Talk:925: Cell Phones - Revision history

42.book.addict at 21:54, 5 November 2024

2024-11-05T21:54:27Z

Beanie: why are there too many colons

2021-05-05T11:18:26Z

why are there too many colons

Beanie at 11:17, 5 May 2021

2021-05-05T11:17:31Z

162.158.167.58 at 00:46, 25 February 2021

2021-02-25T00:46:13Z

RamenChef: Revise comment

2017-11-08T03:10:14Z

Revise comment

RamenChef: Add comment

2017-11-08T03:09:05Z

Add comment

OriginalName at 04:30, 16 May 2017

2017-05-16T04:30:29Z

Viperzer0: Thoughts on "just to be safe"

2017-03-18T07:41:31Z

Thoughts on "just to be safe"

Bbruzzo at 00:30, 15 August 2015

2015-08-15T00:30:50Z

173.245.54.133 at 13:27, 24 July 2015

2015-07-24T13:27:05Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 On first read I thought the joke is that the cell phone graph shape (somewhat) closely mimics the shape of the cancer graph, including the part where it begins to level off - implying that one linearly correlates with the other, with a 20 year delay (a typical time it takes for cancer to manifest, except in this case it's backwards). ultramage 14:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 That and the fact the graph is out by a scale factor of 1000 is always a fun way to screw over how the statistics look.{{unsigned ip|82.16.27.115}}
@@ Line 11: / Line 10: @@
 Not to mention that the 1970s and 1980s was when tobacco usage reached its apex, radiation from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s started metastasizing in survivors' bodies, industrial pollution reached such a high level that the Federal government created the Superfund scheme, and nobody even knew about the hole in the ozone layer. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.58|162.158.167.58]] 00:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
-I thought the laptop joke was that some people believe not to put it on your lap because it messes with your reproductive organs! ~JFreund
+I thought the laptop joke was that some people believe not to put it on your lap because it messes with your reproductive organs! ~JFreund {{unsigned|JFreund|21:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)}}
 :But you know now you are wrong, correct?  [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 06:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 :If your laptop starts messing with your reproductive organs, you may want to either tell an adult, or stop taking drugs (or possibly take more drugs).  [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 06:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
@@ Line 18: / Line 17: @@
 ::For all the fun publicity this gets, I agree -- the graph doesn't really make it look like cancer causes cell phones, but rather that the leveling off in the growth in cancer rates causes an increase in cell phone use.  Not as funny stated that way, for sure, so I get why XKCD didn't go that way. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.133|173.245.54.133]] 13:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 Why does the title text explanation refer to panel 2? From what I can see the title text either refers to a) you should not hold your laptop by its screen as it may damage it (in panel 2) or b) you should not not rest your laptop on your lap as it may overheat and damage you (in panel 4). I think a) makes more sense since the comic refers to how black hat "holds" the laptop, but I can also see that b) references the subject of the comic. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.177|141.101.98.177]] 10:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
@@ Line 28: / Line 26: @@
 Unfortunately there was a shortage of pilots and there was no medical help for anyone who Lacked Moral Fibre. Plus the Air Ministry was, in a large measure, responsible for the aggressive attack of the disease initially.
-OTOH of course, it was all a long time ago and most of them are dead by now.
+OTOH of course, it was all a long time ago and most of them are dead by now. (Might have stopped some using IFF over enemy territory though. (Pity, that.)) [[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 17:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 Whoever included the socks comment in the explanation, I just laughed harder at that than at the actual comment. Props [[User:Bbruzzo|Bbruzzo]] ([[User talk:Bbruzzo|talk]]) 00:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 Nah b', it's 2000.{{unsigned ip|76.67.97.246}}
 ::The real problem with the graph is that it makes it look like cancer rates have increased from near-zero levels to way higher since 1970, until you actually read the Y axis and see that it's gone from about 400 (per 100,000) to about 475.  This is an increase of only 18.75%, as opposed to the visual appearance of a 300% increase.  Hats off to Black Hat!! [[Special:Contributions/108.28.72.186|108.28.72.186]] 01:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 :::Among the many things wrong with the graph is the lack of context. Much of the increase in cancer incidence in the 80s was the availability of pre-clinical testing for prostate cancer[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12081758]. The other is the improvements in control of infectious disease, and more recently heart disease, resulting in an enlarged elderly population who are more at risk of cancer. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.99}}
 Not to mention that the 1970s and 1980s was when tobacco usage reached its apex, radiation from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s started metastasizing in survivors' bodies, industrial pollution reached such a high level that the Federal government created the Superfund scheme, and nobody even knew about the hole in the ozone layer. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.58|162.158.167.58]] 00:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:17, 5 May 2021
Line 5:		Line 5:

	Nah b', it's 2000.{{unsigned ip\|76.67.97.246}}		Nah b', it's 2000.{{unsigned ip\|76.67.97.246}}
		+	:No, it is 10000. The graph says "cancer incidences per 100,000 people" and "cell phones per 100 people", which is 1000. Maybe you got confused by comparing the y-axis? (They both increase by 25 per bar FYI.) [[User:Beanie\|Beanie]] ([[User talk:Beanie\|talk]]) 11:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

	::The real problem with the graph is that it makes it look like cancer rates have increased from near-zero levels to way higher since 1970, until you actually read the Y axis and see that it's gone from about 400 (per 100,000) to about 475. This is an increase of only 18.75%, as opposed to the visual appearance of a 300% increase. Hats off to Black Hat!! [[Special:Contributions/108.28.72.186\|108.28.72.186]] 01:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)		::The real problem with the graph is that it makes it look like cancer rates have increased from near-zero levels to way higher since 1970, until you actually read the Y axis and see that it's gone from about 400 (per 100,000) to about 475. This is an increase of only 18.75%, as opposed to the visual appearance of a 300% increase. Hats off to Black Hat!! [[Special:Contributions/108.28.72.186\|108.28.72.186]] 01:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ::The real problem with the graph is that it makes it look like cancer rates have increased from near-zero levels to way higher since 1970, until you actually read the Y axis and see that it's gone from about 400 (per 100,000) to about 475.  This is an increase of only 18.75%, as opposed to the visual appearance of a 300% increase.  Hats off to Black Hat!! [[Special:Contributions/108.28.72.186|108.28.72.186]] 01:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 :::Among the many things wrong with the graph is the lack of context. Much of the increase in cancer incidence in the 80s was the availability of pre-clinical testing for prostate cancer[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12081758]. The other is the improvements in control of infectious disease, and more recently heart disease, resulting in an enlarged elderly population who are more at risk of cancer. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.99}}
 I thought the laptop joke was that some people believe not to put it on your lap because it messes with your reproductive organs! ~JFreund

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:10, 8 November 2017
Line 39:		Line 39:
	The incomplete notice was incorrect; it is completely fine to have a second y-axis too show a second trend. --[[User:OriginalName\|OriginalName]] ([[User talk:OriginalName\|talk]]) 04:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)		The incomplete notice was incorrect; it is completely fine to have a second y-axis too show a second trend. --[[User:OriginalName\|OriginalName]] ([[User talk:OriginalName\|talk]]) 04:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

−	Does this really fit ~~[[Category:~~Cancer]]? It doesn't mention Randall's wife's cancer.	+	Does this really fit the Cancer category? It doesn't mention Randall's wife's cancer. [[User:RamenChef\|RamenChef]] ([[User talk:RamenChef\|talk]]) 03:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:09, 8 November 2017
Line 38:		Line 38:

	The incomplete notice was incorrect; it is completely fine to have a second y-axis too show a second trend. --[[User:OriginalName\|OriginalName]] ([[User talk:OriginalName\|talk]]) 04:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)		The incomplete notice was incorrect; it is completely fine to have a second y-axis too show a second trend. --[[User:OriginalName\|OriginalName]] ([[User talk:OriginalName\|talk]]) 04:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	Does this really fit [[Category:Cancer]]? It doesn't mention Randall's wife's cancer.

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:30, 16 May 2017
Line 36:		Line 36:

	I think it's worth noting that Black Hat says "Just to be safe, until I see more data, I'm going to assume cancer causes cell phones." When I first read the strip, I thought it was a play on how empirically, one wants to assume that there is zero correlation whatsoever. Instead of being safe by assuming there is no correlation, Black Hat assumes that the correlation is there (albeit backwards compared to the norm). However, in retrospect, Black Hat may consider cell phones to be an ailment and wishes to prevent or avoid them, just as someone who believed cell phones cause cancer might stay away from cell phones, "Just to be safe". Makes sense to anyone? [[User:Viperzer0\|Viperzer0]] ([[User talk:Viperzer0\|talk]]) 07:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)		I think it's worth noting that Black Hat says "Just to be safe, until I see more data, I'm going to assume cancer causes cell phones." When I first read the strip, I thought it was a play on how empirically, one wants to assume that there is zero correlation whatsoever. Instead of being safe by assuming there is no correlation, Black Hat assumes that the correlation is there (albeit backwards compared to the norm). However, in retrospect, Black Hat may consider cell phones to be an ailment and wishes to prevent or avoid them, just as someone who believed cell phones cause cancer might stay away from cell phones, "Just to be safe". Makes sense to anyone? [[User:Viperzer0\|Viperzer0]] ([[User talk:Viperzer0\|talk]]) 07:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	The incomplete notice was incorrect; it is completely fine to have a second y-axis too show a second trend. --[[User:OriginalName\|OriginalName]] ([[User talk:OriginalName\|talk]]) 04:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:41, 18 March 2017
Line 34:		Line 34:

	Whoever included the socks comment in the explanation, I just laughed harder at that than at the actual comment. Props [[User:Bbruzzo\|Bbruzzo]] ([[User talk:Bbruzzo\|talk]]) 00:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)		Whoever included the socks comment in the explanation, I just laughed harder at that than at the actual comment. Props [[User:Bbruzzo\|Bbruzzo]] ([[User talk:Bbruzzo\|talk]]) 00:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	I think it's worth noting that Black Hat says "Just to be safe, until I see more data, I'm going to assume cancer causes cell phones." When I first read the strip, I thought it was a play on how empirically, one wants to assume that there is zero correlation whatsoever. Instead of being safe by assuming there is no correlation, Black Hat assumes that the correlation is there (albeit backwards compared to the norm). However, in retrospect, Black Hat may consider cell phones to be an ailment and wishes to prevent or avoid them, just as someone who believed cell phones cause cancer might stay away from cell phones, "Just to be safe". Makes sense to anyone? [[User:Viperzer0\|Viperzer0]] ([[User talk:Viperzer0\|talk]]) 07:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:30, 15 August 2015
Line 31:		Line 31:

	[[User:Weatherlawyer\| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 17:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)		[[User:Weatherlawyer\| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 17:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	Whoever included the socks comment in the explanation, I just laughed harder at that than at the actual comment. Props [[User:Bbruzzo\|Bbruzzo]] ([[User talk:Bbruzzo\|talk]]) 00:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:27, 24 July 2015
Line 15:		Line 15:
	I originally thought that the graph was supposed to show that an increase in cellphone use caused a decrease in cancer. I'm not sure why Randell didn't go with that conclusion, as it seems way more obvious to make when you look at tha graph, and it's humorously the opposite of what people are saying. Still very silly, of course :p [[User:Maplestrip\|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip\|talk]]) 08:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)		I originally thought that the graph was supposed to show that an increase in cellphone use caused a decrease in cancer. I'm not sure why Randell didn't go with that conclusion, as it seems way more obvious to make when you look at tha graph, and it's humorously the opposite of what people are saying. Still very silly, of course :p [[User:Maplestrip\|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip\|talk]]) 08:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

		+	::For all the fun publicity this gets, I agree -- the graph doesn't really make it look like cancer causes cell phones, but rather that the leveling off in the growth in cancer rates causes an increase in cell phone use. Not as funny stated that way, for sure, so I get why XKCD didn't go that way. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.133\|173.245.54.133]] 13:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)