Editing Talk:1394: Superm*n

;Wildcard
Excellent description, but minor niggle: In "Superm*n' , the '*' is a wildcard.  This isn't a regular expression that would match 'Superman' and Supermoon'.  A regexp could be "Superm.*n" - the '.' means 'any character' and the '*' means 'as many times as you like'. (More selective regexps exist)  If you were to interpret 'Superm*n' as a regular expression, it would match 'Supern' , 'Supermn', "Supermmn', Supermmmn' etc.  So you could describe 'Superm*n' as a 'wildcard search that would match superman and supermoon'. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.184|141.101.99.184]] 05:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
:You're approaching this from a very specific context. You may be correct in that context, but there are plenty of different programs, protocols, languages, etc which use wildcards in various ways. I once worked as a 411 operator, and in the search software we used at the time, a search on "SUPERM*N" would have found both "Superman" and "Supermoon" if both of those were names in listings (although our supervisors would consider that too many keystrokes and would suggest "SUP*N" instead). - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.10|108.162.242.10]] 05:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
::Oops, looks like I read the initial comment too quickly, didn't realize you were kind of making the same point I wanted to, you were just being more technical about it. Either way, I think the explanation of the wildcard in the article itself should be made vague enough to avoid further threads like this. - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.10|108.162.242.10]] 06:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
:It's clearly a Unix shell file glob. [[User:Jeremyp|Jeremyp]] ([[User talk:Jeremyp|talk]]) 09:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
::This form of wildcard is used in the Windows command prompt as well, and is very well known for Windows users.  I obviously can't speak for the full XKCD audience, but limiting the scope of that wildcard to Unix seems unnecessarily exclusive.  (Wouldn't it be sufficient to just refer to it as a "wildcard" as a generic concept?  I mean, You Know You're a Geek When...) [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 20:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Having grown up on MS-DOS, I second this. I remember typing '''DIR/a:h/s *.exe''' or something similar to search for games hidden by other students on my school's computers. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.62.62|173.245.62.62]] 11:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I figured that the asterisk was used to replace the letter 'A' in the name of the character so that Randall was not using a copyrighted/licensed name and was therefore safe from possible legal action for unauthorized use.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.80|108.162.216.80]] 08:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
*Superm..?n (or, Superm.{1,2}n, Superm(a|oo)n, etc....) [[User:KangaroOS|Kangaro]][[User talk:KangaroOS|OS]] 10:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Came back to this comic through a link from another explanation, and sad that no one specifically mentioned Super''moron''.  I wouldn't want to meet ''that'' person. '''--BigMal''' // [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.10|162.158.75.10]] 18:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

;Colour
If a Trivia section is warranted for this comic, I think it should definitely be pointed out this is one of the rare strips that uses a colour other than black or white. Is there an available statistic on use of colour in xkcd? - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.10|108.162.242.10]] 05:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
:Ya, I'd bite on this one. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 12:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
::There's a category, [[:Category:Comics with color]]. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.74|173.245.55.74]] 13:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

;Astronomy
In a similar tune to the supermoon, could the sun at perihelion be called a "superstar"? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 08:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
:Wouldn't that be the ''Earth'' at perihelion? --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.82|173.245.52.82]] 12:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
::The sun at Earth's perihelion. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.9}}
:::I was gonna say, does the Earth get 12% larger when it's at perihelion to the sun? :) [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 20:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

;Web-slingers and supermen
The comment on the title text makes it sound as though Spiderman canonically shoots webs from his body and only in "some adaptations" has  a mechanical device that does so.  That's backwards.  The machine is the original, the biological version is what happens in "some adaptations" (ie, films). {{unsigned ip|173.245.48.135}}
:Exactly right.  I've edited the description.  Also corrected the spelling of Spider-Man. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.39|199.27.133.39]] 18:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Do we have the required information to calculate what percentage of people would have better than 107% of the average human strength, assuming a normal bell distribution? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 07:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Though it's quoted from a [http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/10jul_supermoons/ stupid NASA press release,] "14% bigger and 30% brighter than other full moons" is misleading, as ''Sky and Telescope'' has been [http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/observing-news/the-march-19th-supermoon-hardly-super/ pointing out] [http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/observing-news/the-myth-of-the-supermoon/ for years,] and in fact they told [http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/supermoon-overplayed-by-news-media/ this same exact Superman joke] about it back in 2012.   1.14 is the ratio between perigee size and apogee size.  (Even then there are different numbers floating around.  If you look at the numbers in [http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2008/12/09/09dec_fullmoon_resources/Ayiomamitis1.jpg this graphic] it's either 1.124 or 1.134, in the same image describing the same event.)  Perigee size versus ''average'' size would be more relevant.  This is why Randall's joke is that Superman is 7% stronger than an average man.  In the S&T article it was 8% stronger. [[User:Pesthouse|Pesthouse]] ([[User talk:Pesthouse|talk]]) 18:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
:Also... "14% Bigger"?  Is that (apparent) diameter or area?  (i.e. based upon the change in radians subtended to the eye or ''ste''radians, likewise.)  Hopefully says something, in the sources, but it's a commonly disputable weasel-statistic (plus 14% bigger than 14% smaller doesn't return to the same size, so choose the right comparison but twist it and the unaware/charlatan statistics-vendor can give misleading figures).  Talking generically, of course, as a pitfall we should not fall into, in everyday life. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.192|141.101.99.192]] 11:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)