https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=173.245.52.217&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T02:39:59ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1299:_I_Don%27t_Own_a_TV&diff=54321Talk:1299: I Don't Own a TV2013-12-04T21:36:40Z<p>173.245.52.217: </p>
<hr />
<div>Annual Data for households between 1958-1970<br />
http://www.tvhistory.tv/Annual_TV_Households_50-78.JPG<br />
<br />
Plotted next to a fitted logarithmic function<br />
http://imgur.com/aVWmQ9z<br />
<br />
The negative second derivative of this function<br />
http://imgur.com/xywpEJZ<br />
<br />
If someone can find more data for television ownership I'd love to see it :) {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.12}}<br />
<br />
Can someone explain why Randall believes smugness at not owning a television is decreasing? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.138|199.27.128.138]] 08:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Because as TVs become less relevant, people don't feel smug for not owning one. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.216|141.101.99.216]] 11:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Current explanation - logistic curve<br />
<br />
The current explanation is total bullshit. The thing with the negative second derivative is just saying, that the more embarrased people are, the more the change of the TV ownership rate will increase, which just means, more and more people will get themselves TVs.<br />
The other point of view is, the more smug you will look like for not owning a TV, the more the change of the TV ownership rate will decline, which means, that less and less people are buying TVs.<br />
<br />
It has nothing to do with a logistic curve. The function, which second derivative is depicted in this comic is totally irrelevant.<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.19|108.162.231.19]] 08:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I have the strong feeling he is talking about a sine wave, not a logistic function. It fits the curve in the comic as well as the condition of f"=-f. <br />
Also, it makes way more sense for the smugness to behave like this over time as for the first 30 years TV is culturally extremely significant and you therefore would want to own one in order to participate. But with declining quality of television and the emergence of the internet you might feel as if you were extremely progressive by not owning one anymore.<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.189|108.162.254.189]] 09:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Yes, it definitely could be a sine curve. (see: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=d%5E2%2Fdx%5E2%28sin%28x%29%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=d%5E2%2Fdx%5E2%28sin%28x%29%29]). If one would neglect the beginning of the function for simplicity, this could be a solution.<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.19|108.162.231.19]] 10:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
We bid a tearful farewell to our friend the line break. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.216|141.101.99.216]] 11:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sin%283*pi*x%2F100%2Bpi%2F2%29+from+1945+to+2014 [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 12:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I agree with the commenter who said that the current explanation is bullshit, but I think he has the cause and effect reversed. Randall is saying that you feel more smug about not owning a TV as a result of observing how quickly TV ownership is becoming more or less trendy. In the 1950's, TV's were catching on quickly and becoming more popular, so you would feel embarrassed for not owning one. Later, the trendiness would start to decline as more people owned one, and you would head towards being smug. In the 2000s, people are giving up TVs because the internet makes them unnecessary. As this happens more and more, there's no point in feeling smug because you're no longer bucking a trend at all. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] ([[User talk:Kazim|talk]]) 12:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In my view the title text joke is that smugness is defined as a function of TV ownership when in reality TV ownership is a function of smugness. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hold on, the logistic curve gives very reasonable graphs both for ownership of TVs and for the negative second derivative. TV ownership easily fits a logistic curve, as it starts at zero and has to approach some upper limit. The negative second derivative has a very similar shape to the graph in the comic. Here's Wolfram|Alpha for the negative second derivative of a generic logistic curve: <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-%28+d%2Fdx+d%2Fdx+%28100%2F%281%2Be%5E-%28.1x%29%29%29%29>. This would suggest that as time goes to infinity, people's feelings about TV ownership approach neutral; they do not oscillate like a sine function. This makes sense, because for the negative second derivative to be a sine function, TV ownership would have to be too, yet TV ownership is unlikely to be periodic. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.229|173.245.55.229]] 16:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I have two issues with this explanation: the first is that it's too long to comfortably read, and I don't think the comic content merits such a long explanation. The other is that it reads too complexly. The point of this wiki is to make xkcd accessible for everyone, but it talks about things like sine waves, oscillation and convergence, which not all readers are going to grok. --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 17:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If we're keeping the explanation surrounding the area of "People therefore discussed television programs frequently, as a major social activity.", it maybe ought to be pointed out that major social discussions about TV programmes dropped off as a result of the increase in the number of TV channels and thus (except for ''particularly'' notable ratings-grabbers) the question of "Did you see what was on TV last night?" increasingly needed further qualifying. (However, I'm not sure this is revelevant.) Oh, and I've a feeling I should be feeling smug, right now. Absolutely gorge myself on radio, though. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 21:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I do not see any evidence that this comic's title text refers in any way to a sine curve. If you consider a logistic function modeling TV ownership over time (which would look the similar to a logistic population growth model), you can take the function's second derivative, which vaguely resembles a sine curve, with the important difference that to the sides of the curve, the line becomes more level rather than repeating the curve. I would say the determining factors are the fact that the beginning of the graph is flat (as opposed to the curve just going to zero or showing the end of the previous curve), and the fact that he mentions the "negative second derivative of TV ownership rate," and the TV ownership rate would follow a model similar to a logistic population model, which is not a sine curve, though the second derivative of such a graph would, in fact, represent a sine curve. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.217|173.245.52.217]] 21:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)</div>173.245.52.217https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=154:_Beliefs&diff=52980154: Beliefs2013-11-18T07:21:48Z<p>173.245.52.217: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 154<br />
| date = September 8, 2006<br />
| title = Beliefs<br />
| image = beliefs.jpg<br />
| titletext = Scientists are also sexy, let's not forget that.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete}}<br />
This comic is a reference to {{w|Young Earth Creationism}}, which includes the belief that the earth has only existed for about 6,000 years. Young Earth Creationism is mainly based on {{w|Biblical literalism|literal interpretations of the Bible}}. The professor is originally not bothered by the fact that someone believes this, since the person believing it is a nut who can be easily forgotten about because they're denying obvious truths. Then she hears that the person in question is a {{w|United States Senate|US senator}}. The fact that someone with considerable influence (like a Senator) believes in Young Earth Creationism is unsettling because they're not someone powerless and on the fringe. They're someone who can spread they're false, zany beliefs, and perhaps even be taken seriously due to their authority.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Megan and a professor stand together, with another figure in the distance.]<br />
:Megan: Professor, that man claims the earth is 6,000 years old!<br />
:Professor: So? Just use your head and don't concern yourself overmuch with what other people think.<br />
<br />
:Megan: But he says the fossils in the mountains were put there in a flood!<br />
:Professor: Well, evidence suggests that they were not.<br />
:Megan: But he--<br />
<br />
:[A mountain landscape.]<br />
:Professor: A million people can call the mountains a fiction, yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them.<br />
<br />
:[Megan and professor again.]<br />
:Megan: But he believes the silliest things!<br />
:Professor: So?<br />
<br />
:Professor: The universe doesn't care what you <u>believe</u>. The wonderful thing about science is that it doesn't ask for your faith, it just asks for your eyes.<br />
<br />
:Megan: But he's a US Senator!<br />
:Professor: Ah, then yes, we do have a bit of a situation.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Religion]]<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>173.245.52.217