that are most frequently used in science and engineering are well-behaved, like sinusoids and polynomials). <br />
<br />
'''{{w|Risch Algorithm}}'''<br />
<br />
The Risch algorithm is a notoriously complex procedure that, given a certain class of symbolic integrand, either finds a symbolic integral or proves that no elementary integral exists. (Technically it is only a semi-algorithm, and cannot produce an answer unless it can determine if a certain symbolic expression is {{w|Constant problem|equal to 0}} or not.) Many computer algebra systems have chosen to implement only the simpler Risch-Norman algorithm, which does not come with the same guarantee. A series of extensions to the Risch algorithm extend the class of allowable functions to include (at least) the error function and the logarithmic integral. A human would have to be pretty desperate to attempt this (presumably) by hand.<br />
<br />
'''{{w|Bessel function}}'''<br />
<br />
Bessel functions are the solution to the differential equation <math> x^2 \frac{dy^2}{dx^2}+x \frac{dy}{dx}+(x^2-n^2)*y=0</math>, where n is the order of Bessel function. Though they do show up in some engineering, physics, and abstract mathematics, in lower levels of calculus they are often a sign that the integration was not set up properly before someone put them into a symbolic algebra solver.<br />
<br />
'''Phone calls to mathematicians'''<br />
<br />
This step would indicate that the flowchart user, desperate from failed attempts to solve the problem, contacts some more skilled mathematicians by phone, and presumably asks them for help. The connected steps of "Oh no" and "Burn the evidence" may suggest the possibility that this interaction might not play out very well and could even get the caller in trouble.<br />
Specialists and renowned experts being bothered - not to their amusement - by strangers, often at highly inconvenient times or locations, is a common comedic trope, also previously utilized by xkcd (for example in [[163: Donald Knuth]]).<br />
<br />
'''Oh no'''<br />
<br />
Oh no!<br />
<br />
'''Burn the evidence'''<br />
<br />
This phrase parodies a common trope in detective fiction, where characters burn notes, receipts, passports, etc. to maintain secrecy. This may refer to the burning of one's work to avoid the shame of being associated with such a badly failed attempt to solve the given integration problem. Alternatively, it could be an ironic hint to the fact that in order to find the integral, it may even be necessary to break the law or upset higher powers, so that the negative consequences of a persecution can only be avoided by destroying the evidence.<br />
<br />
'''{{w|Symbolic integration}}'''<br />
<br />
Symbolic algebra is the basic process of finding an antiderivative function (defined with symbols), as opposed to numerically integrating a function. The title text is a pun that defines the term not as integration that works with symbols, but rather as integration as a symbolic act, as if it were a component of a ritual. A symbolic act in a ritual is an act meant to evoke something else, such as burning a wooden figurine of a person to represent one’s hatred of that person. Alternatively, the reference could be seen as a joke that integration might as well be a symbol, like in a novel, because Randall can't get any meaningful results from his analysis.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
:[Two flow charts are shown.]<br />
<br />
:[The first flow chart has four steps in simple order, one with multiple recommendations.]<br />
:DIFFERENTIATION<br />
:Start<br />
:Try applying<br />
::Chain Rule<br />
::Power Rule<br />
::Quotient Rule<br />
::Product Rule<br />
::Etc.<br />
:Done?<br />
::No [Arrow returns to "Try applying" step.]<br />
::Yes<br />
:Done!<br />
<br />
[The second flow chart begins like the first, then descends into chaos.]<br />
:INTEGRATION<br />
:Start<br />
:Try applying<br />
::Integration by Parts<br />
::Substitution<br />
:Done?<br />
:Haha, Nope!<br />
<br />
:[Chaos, Roughly from left to right, top to bottom, direction arrows not included.]<br />
::Cauchy's Formula<br />
::????<br />
::???!?<br />
::???<br />
::???<br />
::?<br />
::Partial Fractions<br />
::??<br />
::?<br />
::Install Mathematica<br />
::?<br />
::Riemann Integration<br />
::Stokes' Theorem<br />
::???<br />
::?<br />
::Risch Algorithm<br />
::???<br />
::[Sad face.]<br />
::?????<br />
::???<br />
::What the heck is a Bessel Function??<br />
::Phone calls to mathematicians<br />
::Oh No<br />
::Burn the Evidence<br />
::[More arrows pointing out of the image to suggest more steps.]<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Analysis]]<br />
[[Category:Flowcharts]]</div>172.69.50.52https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1494:_Insurance&diff=167272Talk:1494: Insurance2018-12-22T19:20:41Z<p>172.69.50.52: Cigars</p>
<hr />
<div>Well...suck for you.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.57|108.162.215.57]] 05:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC) RobotGoggles<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Incomplete tag?'''<br />
I know it's pretty early, and the explanation is bound to be rewritten, but the current explanation is a little confusing, and makes a couple jumps that I wouldn't necessarily make. Maybe the incomplete tag shouldn't be removed yet? I'd do it, but I don't really know enough about actually editing the explanations to feel comfortable doing it yet.<br />
[[User:ARoseByAnyOtherName|ARoseByAnyOtherName]] ([[User talk:ARoseByAnyOtherName|talk]]) 08:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I mean, I had written an explanation I'd say was a bit clearer (if a bit more complicated), but some unregistered user removed most of it... Makes me a bit grumpy. The newly added ''Lifehacks vs. IT hacks'' section brings up most of the things that person removed, though, so this should be complete enough. [[User:Obskyr|Obskyr]] ([[User talk:Obskyr|talk]]) 09:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Well, for what it's worth, I liked your version better. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 10:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::Not only that. The new version was so bad I decided to revert to Obskyr's. [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1494%3A_Insurance&diff=85633&oldid=85624] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.201|108.162.221.201]] 13:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Any meaning to conveyer?<br />
<br />
The spelling error in the alt text seems like a simple typo.<br />
<br />
Lawyer? I assumed it was a salesman or HR guy. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 08:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Insurance agent. Not exactly a salesman; agents have multiple hats. You don't get fire insurance from HR.[[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 09:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::So you're saying the agents are TF2 players. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 04:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This is probably a reference to those youtube videos of ''life hacks'' of questionable legality. Eg signing up for one flight to take another[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.100|108.162.219.100]] 16:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I guess this might also relate to that (from my experience) programmers tend to like to break things (anything claimed to be "secure" seems to attract lots of people wanting to test out how secure) or find workarounds for things? [[User:Pinkishu|Pinkishu]] ([[User talk:Pinkishu|talk]]) 10:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Hacking<br />
<br />
Please read [https://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html On Hacking]. I think the term you're looking for is cracking, or at least black hat hacking. Hacking a system would mean getting a system to do something unique and/or interesting. Or interacting with the system in a way that wasn't predicted. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.191|108.162.238.191]] 10:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:You're right. But there is at least a second common usage for the word hack that is described by wikipedia as "an inelegant but effective solution to a computing problem". When the insurance guy speaks about "cool hacks", he's probably not refering to Stallman's definition. [[User:Nytux|Nytux]] ([[User talk:Nytux|talk]]) 09:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Hard hacks<br />
Things like lock-picking is often also seen as physical equivalents of hacking, not necessarily illegal but still something most people would look on with suspicion.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.98|108.162.254.98]] 10:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agree, this is excellent example on "hacking the computer": there is nothing illegal on lock-picking itself. Even if you use it on someone's else door without permission, it would not be crime unless you actually ENTER the door (or damage the lock). Locksmiths MUST know how to do it. But ... first thing you think about when hearing lock-picking is that thiefs do it. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Before coming down into the comments, and seeing the last set of comments, I felt it necessary to make an edit to highlight just such an issue regarding the confusion about 'hacking'. As a historical sideline, note also the term "cracksman" as used for those who illegally open safes (and others skilled with locks and barred entranceways, in a criminal manner), which predates all the above computer-era terminology. But I didn't want to add ''too'' much more to the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.181|141.101.98.181]] 17:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think part of the point of today's comic is to point that contracts are somewhat similar to a computer program (both have definitions and rules by which the system must abide), but lack the strict rigor of the latter. So, when programmers read a legal contract they immediately start searching for bugs or vulnerabilities or even syntax optimizations. {{unsigned ip|188.114.98.29}}<br />
<br />
;Why is it illegal to do things allowed by the contract?<br />
Why is it illegal if the insurance company agreed that the "fraudulent" maneuver was accepted, by signing the contract allowing it?<br />
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.172|199.27.128.172]] 23:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The contract doesn't have a section that says "and fraud is prohibited" because fraud is already prohibited by criminal law; thus, no need to spell it out. It turns out that contracts will have many terms added by implication, particularly commercial contracts.<br />
<br />
:If you buy a shiny new gun, the instruction manual probably doesn't say "Oh, and by the way, if you point this thing at someone and pull the trigger while it's loaded, you may be charged with a crime." You're supposed to know that this is true BEFORE you buy a gun. That's part of the joke... normal people know that looking for ways to get the insurance to pay out more than it should is insurance fraud. People who think like programmers think they've found a loophole they can exploit. {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.170}}<br />
<br />
::Still, it's fraud to deliberately lie to the insurance company to make more money. I still don't see how taking advantage of the insurance company's mistakes is fraud, especially when you're just following the contract. Do companies have special privileges and entitlements to profit? --[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.172|199.27.128.172]] 01:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Another problem with your analogy is that shooting someone with a gun is a crime against a person, not the gun seller, while fraud is a crime against the other party. --[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.172|199.27.128.172]] 01:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
; ...<br />
<br />
Uh, why doesn't it mention life hacks at all in the "lifehacks vs IT hacks" section? Especially since I remember some lifehacks actually advocate for plain fucking stealing, like e.g. one which suggested that if you need a free umbrella, go to a restaurant and say you lost a black umbrella. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.224|141.101.89.224]] 01:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
:I absolutely agree with this point. The comic appears to suggest that programmers apply the conditioning that comes from their jobs (that code exploits are cool, and that the system must be designed to prevent exploits) to life (where exploiting a system's vulnerabilities may look cool but is very probably illegal). The airport luggage registration and screening system allows anyone to walk out the door with any item of luggage, but it is quite simply theft to do so. Likewise, exploiting a loophole in a contract is generally acceptable in order to avoid work or liability, but when you do it to obtain material gain then it is quite simply fraud. It would appear that much of the explanation currently misses the point... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.50|108.162.229.50]] 13:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Checking the luggage<br />
<br />
Seems like someone already tried this.<br />
I flew to Saigon last week and they check your luggage against your lost&found tag, before you may leave.<br />
--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.156|108.162.222.156]] 15:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
: Correct. Most airports don't check the luggage tags, but I've been to some that do. Don't remember which. May have been South Asia too. [[User:Chrisahn|Chrisahn]] ([[User talk:Chrisahn|talk]]) 14:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I disagree that this is a sequel to ''UV'', it may relate, but as mentioned in that comment it's not even close to legal to burn a house then get fire insurance. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 19:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Also, isn't [[Hairy]] the insurance agent? Should the transcript be updated to name him? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 19:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;reminds me of an old joke<br />
I'm surprised that no one here has mentioned this joke, so I'll tell it (I think I read it in Reader's Digest back in my childhood): A farmer has just signed a fire insurance contract and as he hands the first premium payment to the salesman asks, "So how much will I get if the barn were to burn down tonight?" to which the salesman replies, "Oh, probably 10 to 20." [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.190|173.245.54.190]] 13:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Cigar Fire Insurance<br />
There is a story (apocryphal) about someone who insures a collection of cigars against fire and collects the money after smoking them.<br />
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cigarson/<br />
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.50.52|172.69.50.52]] 19:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)</div>172.69.50.52