Difference between revisions of "Talk:1501: Mysteries"
(→Carly Simon: no need for explanation) |
|||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
I have to wonder if Randall has ever seen http://keithledgerwood.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using and if so, whether he simply doesn't believe it. Not to sabotage his 100%-100% example if he wants to keep it there, but I'd put it at only 50% weird and 10% unexplainable. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.27|199.27.133.27]] 14:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | I have to wonder if Randall has ever seen http://keithledgerwood.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using and if so, whether he simply doesn't believe it. Not to sabotage his 100%-100% example if he wants to keep it there, but I'd put it at only 50% weird and 10% unexplainable. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.27|199.27.133.27]] 14:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| − | + | ;Carly Simon | |
The Carly Simon explanation includes the text "This sets up a paradox in which the song is and isn't about the vain person." This isn't correct. The song is definitely about the person. Carly is thus asserting that the subject's vanity will lead him to a correct interpretation of the song. Going to change the explanation. [[User:EverVigilant|EverVigilant]] ([[User talk:EverVigilant|talk]]) 14:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | The Carly Simon explanation includes the text "This sets up a paradox in which the song is and isn't about the vain person." This isn't correct. The song is definitely about the person. Carly is thus asserting that the subject's vanity will lead him to a correct interpretation of the song. Going to change the explanation. [[User:EverVigilant|EverVigilant]] ([[User talk:EverVigilant|talk]]) 14:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
I don't see why this is on Randall's chart. The Wikipedia article is all the explanation the world needs. And Warren Beatty's reaction to the song simply seals it for me. No Big Deal. Move On. ''– [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)'' | I don't see why this is on Randall's chart. The Wikipedia article is all the explanation the world needs. And Warren Beatty's reaction to the song simply seals it for me. No Big Deal. Move On. ''– [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)'' | ||
| − | + | ;WOW signa | |
It now says "This is the strongest evidence to date of extraterrestrial radio signals.", which is technically incorrect. We observe radio signals from outer space all the time, they originate from young stars, Big Bang, active galaxies, and so on. This should probably be rephrased to something about extraterrestrial intelligence, but I'm not sure if it deserves to be called "evidence". [[User:Jolindbe|Jolindbe]] ([[User talk:Jolindbe|talk]]) 16:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | It now says "This is the strongest evidence to date of extraterrestrial radio signals.", which is technically incorrect. We observe radio signals from outer space all the time, they originate from young stars, Big Bang, active galaxies, and so on. This should probably be rephrased to something about extraterrestrial intelligence, but I'm not sure if it deserves to be called "evidence". [[User:Jolindbe|Jolindbe]] ([[User talk:Jolindbe|talk]]) 16:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| − | + | ;Dyatlov Pass | |
Um, Wikipedia regards avalanche as most plausible explanation of the Dyatlov Pass incident, and it appears to be most widespread and down-to-earth explanation that doesn't involve the supernatural or secret soviet weapons test, things like that. Shouldn't we include mention of the avalance then, perhaps? I mean, with such high "explainability" rating it's pretty clear that Randall probably assumes avalanche, since if he assumed other, less widespread theory he probably would downgrade the "explainability" to account for the fact that it's more disputed version. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.222|141.101.89.222]] 18:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | Um, Wikipedia regards avalanche as most plausible explanation of the Dyatlov Pass incident, and it appears to be most widespread and down-to-earth explanation that doesn't involve the supernatural or secret soviet weapons test, things like that. Shouldn't we include mention of the avalance then, perhaps? I mean, with such high "explainability" rating it's pretty clear that Randall probably assumes avalanche, since if he assumed other, less widespread theory he probably would downgrade the "explainability" to account for the fact that it's more disputed version. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.222|141.101.89.222]] 18:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| − | + | ;Off the chart up and to the right | |
How the Universe came into existence (the physics and math behind "Why is there something rather than nothing?") is far weirder with less of an explanation than anything on Randall's chart – scientists' claims, which redefine "nothing," notwithstanding. And then how life started and evolved (the chemistry and biology – and quantum physics? – at the transition point between inanimate amino acids and cells and the subsequent arrival of ''homo sapiens'') is almost as strange as the Big Bang. ''– [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 18:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)'' | How the Universe came into existence (the physics and math behind "Why is there something rather than nothing?") is far weirder with less of an explanation than anything on Randall's chart – scientists' claims, which redefine "nothing," notwithstanding. And then how life started and evolved (the chemistry and biology – and quantum physics? – at the transition point between inanimate amino acids and cells and the subsequent arrival of ''homo sapiens'') is almost as strange as the Big Bang. ''– [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 18:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)'' | ||
Revision as of 19:18, 20 March 2015
Here's a list of wikipedia links I compiled that will be useful for anyone wanting to update this page. http://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/2zog5d/xkcd_1501_mysteries/cpktray 141.101.106.155 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
And I've got a solar eclipse to see (explainable, but weird!) but I started to compile things. Haven't got any links sorted yet, and percentages are (badly) done by eye. If someone does it better, ignore it.
141.101.98.63 09:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- (Whoops, pasted the flatfile format version by accident, in my rush, rather than the more Wikifriendly one that I discarded. Commenting it out until/unless I redo it. But you should still be able to see the details via the Talk Edit pages if you're bothered. Oh, and there was really too much cloud to see the eclipse for what it was. 141.101.98.63 10:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC))
- Exactly right. (Although I didn't read the zero/zero crossing point is supposed to be maybe 50% on both scales, but instead ±zero. Still, doesn't matter. And perhaps displays/sorts better.) And looks like I don't need to recover my formatted notes after all. 141.101.98.63 11:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
199.27.128.176 09:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC) XKCD has explained the Voynich Manuscript before: http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/593:_Voynich_Manuscript
- XKCD has also 'explained' DB Cooper before (1400: D.B. Cooper) if that is worth mentioning. 108.162.250.167 12:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I have to wonder if Randall has ever seen http://keithledgerwood.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using and if so, whether he simply doesn't believe it. Not to sabotage his 100%-100% example if he wants to keep it there, but I'd put it at only 50% weird and 10% unexplainable. 199.27.133.27 14:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Carly Simon
The Carly Simon explanation includes the text "This sets up a paradox in which the song is and isn't about the vain person." This isn't correct. The song is definitely about the person. Carly is thus asserting that the subject's vanity will lead him to a correct interpretation of the song. Going to change the explanation. EverVigilant (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why this is on Randall's chart. The Wikipedia article is all the explanation the world needs. And Warren Beatty's reaction to the song simply seals it for me. No Big Deal. Move On. – tbc (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- WOW signa
It now says "This is the strongest evidence to date of extraterrestrial radio signals.", which is technically incorrect. We observe radio signals from outer space all the time, they originate from young stars, Big Bang, active galaxies, and so on. This should probably be rephrased to something about extraterrestrial intelligence, but I'm not sure if it deserves to be called "evidence". Jolindbe (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Dyatlov Pass
Um, Wikipedia regards avalanche as most plausible explanation of the Dyatlov Pass incident, and it appears to be most widespread and down-to-earth explanation that doesn't involve the supernatural or secret soviet weapons test, things like that. Shouldn't we include mention of the avalance then, perhaps? I mean, with such high "explainability" rating it's pretty clear that Randall probably assumes avalanche, since if he assumed other, less widespread theory he probably would downgrade the "explainability" to account for the fact that it's more disputed version. 141.101.89.222 18:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Off the chart up and to the right
How the Universe came into existence (the physics and math behind "Why is there something rather than nothing?") is far weirder with less of an explanation than anything on Randall's chart – scientists' claims, which redefine "nothing," notwithstanding. And then how life started and evolved (the chemistry and biology – and quantum physics? – at the transition point between inanimate amino acids and cells and the subsequent arrival of homo sapiens) is almost as strange as the Big Bang. – tbc (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
