https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Jorgbrown&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T01:41:47ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1600:_MarketWatch&diff=104936Talk:1600: MarketWatch2015-11-12T04:46:17Z<p>Jorgbrown: Shanghai stocks, and the shape of Virginia</p>
<hr />
<div>I don't get it as much... Perhaps something to do with the apparent erratic behavior of a stock market chart? You'd expect a rising and falling line, but for it to completely trace out building patterns is odd.{{Citation needed}} It would need a straight line, wouldn't it? and isn't that impossible in graphs like this? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.5|108.162.216.5]] 13:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Couple of things in play with this one:<br />
* Comic #1600, so that's probably a reference to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. (address of the White House). True, the WH isn't mentioned, but it's flat and makes for an uninteresting skyline element. What is shown looks to be the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument, followed of course by the Capitol Building as referenced by the text.<br />
* Desire not to break the pattern is like in comic #276, where the pattern is so tempting that people wanted to continue with it, in spite of negative side effects.<br />
<br />
Just a couple of thoughts. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.57|173.245.54.57]] 13:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)<br />
:There is no such a thing as "probably a reference". A reference requires mentioning the referenced thing. A more appropriate word would be coincidence. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.17|108.162.221.17]] 13:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::He/she is guessing that it is a reference, and that is a good guess. "That's probably a reference" is fine to use in this situation. {{unsigned ip|108.162.241.132}}<br />
:::But it's not a reference, it's a coincidence. If it were a reference the White House could be seen in the skyline; it's just between the Washington Monument and the Capitol [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.17|108.162.221.17]] 13:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Coincidence is not at all appropriate when the intended meaning is that something was done purposefully. What the person is speaking of is an implicit reference, so "reference" was the right word choice. You are speaking of explicit references, which are merely one type of reference. [[User:GonzoI|GonzoI]] ([[User talk:GonzoI|talk]]) 15:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My view is that it is a play on how silly stock trader can be sometimes. There is a way of trading called technical analysis, where a trader will look for graphical "patterns" and "signals" in the stock charts and trade on that. This way of doing is notoriously looked down at by either truly quantitative investors that rely on actual stats/signal processing to place their bets or fundamental investor that will look for information in things like the balance sheet statement of a company to place their bets. So if you are such a technical analyst and you see such a pattern as DC Skyline appearing in the stock chart of a stock...well best of luck to make a trading decision based on that, mate. <br />
<br />
:With those who 'play the stock-market' seeking to gain an advantage, it at first seems impossible that an existing pattern (to some extent predictable) could continue, because at least some of those ''expecting'' the pattern will then trade on the assumption of that trend, thus changing the trend, even if (as stated) many others find it too compelling to rebel. Except that others will no doubt ''expect'' such a degree of self-interest, and place their own trades to take account of that, and yet others may try to predict what others will predict the first rebels predict everyone else is trying to do... theoretically ''ad infinitum'', and thus ''maybe'' sustain the original pattern (or something close enough... e.g. the Capital dome being a few points 'higher' in the graph than it ought to be, but still similar enough in shape and symmetry).<br />
:High-frequency microtrading algoritms have the same issue of recursion. Initially they exploit human errors and behaviours, but then an algorithms that can predict what these algorithms would predict can 'play the algorithm', and so on to an arbitrary level of recursion. Not that the sum total would be likely to be swayed towards an aesthetic graph, but how about a high-frequency trading algorithm whose sole effort (intentionally or otherwise) would be to place transaction requests to 'tweak' the market towards a given result? With enough capital (NPI!) behind it, it's theoretically possible, and if co-designed with an algorith that would rely upon generating its own profit from knowing (and yet not acting to disrupt) the 'planned trend'. I wouldn't like to suggest there'd be a net sum profit, across both(/all?) levels of algorithms employed... Greater minds than I (or at least ones more privilidged in position and resources) have doubtless tried this kind of thing, however... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.161|141.101.106.161]] 18:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Plus, Randall seems to be playing on the whole idea some pundits on TV gives people that "the market" is a conscious entity with the ability to go up and down. If this was the case, well this skyline pattern could emerge just like that. But as real price is defined by market participants behavior, there is no way for it to be so smooth (unless this is a fairly illiquid stocks that trade rarely and jumps violently when it does.)<br />
Finally, the comments play on the same idea that some people will see a "spirit" in the market, while it's just participant pushing the price around (taking actual economic factors into account in their decisions.).<br />
<br />
And stock price can definitely jump if a major event happen or flatline if nobody trades it so the Capitol is really the only pattern that feels truly impossible here :p (first time I post here, so apologies if I did not respect a rule of the wiki) [[User:Legaulois|Legaulois]] ([[User talk:Legaulois|talk]]) 14:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In my mind, there has recently been an increase in tools allowing for live events to be controlled by massive numbers of internet users in order to attempt to bang out patterns. Twitch Plays Pokemon comes to mind. Perhaps this comic has something to do with this new trend: a stock market version of the Twitch Plays phenomenon, with investors trying to bang out a pattern together by pressing the right buttons (buying stocks and dumping them) in the right order. Is that worth mentioning? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.64|173.245.55.64]] 15:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)dmar198<br />
<br />
I saw this as a reference to the logos TV news reports use for their segments. Most market news segment logos have some representation of a generic or stylized line meant to imply a market index, and I know I have seen at least one that had their stylized line draw pictures in the middle similar to this. [[User:GonzoI|GonzoI]] ([[User talk:GonzoI|talk]]) 15:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If the stock market crashes after hours and there's no one to see it, does it still make a sound? [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 16:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think this comic has more in common with the recent 1596: Launch Status Check. The traders become obsessed or distracted with driving the stock market index to continue drawing the Washington skyline like an etch-a-sketch instead of their fundamental purpose of making a profit. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.8|108.162.216.8]] 18:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Pat<br />
<br />
This is almost certainly based upon whatever article inspired this popular codegolf.stackexchange.com question: https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/33059/draw-with-your-cpu . Apparently some students drew the silhouette of their school on their country's outbound IPv6 traffic graph. Unfortunately, Google has failed me hard and I have no idea what the original article is. <br />
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.129.53|199.27.129.53]] 05:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm no expert on xkcd characters, but why is this one labelled as Ponytail when she doesn't have a ponytail? [[User:Atreides|Atreides]] ([[User talk:Atreides|talk]]) 05:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I believe this stems from a surprising correlation between the recent movement of the Shanghai stock exchange, and a map of Virginia, see https://twitter.com/dlin71/status/636397462190718976 [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 04:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)</div>Jorgbrownhttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1522:_Astronomy&diff=93110Talk:1522: Astronomy2015-05-11T20:11:32Z<p>Jorgbrown: Add note about Astrophotography</p>
<hr />
<div>For a telescope you can be far away, for a magnifying glass or microscope you need a ladder to be nearer to the stars. Microscopes are for biology, telescopes for astronomy.<br />
They have got a similar purpose, but look and are applied differently. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.122|108.162.254.122]] 07:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Seemed like another example of Beret guy contradicting how things work, like how he blows into the power cord and inflated a computer, or how he plugged a cord into a power outlet labeled "COFFEE" and coffee came out. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.168|108.162.238.168]] 07:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Yes obviously this approach works for Berret Guy because this is what he does. Explanation lacks this fact. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Soup, wasn't it? But yes, for some reason he can actually use a stepladder to get a closer look (and a better one, thanks t the magnifying glass) on the "curtain of the night", which for him ''is'' actually within reach. As if it is just like a stage back-cloth with some form of star-effect (holes and backlight or sewn-in LEDs) as far as he is concerned.<br />
:But what I was actually coming here to say was regarding Astrobiology being a portmanteu (as currently in the explanation). I'm not sure I'd call it that. It's really a perfectly normal compound description of a study area, like many others in science, used to clarify what ''subset'' of biology it is (e.g. paleobiology being the biology of historic organisms, more or less, coming roughly from the greek for "old life study"). Although it does rather hint at it's "the biology of stars themselves", as opposed to the perhaps more accurate exobiology ("outside life study") when it comes to off-Earth life not in (or being) actual stars; or xenobiology ("strange life study"), although that does tend to include oddments of obscure Earth biology and artificial life as well and really doesn't mean the study of extra-terrestrial organisms... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.186|141.101.98.186]] 08:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Astrobiology is a perfectly normal word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.151|173.245.54.151]] 08:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Moreover, the wording (which I deleted) implied that Randall invented the word, or that the word is very new: "the word "astrobiology" is the joining of the prefix astro- and biology and refers to ...". Now it says "{{w|Astrobiology}} is ...". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.144|108.162.238.144]] 13:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A minor comment on the incorrect use of the word ''portmanteau'' in the explanation so far: it is defined as [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/portmanteau a word formed by merging the sounds and meanings of two different words], [[wikipedia:portmanteau]]; however, [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astro- astro-] is a combining form of the the greek word ''aster'' meaning ''star'', used to form compound words, such as ''astro-bio-logy'' (aster-bios-logos: star-life-word). See [[1485]] for an example of the correct use of ''portmanteau''. (someone beat me to it while i was editing this ;-))<br />
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.161|141.101.104.161]] 08:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Thank you. --{{User:17jiangz1/signature|09:14, 08 May 2015}}<br />
<br />
You could view the comic as a theatrical production, Megan's telescope as a prop, and Beret guy is just inspecting the backdrop. The ladder is for comic and aesthetic effect {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.53}}<br />
<br />
Aaaaa. Astronomers do not touch telescopes while observing. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.185|173.245.52.185]] 09:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Cameron<br />
<br />
My first association was the Hubble Space Telescope: Even though there are huge telescopes on earth, most (all?) of them are inferior to the relatively small telescope a few km above earth's surface. Beret Guy could have tried to achive the same effect by climbing a ladder. [[User:Epaminaidos|Epaminaidos]] ([[User talk:Epaminaidos|talk]]) 09:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm with 141.101.99.53 - I'm not sure that those white dots are stars. My first thought was that they were flecks of dirt or something on the wall or on the inside of a dome. What Megan is doing there with that huge telescope I don't know, but a telescope of that size is not usually used outdoors where stars can be seen down to the horizon. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 10:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That seems to be the reason why the Good Telescopes are always on mountains – nearer to the stars and no ladder needed ;-). --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 11:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I believe the good telescopes are high so they get less atmospheric disturbances. The height of a mountain will still be insignificant compared to distances measured in light years.--The man they call Jayne[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.183|108.162.237.183]] 11:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I actually thought that maybe physics just work differently for him so he was actually standing among the stars (like someone might stand among lightning bugs) and actually examining them. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.193}}<br />
<br />
I don't think the titletext has anything to do with shaking about, I think it's a joke about people being nervious about breaking the microscope. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 15:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My take is Beret Guy is using "cartoon physics" or in this case "comic physics". The first few panels we assume the stars are in the distance. Since we are looking at a 2D representation (drawing), we can't be sure. But our past experiences with the night sky and with pictures or situations such as this guides our perception. However, because of Beret Guy's weird take on everything, he perceives the stars as they actually ARE in the comic: just white dots on a black background, kind of like a poor man's planetarium. He wants to get a closer look at some that are higher up on the wall/background so climbs up a ladder and uses his magnifying glass. It's a little like the cartoon where the coyote paints a tunnel on a rock, thinking the roadrunner will run into it. Instead, the roadrunner just goes through the painted tunnel like it was real. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.124|108.162.219.124]] 19:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Pat<br />
<br />
It's also possible that Megan ''and'' her telescope are part of a backdrop of some sort - I don't think she moves at all in the comic. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.182|173.245.54.182]] 21:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
: She does move; look closely at her hair. One could say she is looking "sidelong" at Beret Guy, which is a gesture that communicates something. [[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 11:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Woah, that's really a '''lot''' of discussion over this tiny comic. [[User:Nk22|Nk22]] ([[User talk:Nk22|talk]]) 19:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'd love to see a good explanation of the optics at play and the differences between telescopes and magnifying lenses. E.g. from {{w|Focal length}}: ''In most photography and all telescopy, where the subject is essentially infinitely far away, longer focal length (lower optical power) leads to higher magnification and a narrower angle of view; conversely, shorter focal length or higher optical power is associated with a wider angle of view. On the other hand, in applications such as microscopy in which magnification is achieved by bringing the object close to the lens, a shorter focal length (higher optical power) leads to higher magnification because the subject can be brought closer to the center of projection.'' And the reference to "resolving distance" seems like a misinterpretation. For a good time, watch [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Identifiable-Images-of-Bystanders-Extracted-from-Corneal-Reflections-pone.0083325.s001.ogv Stepwise magnification by 6% per frame into a 39 megapixel image. In the final frame, at about 170x, an image of a bystander is seen reflected in the man's cornea.] [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 15:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:If you (or anyone else) know enough about this, it would be great if you would correct the misinterpretation and maybe add some details. The above could be linked to via wiki. Or it could be a trivia section, if it is too much in the main explanation. I do not know enough about this to make a good explanation. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[Media:The Astonomer.jpg|Statue in Canberra, Australia of an astronomer with magnifying glass]] {{unsigned|Multimotyl}}<br />
<br />
You're all forgotten how early astronomy was done. At the turn of the century, photographs were taken through the telescope, developed, and only later analyzed closely - ''with a magnifying glass'' - as part of [http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~rjp0i/museum/photography.html Astrophotography]! This allowed for careful tracking and analysis of the many stars that might be visible from just one frame. (It also allowed observation of the same area of the sky at different days, or even at different years, to see which stars were moving relative to others.) For more, look into [http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-women-who-mapped-the-universe-and-still-couldnt-get-any-respect-9287444/?no-ist The Women Who Mapped the Universe] [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 20:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)</div>Jorgbrownhttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1522:_Astronomy&diff=93107Talk:1522: Astronomy2015-05-11T20:08:53Z<p>Jorgbrown: Point out that in 1900, observation of stars using magnifying glasses was common.</p>
<hr />
<div>For a telescope you can be far away, for a magnifying glass or microscope you need a ladder to be nearer to the stars. Microscopes are for biology, telescopes for astronomy.<br />
They have got a similar purpose, but look and are applied differently. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.122|108.162.254.122]] 07:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Seemed like another example of Beret guy contradicting how things work, like how he blows into the power cord and inflated a computer, or how he plugged a cord into a power outlet labeled "COFFEE" and coffee came out. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.168|108.162.238.168]] 07:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Yes obviously this approach works for Berret Guy because this is what he does. Explanation lacks this fact. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Soup, wasn't it? But yes, for some reason he can actually use a stepladder to get a closer look (and a better one, thanks t the magnifying glass) on the "curtain of the night", which for him ''is'' actually within reach. As if it is just like a stage back-cloth with some form of star-effect (holes and backlight or sewn-in LEDs) as far as he is concerned.<br />
:But what I was actually coming here to say was regarding Astrobiology being a portmanteu (as currently in the explanation). I'm not sure I'd call it that. It's really a perfectly normal compound description of a study area, like many others in science, used to clarify what ''subset'' of biology it is (e.g. paleobiology being the biology of historic organisms, more or less, coming roughly from the greek for "old life study"). Although it does rather hint at it's "the biology of stars themselves", as opposed to the perhaps more accurate exobiology ("outside life study") when it comes to off-Earth life not in (or being) actual stars; or xenobiology ("strange life study"), although that does tend to include oddments of obscure Earth biology and artificial life as well and really doesn't mean the study of extra-terrestrial organisms... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.186|141.101.98.186]] 08:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Astrobiology is a perfectly normal word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.151|173.245.54.151]] 08:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
::: Moreover, the wording (which I deleted) implied that Randall invented the word, or that the word is very new: "the word "astrobiology" is the joining of the prefix astro- and biology and refers to ...". Now it says "{{w|Astrobiology}} is ...". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.144|108.162.238.144]] 13:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A minor comment on the incorrect use of the word ''portmanteau'' in the explanation so far: it is defined as [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/portmanteau a word formed by merging the sounds and meanings of two different words], [[wikipedia:portmanteau]]; however, [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astro- astro-] is a combining form of the the greek word ''aster'' meaning ''star'', used to form compound words, such as ''astro-bio-logy'' (aster-bios-logos: star-life-word). See [[1485]] for an example of the correct use of ''portmanteau''. (someone beat me to it while i was editing this ;-))<br />
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.161|141.101.104.161]] 08:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Thank you. --{{User:17jiangz1/signature|09:14, 08 May 2015}}<br />
<br />
You could view the comic as a theatrical production, Megan's telescope as a prop, and Beret guy is just inspecting the backdrop. The ladder is for comic and aesthetic effect {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.53}}<br />
<br />
Aaaaa. Astronomers do not touch telescopes while observing. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.185|173.245.52.185]] 09:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Cameron<br />
<br />
My first association was the Hubble Space Telescope: Even though there are huge telescopes on earth, most (all?) of them are inferior to the relatively small telescope a few km above earth's surface. Beret Guy could have tried to achive the same effect by climbing a ladder. [[User:Epaminaidos|Epaminaidos]] ([[User talk:Epaminaidos|talk]]) 09:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm with 141.101.99.53 - I'm not sure that those white dots are stars. My first thought was that they were flecks of dirt or something on the wall or on the inside of a dome. What Megan is doing there with that huge telescope I don't know, but a telescope of that size is not usually used outdoors where stars can be seen down to the horizon. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 10:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That seems to be the reason why the Good Telescopes are always on mountains – nearer to the stars and no ladder needed ;-). --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 11:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I believe the good telescopes are high so they get less atmospheric disturbances. The height of a mountain will still be insignificant compared to distances measured in light years.--The man they call Jayne[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.183|108.162.237.183]] 11:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I actually thought that maybe physics just work differently for him so he was actually standing among the stars (like someone might stand among lightning bugs) and actually examining them. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.193}}<br />
<br />
I don't think the titletext has anything to do with shaking about, I think it's a joke about people being nervious about breaking the microscope. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 15:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My take is Beret Guy is using "cartoon physics" or in this case "comic physics". The first few panels we assume the stars are in the distance. Since we are looking at a 2D representation (drawing), we can't be sure. But our past experiences with the night sky and with pictures or situations such as this guides our perception. However, because of Beret Guy's weird take on everything, he perceives the stars as they actually ARE in the comic: just white dots on a black background, kind of like a poor man's planetarium. He wants to get a closer look at some that are higher up on the wall/background so climbs up a ladder and uses his magnifying glass. It's a little like the cartoon where the coyote paints a tunnel on a rock, thinking the roadrunner will run into it. Instead, the roadrunner just goes through the painted tunnel like it was real. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.124|108.162.219.124]] 19:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Pat<br />
<br />
It's also possible that Megan ''and'' her telescope are part of a backdrop of some sort - I don't think she moves at all in the comic. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.182|173.245.54.182]] 21:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
: She does move; look closely at her hair. One could say she is looking "sidelong" at Beret Guy, which is a gesture that communicates something. [[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 11:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Woah, that's really a '''lot''' of discussion over this tiny comic. [[User:Nk22|Nk22]] ([[User talk:Nk22|talk]]) 19:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'd love to see a good explanation of the optics at play and the differences between telescopes and magnifying lenses. E.g. from {{w|Focal length}}: ''In most photography and all telescopy, where the subject is essentially infinitely far away, longer focal length (lower optical power) leads to higher magnification and a narrower angle of view; conversely, shorter focal length or higher optical power is associated with a wider angle of view. On the other hand, in applications such as microscopy in which magnification is achieved by bringing the object close to the lens, a shorter focal length (higher optical power) leads to higher magnification because the subject can be brought closer to the center of projection.'' And the reference to "resolving distance" seems like a misinterpretation. For a good time, watch [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Identifiable-Images-of-Bystanders-Extracted-from-Corneal-Reflections-pone.0083325.s001.ogv Stepwise magnification by 6% per frame into a 39 megapixel image. In the final frame, at about 170x, an image of a bystander is seen reflected in the man's cornea.] [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 15:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
:If you (or anyone else) know enough about this, it would be great if you would correct the misinterpretation and maybe add some details. The above could be linked to via wiki. Or it could be a trivia section, if it is too much in the main explanation. I do not know enough about this to make a good explanation. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[Media:The Astonomer.jpg|Statue in Canberra, Australia of an astronomer with magnifying glass]] {{unsigned|Multimotyl}}<br />
<br />
You're all forgotten how early astronomy was done. At the turn of the century, photographs were taken through the telescope, developed, and only later analyzed closely - WITH A MAGNIFYING glass! This allowed for careful tracking and analysis of the many stars that might be visible from just one frame. (It also allowed observation of the same area of the sky at different days, or even at different years, to see which stars were moving relative to others.) For more, look into [http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-women-who-mapped-the-universe-and-still-couldnt-get-any-respect-9287444/?no-ist The Women Who Mapped the Universe] [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 20:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)</div>Jorgbrownhttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1484:_Apollo_Speeches&diff=90097Talk:1484: Apollo Speeches2015-04-18T02:27:36Z<p>Jorgbrown: Add note about a famous scrap sale - Eiffel Tower</p>
<hr />
<div>[http://watergate.info/1969/07/20/an-undelivered-nixon-speech.html Speech] for reference[[User:Blawho|Blawho]] ([[User talk:Blawho|talk]]) 06:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Any chance the scenario with extra astronauts coming back is a reference to Scott Card's Xenocide, in the book they find a way for FTL travel but some odd things happen on the first voyage including extra people coming back ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenocide#Outside click if you're not afraid of spoilers])? {{unsigned ip|188.114.98.29}}<br />
<br />
The scenario that the spacecraft was sold for scrap might be a reference to the apolo having a fire during a training and trapping the asyronauts inside. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.127}}<br />
<br />
Probably it could also be a reference to Tarkowski's movie "Solaris"? {{unsigned ip|141.101.92.93}}<br />
<br />
:: It's also similar to the premise of the comic ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chimpanzee_Complex The Chimpanzee Complex]''. Probably just a coincidence, though. – [[User:PhantomLimbic|PhantomLimbic]] ([[User talk:PhantomLimbic|talk]]) 17:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Anyone remember the Saturday Night Live skit with Dana Carvey as Tom Brokaw recording contingency broadcasts reporting on Gerald Ford's death from more and more unlikely circumstances (including one where Brokaw was told to add, "and also, I'm gay", because "If that happens, you don't want another reporter to get the scoop!") [[User:Mwburden|mwburden]] ([[User talk:Mwburden|talk]]) 17:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"there is some corner of another world that is forever mankind" has to be a reference to the Rupert Brooke poem ''The Soldier'', which Safire no doubt knew. It begins "If I should die, think only this of me:/That there's some corner of a foreign field/That is forever England." {{unsigned ip|108.162.246.219}}<br />
:Maybe, but that would not be a reference in the context of the comic, since the first two pages are from the actual speech. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 23:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Exactly, it's a reference that Safire was making in writing the speech.[[User:Silverpie|Silverpie]] ([[User talk:Silverpie|talk]]) 18:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
You know, technically Apollo 11 probably had enough delta-v to make it into Mars orbit - the service module alone had around 2.8 km/s - although I don't know if there was a point in the actual mission where you could have made this work. Nobody would have survived the trip, of course. [[User:Ijkcomputer|Ijkcomputer]] ([[User talk:Ijkcomputer|talk]]) 15:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
:According to [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Delta-Vs_for_inner_Solar_System.svg/500px-Delta-Vs_for_inner_Solar_System.svg.png this chart] they could have maybe gotten a Mars intercept, but using simple Hohmann transfers, there is no way the Apollo spacecraft would have been able to make Mars orbit. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.243.249|198.41.243.249]] 18:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So, the contigency speech for the capsule killing the President implies that the astronauts survived - would this be even remotely possible? I'm not sure what order of magnitude of velocity or momentum the capsule would have on impact, but I would think water would be a softer landing than a ship(?), and impact with the ship would not be accounted for... Wouldn't it damage the contents of the capsule (kill the astronauts), if not tear the whole thing apart? -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 14:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
:I think the astronauts would probably actually survive this. Battered and bruised, certainly, possibly even with a few broken bones. But they would be alive. Descent velocity (from what I could figure out via Google) would be roughly 20 km/h to 25 km/h, and an impact at that speed (shown by a very large number of car crashes) is definitely survivable. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.243.249|198.41.243.249]] 18:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
As a side comment, "an unholy zeal for recycling programs" is probably the best phrase I've ever read. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.117|108.162.221.117]] 13:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There was an incomplete tag on this comment stating that "more in depth discussion is needed". Without a specific point at which the discussion is incomplete, this struck me as too vague and not really solvable (or clear what is even missing). I removed the tag. If someone wants to put it back, please go ahead, although I'd request that a more specific reason and/or description of what part of the explanation is lacking be given. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 13:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Regarding being sold for scrap, note that the Eiffel Tower was sold for scrap, not once but twice! ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Lustig])</div>Jorgbrownhttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1430:_Proteins&diff=85047Talk:1430: Proteins2015-02-24T20:59:13Z<p>Jorgbrown: Add TED talk Robert Lang: The math and magic of origami</p>
<hr />
<div>'''If this comic has motivated anyone to join in with the Folding@Home project, you can get started [http://folding.stanford.edu/ here].''' --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I've been folding for about a year now. Before that it was the SETI@Home project - but I decided to switch to something that could have more direct and beneficial results. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Is there an xkcd team on any of the distributed computing projects? Or does someone want to put one together? [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 22:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I would like to join a team [[User:RecentlyChanged|RecentlyChanged]] ([[User talk:RecentlyChanged|talk]])<br />
<br />
This comic has some similarities to [[1425: Tasks]]. It can be difficult for the public (or experts for that matter) to grasp the complexity of a task for a computer. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Surely if you were folding yourself a crane out of paper then you would need to fold yourself a pair of scissors in order to be able to make cuts. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.49|141.101.99.49]] 10:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Surely the "pull the tail" is referring to the flapping bird origami, which is similar to the crane but lacks one set of folds that make the figure narrower.{{unsigned ip|108.162.219.116}}<br />
<br />
Thanks for adding that "your actually donating your electricity" part - I had not considered it to that extent. I realized that the program is using more CPU/GPU "loading" while the screen saver is active, but for some reason I didn't translate that into more money out via my electricity bill. :) [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
No mention yet of the fact that Megan (and Randall) thinks this is the hardest problem! I have added some where it only aims at other science questions. But she did not say anything about science. Solving all human crises like overpopulation, climate, pollution, hunger, war and death could also be seen as either several or just one (unified) problem. She would then still think her problem harder... Should that be added as well in some form? I will leave that for others to decide. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think it is clear that Megan means computational problems - unifying gravity or solving human crises have not been reduced to computational terms - so the comparison is not appropriate and the comment in the explaination is unwarranted. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.157}}<br />
<br />
The Title Text made me think of Rembrandt's painting The Anatomy Lesson, where the lecturer was pulling a tendon in a cadaver's forearm, making a finger move. It might make an appropriate metaphor: Today's scientists are taking baby steps in learning the "anatomy" of proteins through trial and error, much like the scholars of the past deciphering the basics of the human anatomy. [[User:Aiw|Aiw]] ([[User talk:Aiw|talk]]) 21:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the last few paragraphs about the simulation program and cpu cycles are unnecessary. Perhaps create a trivia section? [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjaminikuta]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 04:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I agree, they don't really contribute anything to the explanation, but are somewhat related. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 07:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I agree, too. Perhaps move them to comments section. Anyway, there's a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_with_a_purpose&redirect=no Game with a purpose] on a similar topic, RNA folding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EteRNA EteRNA]. It's a little strange to play because the underlying reality is unusual, but interesting and somehow trickily entertaining. --[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 11:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Serious TED talk "protein folding problem: a major conundrum of science": http://youtu.be/zm-3kovWpNQ [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 20:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Serious TED talk about advanced math making detailed Origami figurines by doing nothing but folding => http://youtu.be/NYKcOFQCeno [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 20:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)</div>Jorgbrownhttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1430:_Proteins&diff=85046Talk:1430: Proteins2015-02-24T20:52:21Z<p>Jorgbrown: Add link to TED video about protein folding</p>
<hr />
<div>'''If this comic has motivated anyone to join in with the Folding@Home project, you can get started [http://folding.stanford.edu/ here].''' --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I've been folding for about a year now. Before that it was the SETI@Home project - but I decided to switch to something that could have more direct and beneficial results. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Is there an xkcd team on any of the distributed computing projects? Or does someone want to put one together? [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 22:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::I would like to join a team [[User:RecentlyChanged|RecentlyChanged]] ([[User talk:RecentlyChanged|talk]])<br />
<br />
This comic has some similarities to [[1425: Tasks]]. It can be difficult for the public (or experts for that matter) to grasp the complexity of a task for a computer. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Surely if you were folding yourself a crane out of paper then you would need to fold yourself a pair of scissors in order to be able to make cuts. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.49|141.101.99.49]] 10:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Surely the "pull the tail" is referring to the flapping bird origami, which is similar to the crane but lacks one set of folds that make the figure narrower.{{unsigned ip|108.162.219.116}}<br />
<br />
Thanks for adding that "your actually donating your electricity" part - I had not considered it to that extent. I realized that the program is using more CPU/GPU "loading" while the screen saver is active, but for some reason I didn't translate that into more money out via my electricity bill. :) [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
No mention yet of the fact that Megan (and Randall) thinks this is the hardest problem! I have added some where it only aims at other science questions. But she did not say anything about science. Solving all human crises like overpopulation, climate, pollution, hunger, war and death could also be seen as either several or just one (unified) problem. She would then still think her problem harder... Should that be added as well in some form? I will leave that for others to decide. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think it is clear that Megan means computational problems - unifying gravity or solving human crises have not been reduced to computational terms - so the comparison is not appropriate and the comment in the explaination is unwarranted. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.157}}<br />
<br />
The Title Text made me think of Rembrandt's painting The Anatomy Lesson, where the lecturer was pulling a tendon in a cadaver's forearm, making a finger move. It might make an appropriate metaphor: Today's scientists are taking baby steps in learning the "anatomy" of proteins through trial and error, much like the scholars of the past deciphering the basics of the human anatomy. [[User:Aiw|Aiw]] ([[User talk:Aiw|talk]]) 21:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the last few paragraphs about the simulation program and cpu cycles are unnecessary. Perhaps create a trivia section? [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjaminikuta]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 04:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I agree, they don't really contribute anything to the explanation, but are somewhat related. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 07:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I agree, too. Perhaps move them to comments section. Anyway, there's a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_with_a_purpose&redirect=no Game with a purpose] on a similar topic, RNA folding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EteRNA EteRNA]. It's a little strange to play because the underlying reality is unusual, but interesting and somehow trickily entertaining. --[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 11:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Serious TED talk "protein folding problem: a major conundrum of science": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm-3kovWpNQ [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 20:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)</div>Jorgbrownhttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:138:_Pointers&diff=84097Talk:138: Pointers2015-02-04T19:49:49Z<p>Jorgbrown: Add correct ASCIIfication</p>
<hr />
<div>[[User:Rikthoff|Rikthoff]] ([[User talk:Rikthoff|talk]]) The issue date is definitely off. Can anyone fix this?<br />
: --done (yes, anyone can fix this.) [[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 18:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
Wait until he finds out they're codes for that old saving system. 21:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Or perhaps the Black Hat _is_ answering the question but in an obscure way. The addresses might be pointing to the locations where the game keeps its important information (such as the score count or the level), so it can be cheated by changing the data at these locations. <br />
<br />
The problem with 0x-1 is not that it's missing digits, it's that the memory in the computer is represented as a closed loop. So if you try to go back to the cell "before the first cell", you will really access the last cell, 0x-1 really equals to 0xFFFFFFFF in the 32-bit address space. Evidently, Cueball had found a way around this only it didn't quite work out. (People deeply interested in the workings of the pointers should also read about the memory protection modes and alignment requirements, both of which might interfere with reading from the address 0xFFFFFFFF.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.5|108.162.246.5]] 00:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Cueball could be playing a card game (e.g. Solitaire), and Black Hat could be telling him to play the Ace. In a rather obscure way, though. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.225|141.101.81.225]] 17:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Hidden message?<br />
The three pointers spell, in ASCII:<br />
:(!:<br />
c99,<br />
Ich.<br />
Does this make any sense? The last line looks like German. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.97|108.162.254.97]] 07:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The last one is German. It means "I". {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.88}}<br />
<br />
No, you got the ASCII wrong. 73 is "s", not "I":<br />
:(!:<br />
c99,<br />
sch.<br />
<br />
[[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 19:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)</div>Jorgbrownhttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1377:_Fish&diff=83690Talk:1377: Fish2015-01-28T23:33:34Z<p>Jorgbrown: Jaws theme music is missing</p>
<hr />
<div>I took it to mean that we are the camouflaged fish and the extraterrestrials are the shark. We have been naturally selected to be hard to find through some means, probably by distance from a predator life form or just being tiny, and have thus not encountered any of them. -- [[User:Irino|Irino]] ([[User talk:Irino|talk]]) 06:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So, Fermi's paradox is a good defense for why you caught no fish, even though "there's plenty of fish in the sea." [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 09:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Not the Fermi paradox itself, that just questions why we could not find an evidence of extraterrestrial life out there, but this possible explanation of it. There are also other possible explanations, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Explaining_the_paradox_hypothetically see Wikipedia] for them. [[User:Sten|'''S<small>TEN</small>''']] <small>([[User talk:Sten|talk]])</small> 15:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
:No, but it could explain why I can't find a girlfriend...<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.72|108.162.216.72]] 22:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: Maybe you just are actually sexually oriented towards guys and don't consciously know it. Wait, is that a possible new explanation for the paradox itself? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 04:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The most probable predator to civilizations is another civilization. There may be civilization out there which is so scary everyone is quiet so they don't find him. Wait ... WE may be that civilization. Half of civilization in our galaxy fears the battleships from our sci-fi shows because they thinks they are real and the other half fears that civilization with that kind of shows is going to build real battleships soon.<br />
Ok, seriously, I already commented elsewhere ... we don't have anything so valuable it would be worth the resources needed for sending attack fleet here. We would need to REALLY piss someone off to be attacked. At least ... physically. Hey, those telescopes searching for signals from other civilization ... how good antivirus protection they have? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We don't have anything valuable so long as another civilization doesn't need and earth sized supply of calcium, potassium, sodium, nickle, and iron.--[[User:Bmmarti3|Bmmarti3]] ([[User talk:Bmmarti3|talk]]) 12:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::We do have pet ferrets. They are cute, It is unlikely that there is another source of pet ferrets in the galaxy. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.77|108.162.219.77]] 13:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::They can get all of this closer. In fact, even if they actually arrive in our solar system, mining the asteroid belt would require less resources that bothering with Earth. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I've always found this to be terrible logic. In addition to sci-fi, we also broadcast news and documentaries. In addition to fictional triumphs, we also have real-life failures. We've broadcast that funding to NASA has been cut, and how he haven't been farther than the moon in what, 50 years? We have Mythbusters which is constantly debunking stupid stuff that humans believe, and also showing off the limits of our technology in a practical manner. We broadcast war, so they would be able to see just how deadly we actually are. Worst of all, we broadcast Fox News. I don't see aliens fearing us (if they're technologically advanced enough to spy on us without us seeing them), I see them wondering just what the Hell is going on here. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 18:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
::This all assumes that they didn't go through their own cultural phases similar to our own. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 18:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Maybe they do know about us, but they want us (as a species) to first grow out of our weird adolescent years and crazy ideas before they interact with us. You don't go around inviting random rebellious teenagers to your house for no reason, do you? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.225|103.22.201.225]] 06:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::They won't have complete annotated list. They will have pieces. They will have hard time understanding our language - or the method we encoded the images with. They don't need to have more advanced technology than we have to spy on us (well ... maybe little). The task of UNDERSTANDING what they received would be the hard one. With the percentage of broadcast occupied with real and fictional wars, it IS possible that only things they decode will make them conclude contacting us might be dangerous. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I think that while they would know we are weak, they could fear us because we might someday develop enough technology to become a threat to them. That a civilization might be so paranoid as to attempt to destroy all other instances of intelligent life in the Universe when it finds tham does not seem so far-fetched to me. Of course, such a civilization only needs to fail once to be wiped out, so it's not the greatest survival strategy. -- [[User:Quadibloc|Quadibloc]] ([[User talk:Quadibloc|talk]]) 17:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the problem is that traditional SETI methods are of dubious effectiveness at actually detecting radio transmissions from other civilizations due to the low initial power of said transmissions which then only get weaker as they propagate. Switch to our new optical methods of planet detection which have detected scores of planets in just a few years and the "paradox" might need to be reevaluated. Optical detection also makes it doubtful that any civilization would be able to effectively hide. [[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 12:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:If we would use our methods of planet detection on our solar system, we would notice Jupiter, Saturn ... and unknown source of radio emission stronger that Sun itself. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
By the way, the Chinese sci-fi writer {{w|Liu Cixin}} has published a {{w|Three Body (science_fiction)|trilogy}} called "Three Body", focusing on this idea (he called it "dark forest"): what if all the visible civilizations have been destroyed? What if revealing your neighbor's location to the universe is similar to the MAD ({{w|Mutual assured destruction}}) situation? The English version should hit the market this year. --[[User:Ent|Ent]] ([[User talk:Ent|talk]]) 15:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This is very similar to a *lot* of SF out there. Pellegrino's "The Killing Star" is one good example (with R-bombing and the problems associated with it), but it's certainly not the only one. Listing some of these might be good. Listing the "Central Park at night" example from "The Killing Star" might be a reasonable addition. [[User:Brdavis|Brdavis]] ([[User talk:Brdavis|talk]]) 16:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The real reason seems clear to me: existence of other life forms in the universe is probabilistically certain, but universe is so huge (in space and time) that we have no hope of reaching it. Regarding "huge in time", for example Mars might have been like nowadays's earth one billion years ago with elaborate civilisations and yet we now struggle to find a trace of life{{Citation needed}}. Regarding "huge in space", no hope of reaching it or even have definite proof of discovery. Or, err. Well, I have not said "never", right ? But the point remains: universe is so huge that a lot of life can be "statistically everywhere" and we just can't see it because its density is too small. Which is another way to say: life most certainly exists on many planets (and other types of systems) yet the fact that we don't detect it easily means that the kind of life we are looking for never had a chance to propagate quickly enough gain enough statistical density to be easily noticed. Compare life with {{w|Cantor Dust}}. [[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 10:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
But the Jaws theme is missing! I've tried turning the volume way up, reinstalling my sound card, making sure my MIDI drivers are working... [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 23:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)</div>Jorgbrownhttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1345:_Answers&diff=83283Talk:1345: Answers2015-01-23T07:35:57Z<p>Jorgbrown: We can learn a lot about our brain by examining our artificial attempts to copy it.</p>
<hr />
<div>Not true. We know that sleep is important for storing memories and cleaning out toxins. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/oct2013/ninds-17.htm [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.89|108.162.222.89]] 11:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
:That report is entitled "Brain may flush out toxins during sleep". Note the "may". Add it to the list of hypotheses. [[User:Jim E|Jim E]] ([[User talk:Jim E|talk]]) 15:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The idea is that we do not know why we evolved to need sleep, when microorganisms do not sleep. If we had evolved without developing the need to sleep we'd also have evolved another way to retain memories and flush toxins. There is no truly biological reasons why a species would evolve the need to sleep when the option to be alert all the time is more obvious, as it means there is less risk of attack and danger.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.16|108.162.219.16]] 20:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Apparently, one of the thing brain or body does while sleeping - reindexing memories, flush toxins, self-repairs, I think that the list of hypotheses is long - give us so big advantage when awake that the limited awareness (note that some noises can still wake us up) in period of sleep is worth it. Or, perhaps the alternative solutions are too hard to evolve. Remember that even while sleeping, humans are much more active that most microorganisms: it is probable that need for sleep evolved at the same time as the brain itself. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Stupid personalized jokes and the like in this explanation... [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.174|173.245.53.174]] 11:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm not sure this is the correct explanation.<br />
The paradox of being confronted daily with a mystery and not trying to solve it is inconsistent with the title text. So this explanation doesn't sound right to me.<br />
I think it's more about defining humanity as seeking for answers, while spending a huge amount of time closing off from the world for apparently no reason.<br />
In other words, IMHO, it's not about "[not being] distracted by this mystery", but about "not being able to investigate any mystery during 1/3 of our life even if we want to".<br />
<br />
Also, with my explanation, the original puchline "touché" works better than the the current explanation's suggestion "Which is why it keeps me awake all night". -- Shirluban@[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.36|108.162.229.36]] 12:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I disagree with the above poster (and agree with the explanation) on the basis of the boldface text... "And nobody knows why". Every human sleeps, so if humans were really curious, someone should have figured out why by now.[[User:Nsimonetti|NikoNarf]] ([[User talk:Nsimonetti|talk]]) 14:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
While we do not know why we sleep we do know what happens during sleep. All the studies and hypotheses cited here do show information about the states of our brain during sleep. We are well aware of most of the biological processes that happen in the brain during sleep. Its not that sleep is some utterly mysterious thing our bodies do. Sleep research has not been as rigorously studied as other subjects in science and due to the very nature of science and scientific study to consolidate all this data, test hypotheses and develop theories takes a lot of time, findings must be checked, rechecked, and verified, and then there's the time it takes to use the facts gathered to actually come up with a working theory which, if refuted by testing, the whole process has to be done over again. The point is science takes a lot of time, money and manpower. We already know we need to sleep, we know how not sleeping affects us, there are other important questions in science which we are more driven to find answers to. So, our curiosity is considerable and day by day we continue to discover new things, but not many scientists are interested in a field of study which will get you way less money and recognition than breakthroughs in genetic engineering. [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 15:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I agree with the original poster. It is interesting how people spend their entire careers studying a life event that they may never experience (consider a man studying the act of giving birth), yet most of us simply take sleep for granted. Now if we could only make sleep more efficient! I think we could spare a couple months worth of study to this. http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1205 [[User:Puck0687|Puck0687]] ([[User talk:Puck0687|talk]]) 14:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
We could spare quite a lot more than a couple months on this. First, 1205 talks about the benefit over five years, and for us the benefit would be over an entire lifetime. Furthermore, far more people don't study sleep than study it, so the "couple months" you talk about can be multiplied by the total population of people who benefit (both alive today and yet to live), and divided by the population of people studying sleep. That gets you quite a lot more than two months. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.11|108.162.219.11]] 16:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I've thought for a while that the ''reason'' we sleep is primarily due to the accumulation of adenosine in the brain (?) - who really knows... [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 16:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The title text is referring to a statement William Dement (Stanford University) actually said. Source: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/05/sleep/max-text [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.117|108.162.245.117]] 17:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I disagree with the notion that we are no longer curious while we are sleeping (implied perhaps only by me?). I have awoken from sleep with answers to questions I went to bed with (or at least possible explanations to investigate). Brain activity has not stopped while we are asleep. I believe we have at least correlated benefits to sleep (or adverse consequences to the lack of sleep) but we don't know how much further down the root cause tree we still need to go - e.g why does sleep help with memory and weight loss and muscle repair. [[User:Ghaller825|Ghaller825]] ([[User talk:Ghaller825|talk]]) 19:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
just becuase we are hungry does not mean we are fed. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.231|108.162.249.231]] 07:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I guess we can know what sleep is for by looking at what happens if we, or other animals, are prevented from sleeping. "Sleepiness" isn't just an urge, but an imperative which is torture if not obeyed. Hallucinations, irritability, and eventually death due to immune system degradation occurs, (at least in rats, dunno about humans) and this happens more quickly than starvation. Seems to me that what we don't know is not the "why" of sleep, but the exact pathways by which these malfunctions are caused, {{unsigned ip|108.162.245.117}}<br />
:The referenced national geographic article has an interesting section on "fatal familial insomnia" in humans. [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 14:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's long been a fundamental technique of artificial neural network learning, to alternate between "learning" and "sleep" modes. I've heard (but cannot find the citation, sigh) that when running neural networks, it turns out that they lose the ability to learn after running a long time. But you can avoid this effect if you periodically bathe the neural network with completely random input. [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 07:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)</div>Jorgbrownhttps://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1277:_Ayn_Random&diff=78169Talk:1277: Ayn Random2014-11-02T23:33:27Z<p>Jorgbrown: Did Ayn Rand ever meet George Orwell?</p>
<hr />
<div>I think that should be /(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}/i.<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/173.66.108.213|173.66.108.213]] 05:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I agree. I was confused for a while about what the b's were doing.<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/99.126.178.56|99.126.178.56]] 06:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Maybe it's time to have an Ayn Rand category? --[[Special:Contributions/141.89.226.146|141.89.226.146]] 07:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Can someone explain to the mathematically challenged *how* the list of names fits the regular expression? [[Special:Contributions/141.2.75.23|141.2.75.23]] 09:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Agreed, I would like to understand what the hell is going on with that. --[[User:Zagorath|Zagorath]] ([[User talk:Zagorath|talk]]) 09:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
: How specific do you want it? Basically it matches two words consisting of the letters plurandy. The list of names is just a random selection of two part names that only consists of these letters. More specifically it matches: Two groups ({2}), each consisting of a word boundary (\b), followed by a non-empty sequence of the letters plurandy ([plurandy]+), followed by a word boundary (\b), finally followed by an optional space ( ?). [[User:Pmakholm|Pmakholm]] ([[User talk:Pmakholm|talk]]) 09:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Also, the /'s on the end delimit the regex proper, and the `i` on the end denotes case insensitivity. --[[Special:Contributions/75.66.178.177|75.66.178.177]] 09:39, 14 October <br />
2013 (UTC)<br />
:::In the explanation of how the regex works after the explanation "'''the {2} on the end means to repeat the pattern, so it must match exactly twice'''" I think you need an explanation of how the optional space in the middle interacts with the word boundaries. I.e.<br />
::::(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}<br />
:::Expanding:<br />
::::\b[plurandy]+\b ?\b[plurandy]+\b ?<br />
:::Now the optional space at the end is redundant, and the space in the center is not optional, since if there is no space the word boundaries do not exist. If the space is present the word boundaries are redundent because letter space letter sequence always matches them.<br />
::::\b[plurandy]+ [plurandy]+\b ?<br />
:::And this now closely matches the text description "'''Overall, it matches two words separated by a space, composed entirely of the letters in [plurandy], which is what all the names listed have in common.'''" --[[Special:Contributions/108.17.2.71|108.17.2.71]] 17:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Some examples<br />
:* "Ru Paul" would match, because it is two sequences, each containing only capital or lowercase versions of the listed letters.<br />
:* "Randall Flagg" would not match, because the letters F and G are not in the bracketed list.<br />
:* "Aura Anaya Adlar" would not match; even though the letters are all in the list, there are more than two sequences.<br />
:Hope this helps!<br />
:[[User:Swartzer|Swartzer]] ([[User talk:Swartzer|talk]]) 20:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
[[Special:Contributions/209.132.186.34|209.132.186.34]] 09:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I do not think Randal would make such mistake, he would probably use \< \> anyway... unless, he wants us<br />
to think he did mistake, or that backslash was eliminated in html/javascript... thus poining ut to<br />
source code of the page... is there something interesting?<br />
: I skimmed over the source and didn't see anything unusual. The '\'s are absent from the source too. I think it's just that Randall (or a tool he's using) was so affraid of [[327|Bobby Tables]] that he stripped all backslashes from the alt text. {{unsigned|Jahvascriptmaniac}}<br />
::The title text at xkcd.com now has the missing backslashes. Do you normally update the comic here to reflect updates?--[[Special:Contributions/108.17.2.71|108.17.2.71]] 16:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Already updated. You were saying?<br />
::::Hmm, backslashes are still missing for me when viewing the original at xkcd.com (viewing in Chrome) [[User:Brion|Brion]] ([[User talk:Brion|talk]]) 02:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Can someone explain to me where "In their view, if some humans are born more capable of satisfying their desires than other people, they deserve to reap greater rewards from life than others" comes from? I'm somewhat familiar with objectivist philosophy and I've never heard this put forward as an actual principle. [[Special:Contributions/50.90.39.56|50.90.39.56]] 14:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Objectivism is the target for much scorn and ridicule in the intellectual world, for its being an inconsistent philosophy that has the sole objective of justifying selfishness and elevating it towards moral righteousness. It's used as the basis for libertarian thought and other radical capitalist economical theories and political stances which promote shameless exploitation (and this attracts further hatred). Randall is no exception to this trend of detractors, and I'd say rightfully so. Ayn Rand's writings are particularly awful, both aesthetically and content-wise, yet in the US a relatively large group of philosophers still adhere to her maxims and the debate continues.{{unsigned ip|37.221.160.203}}<br />
:In fact, this is an imprecise and, therefore, incorrect statement of Objectivist philosophy. A correct and more complete statement can be found under the entry for "Selfishness" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon: "The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.8|108.162.237.8]] 23:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Most people would write the regexp as /(\b[adlnpruy]+\b ?){2}/i. Using "plurandy" makes it look like a word, which is more confusing than using the letters' natural order. --[[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Would it be better to identify Alan Alda not for his role as Hawkeye Pierce in MASH, but for his role in The West Wing as Arnold Vinick, a fiscally-conservative Republican presidential candidate? [[Special:Contributions/193.67.17.36|193.67.17.36]] 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Depends, are we trying to remind him to general audience (I think MASH is more known) or find out why he was included in list? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is probably an additional joke or three in that the regex is the minimum needed to capture the first three names together (hinted at by "plurandy" eg plural rand) , but also captures the others. on top of which all of the listed people are considered "intrinsically better" (by virtue of fame if nothing else)[[Special:Contributions/74.213.201.51|74.213.201.51]] 03:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Alan Ladd may have been a founding member of the Secret Council of /(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}/i. [[Special:Contributions/71.190.237.117|71.190.237.117]] 07:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's probably obvious to most programmers, but is it worth pointing out that part of the pun is that the random number generator function is called rand() in most C-family languages? [[Special:Contributions/130.60.156.183|130.60.156.183]] 14:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Another member of this secret society is Randall P [[Special:Contributions/79.182.178.53|79.182.178.53]] 16:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
From above: "Objectivism is the target for much scorn and ridicule in the intellectual world, for its being an inconsistent philosophy that has the sole objective of justifying selfishness and elevating it towards moral righteousness. It's used as the basis for libertarian thought and other radical capitalist economical theories and political stances which promote shameless exploitation (and this attracts further hatred). Randall is no exception to this trend of detractors, and I'd say rightfully so. Ayn Rand's writings are particularly awful, both aesthetically and content-wise, yet in the US a relatively large group of philosophers still adhere to her maxims and the debate continues." OK, but a few comments: All philosophies are inconsistent when looked at closely enough, refer Godel and others. Others do not see the inconsistency in Objectivism quite so plainly as in the quoted comment. Ayn Rand and Objectivism are not "the" basis of libertarian thought, there are far more highly thought of libertarian thinkers, a list of whom should come readily to mind to any of those occupying "the intellectual world" (sic), whether or not they have sympathy with libertarian ideas. It is also unfair to characterise Objectivism as having as its "sole" objective that as stated. Further, as a general principle, one ought not to take someone poking fun at a concept as *proof* that they are quite as opposed to it as you are. Now, whereas I would not categorise myself quite as a fellow traveller, a much fairer view of Objectivism is found at WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) [[Special:Contributions/81.135.136.159|81.135.136.159]] 11:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Other philosophies are no more consistent, agreed. But other philosophies do not claim perfect "objective" consistency as their fundamental principle. Attacking Objectivism/Objectivists for lack of internal consistency--or for not recognizing that at some, very fundamental, level it is all stacked on top of some assumptions (just like every other philosophy, and even the scientific method)--is the equivalent of attacking Christianity/Christians for lacking compassion and forgiveness. [[Special:Contributions/129.176.151.14|129.176.151.14]] 14:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Poking fun can indeed fall into the categories of self-irony or goodwill, but in this case Randall quite explicitly accuses the recipient of bias, making his disapproval pretty unequivocal. [[Special:Contributions/199.48.147.40|199.48.147.40]] 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I have added a line about the rational numbers joke; it's definitely there, though I'm not sure if Randall intended it (probably did?). {{unsigned ip|76.124.119.161}}<br />
:Don't think it makes much sense, because a random number generator algorithm of any kind couldn't possibly generate irrational numbers in finite time. [[Special:Contributions/77.244.254.228|77.244.254.228]] 16:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
: It does make sense, mathematically speaking a random number chosen in any open interval is irrational with probability 1, and yet any open interval contains rational numbers that could, in principal, be chosen due to density of the rationals. The joke is brilliant, if intended. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 04:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yes but, at that point, all random number generators are biased and not just the Ayn Random number generator. Also, the bias towards rational numbers doesn't seem to be there when your pool of numbers is just the rationals. The whole idea behind the joke seems to be more like Ayn Rand's assumptions of objectivity ending up favoring certain social groups. I dunno, it just seems forced to me. [[Special:Contributions/220.117.150.36|220.117.150.36]] 19:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: Considering real numbers are well-understood mathematically this seems like a shortcoming of implementation, which isn't that interesting... the concept is there. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 22:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: The whole idea behind random number generation bias is the bugs they can create within software implementation (for example, weakening cryptography). An hypothetically generated irrational number would have to be truncated at some decimal place (thus making it rational) for it to be usable. Here it's a programming joke, not a math one. [[Special:Contributions/95.229.229.31|95.229.229.31]] 22:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: ...unless interpreted as a math joke. I agree that the joke admits programming interpretation, but I'd never try to exclude other interpretations as well. The math interpretation is valid since one can choose not to get muddled in implementation and to instead envision a hypothetical random number generator not bound by truncation. Randall's comics certainly admit this kind of whimsy. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 23:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Well, it says "This Ayn Random number generator you wrote" so I'd take it at face value, but that's just me. [[Special:Contributions/95.229.229.31|95.229.229.31]] 00:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
And somehow, no one's mentioned the classic cartoon ''[[221]]:Random Number'', which presents a random number generator which is heavily biased towards one number. [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 21:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is the joke here not along the lines that Ayn Rand's politics, and that of Libertarianism, <i>claim</i> that they are fair and that they treat everyone equally - in that, supposedly, anyone can get what they want and be successful if they work hard - but the reality is that some people will fare better than others due to having certain advantages such as having been born into wealth, knowing the right people, one might even suggest that being white, middle class and male are advantageous. In a random number generator you would expect any number to be as likely to come up as any other. Similarly, Rand supporters would argue that under Objectivism, any person is by default as able to be successful as any other. The fact that some people succeed and others fail is explained as some people being inherently more able to succeed, rather than any bias in the system itself - hence she divides people into 'looters' and 'moochers'; there's also that scene I always remember in Dirty Dancing where the guy chucks a copy of The Fountainhead in Baby's direction and says 'some people count, some people don't'. Randall is mocking the idea of a system that is supposedly inherently fair and yet biases certain classes of people, with the idea of a 'random' number generator that is biased towards certain numbers not because of a problem with the system but because some numbers are supposedly 'inherently better'.[[Special:Contributions/213.86.4.78|213.86.4.78]] 15:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Regarding rational numbers, p and q are allowed to have a common factor. 3/3 is still rational, just not reduced. Every rational number has an irreducible representation, but it doesn't have to be reduced to be part of the set of rationals. Also, since the definition is otherwise very specific, it could mention that q cannot be 0, which I don't think is mentioned. While that's a neat observation, I agree with the guy above that pointed out that no implementation of a random number generator produces irrational numbers. It isn't simply that the random number generator has to truncate the number, but you cannot fit infinite digits which neither terminate or repeat in a physical computer's finite memory. The random number generator would have to return symbolic results like "sqrt 2" or "e" instead of numerical values, but not returning actual numbers makes the idea of it being a random 'number' generator debatable. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.197}}<br />
<br />
All numbers are random, but some numbers are more random than others. [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 23:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)</div>Jorgbrown