https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=108.162.218.101 2026-06-27T22:33:41Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.30.0 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1407:_Worst_Hurricane&diff=128313 2016-10-06T22:40:34Z

<p>108.162.218.101: /* Explanation */</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 1407<br /> | date = August 13, 2014<br /> | title = Worst Hurricane<br /> | image = worst_hurricane.png<br /> | titletext = 'Finding a 105-year-old who's lived in each location and asking them which hurricane they think was the worst' is left as an exercise for the reader.<br /> }}<br /> <br /> This comic has a [http://xkcd.com/1407/large/ larger version] available.<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> <br /> The map divides America's Atlantic coastline into regions according to the worst hurricane that has hit each area in the last century, based on data from the North Atlantic hurricane database ({{w|HURDAT}}) to determine the severity and the {{w|National Centers for Enrvironmental Prediction}}'s (NCEP) rainfall to determine where the hurricane was present. Most of the hurricanes are listed by their US reporting names, with hurricanes before 1953 (the year when the current naming system was established) being listed by their year and sometimes a sequence number or city name.<br /> <br /> The title text is a joke in light of this bleak humor, saying that finding residents in each of the regions who are old enough to have been alive through all of these is quite a daunting task. In principle, this would be the only way to confirm the &quot;worst hurricane in living memory,&quot; and may be taken as a riposte to anyone who wishes to argue this map: &quot;If you think there was a worse one, find a 105 year old resident who agrees!&quot; 105 was likely chosen because most people can only remember back to an age when they were 5, so someone would have needed to be 5 years old to remember a hurricane in any detail 100 years later.<br /> <br /> Hurricanes and especially their names have been featured before in comics [[453: Upcoming Hurricanes]], [[944: Hurricane Names]] and [[1126: Epsilon and Zeta]].<br /> <br /> ===Listed hurricanes===<br /> A full list of North Atlantic hurricanes after {{w|Tropical cyclone naming}} was introduced can be found {{w|List_of_historic_tropical_cyclone_names#North_Atlantic|here}}.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable sortable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Date<br /> !Name<br /> !States<br /> !Highest winds<br /> !Lowest pressure <br /> !Casualties <br /> (Est. total)<br /> !Damage estimate <br /> (USD; uninflated)<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|1915<br /> ||{{w|1915_Galveston_hurricane|Galveston}}<br /> ||LA TX OK AR<br /> ||145&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||940 mbar<br /> ||400<br /> ||$50 million<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|1915_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Six|1915 VI}}<br /> ||LA MS AL TN KY WV PA<br /> ||145&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||931 mbar<br /> ||275<br /> ||$13 million<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|1916<br /> ||{{w|1916_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Four|1916 IV}}<br /> ||SC NC<br /> ||115&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||960 mbar<br /> ||7<br /> ||$100,000<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|1916_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Six|1916 VI}}<br /> ||TX<br /> ||135&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||932 mbar<br /> ||15<br /> ||$1.8 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1918<br /> ||{{w|1918_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_One|1918 I}}<br /> ||LA<br /> ||120&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||955 mbar<br /> ||34<br /> ||$5 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1921<br /> ||{{w|1921_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Six|1921 VI}}<br /> ||FL<br /> ||140&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||941 mbar<br /> ||6<br /> ||$3 million<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;4&quot;|1926<br /> ||{{w|1926_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_One|1926 I}}<br /> ||FL<br /> ||140&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||967 mbar<br /> ||&lt;287<br /> ||$16,401,000<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|1926_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Two|1926 II}}<br /> ||GA<br /> ||140&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||967 mbar<br /> ||unknown<br /> ||unreported<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|1926_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Three|1926 III}}<br /> ||TX LA AL<br /> ||115&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||955 mbar<br /> ||25<br /> ||$6million<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|1926_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Seven|1926 VII}}<br /> ||FL AL MS LA<br /> ||150&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||930 mbar<br /> ||478<br /> ||$22 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||1928<br /> ||{{w|1928_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Four|1928 IV}}<br /> ||FL SC NC<br /> ||160&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||≤ 929 mbar<br /> ||&lt;4,078<br /> ||$100 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1932<br /> ||{{w|1932_Freeport_hurricane|Freeport}}<br /> ||TX<br /> ||150&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||935 mbar<br /> ||40<br /> ||$7.5 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1933<br /> ||{{w|1933_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Six|1933 VI}}<br /> ||NC VA MD PA<br /> ||140&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||940 mbar<br /> ||31<br /> ||$27 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1935<br /> ||{{w|1935_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Three|1935 III}}<br /> ||FL<br /> ||185&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||892 mbar<br /> ||&lt;400<br /> ||unreported<br /> |-<br /> ||1938<br /> ||{{w|1938_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Six|1938 VI}}<br /> ||NY CT<br /> ||160&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||940 mbar<br /> ||682<br /> ||$300 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1940<br /> ||{{w|1940_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Three|1940 III}}<br /> ||SC NC<br /> ||100&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||972 mbar<br /> ||50<br /> ||$13 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1941<br /> ||{{w|1941_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Two|1941 II}}<br /> ||LA TX<br /> ||125&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||942 mbar<br /> ||4<br /> ||$7 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1942<br /> ||{{w|1942_Matagorda_hurricane|Matagorda}}<br /> ||TX NM OK<br /> ||115&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||950 mbar<br /> ||8<br /> ||$26.5 million<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|1944<br /> ||{{w|1944_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Seven|1944 VII}}<br /> ||NY NC to CT<br /> ||145&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||933 mbar<br /> ||390<br /> ||&lt;$100 million<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|1944_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Thirteen|1944 XIII}}<br /> ||FL<br /> ||145&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||937 mbar<br /> ||300<br /> ||$100 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1946<br /> ||{{w|1946_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Six|1946 VI}}<br /> ||FL NC<br /> ||100&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||977 mbar<br /> ||5 (in Cuba)<br /> ||$5.2 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1947<br /> ||{{w|1947_Cape_Sable_hurricane|King}}<br /> ||FL GA SN NC<br /> ||105&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||965 mbar<br /> ||1<br /> ||$20 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1949<br /> ||{{w|1949_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Two|1949 II}}<br /> ||FL GA to NH<br /> ||130&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||954 mbar<br /> ||2<br /> ||$52 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1950<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Easy_(1950)|Easy}}<br /> ||FL GA AK<br /> ||125&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||958 mbar<br /> ||2<br /> ||$3.3 million<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|1954<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Carol|Carol}}<br /> ||NY CT NH NC MA VA DC DE NJ<br /> ||115&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||957 mbar<br /> ||72<br /> ||$462 million<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Edna|Edna}}<br /> ||NY VA NC NJ MA ME NH<br /> ||120&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||≤ 954 mbar<br /> ||29<br /> ||&gt;$42.8 million<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Hazel|Hazel}}<br /> ||NC VA WV MD DE NY PA NJ DC<br /> ||150&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||≤ 937 mbar<br /> ||1,000-1,200<br /> ||$420 million<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|1955<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Connie|Connie}}<br /> ||NC SC VA DC MD MI PA NJ NY <br /> ||145&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||936 mbar<br /> ||74<br /> ||&lt;$86 million<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Diane|Diane}}<br /> ||PA NJ NY NC WV MA RI VT <br /> ||120&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||≤ 969 mbar<br /> ||≥184<br /> ||$754.7 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1957<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Audrey|Audrey}}<br /> ||TX FL LA MS AL MI MO IL NY PA VT ME<br /> ||145&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||945 mbar<br /> ||&lt;416<br /> ||$147 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1958<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Helene_(1958)|Helene}}<br /> ||SC to ME<br /> ||135&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||934 mbar<br /> ||1<br /> ||$11.4 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1959<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Gracie|Gracie}}<br /> ||SC GA VA PA<br /> ||140&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||950 mbar<br /> ||22<br /> ||$14 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1960<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Donna|Donna}}<br /> ||FL GA SC NC VA MD PA NJ NY CT MA VT NH <br /> ||160&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||932 mbar<br /> ||164-364<br /> ||$900 million<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|1961<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Carla|Carla}}<br /> ||TX LA OK IL FL NE MO MI WI IN AL AK MS IA <br /> ||175&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||931 mbar<br /> ||43<br /> ||$325.74 million<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Esther_(1961)|Esther}}<br /> ||NC VA MD DE NJ NY CT MA NH<br /> ||145&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||927 mbar<br /> ||7<br /> ||$6 million<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|1964<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Dora|Dora}}<br /> ||FL<br /> ||130&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||942 mbar<br /> ||5<br /> ||$250 million<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Hilda|Hilda}}<br /> ||FL TX LA GA MS NC SC AL TN VA MD DE<br /> ||150&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||941 mbar<br /> ||38<br /> ||$126 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1965<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Betsy|Betsy}}<br /> ||FL LA MS AR TE MO<br /> ||155&amp;nbsp;mph <br /> ||941 mbar<br /> ||81<br /> ||$1.42 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||1966<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Alma_(1966)|Alma}}<br /> ||FL (up to FL/GA border)<br /> ||125&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||970 mbar<br /> ||91<br /> ||$210.1 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1967<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Beulah|Beulah}}<br /> ||TX<br /> ||160&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||≤ 923 mbar<br /> ||688<br /> ||$1 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||1969<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Camille|Camille}}<br /> ||AS MS LA<br /> ||175&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||900 mbar<br /> ||259<br /> ||$1.42 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||1970<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Celia|Celia}}<br /> ||FL TX<br /> ||125&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||945 mbar<br /> ||28<br /> ||$930 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1972<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Agnes|Agnes}}<br /> ||FL GA NC VA MD PA NY<br /> ||85&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||977 mbar<br /> ||128<br /> ||$2.1 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||1974<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Carmen|Carmen}}<br /> ||LA TX<br /> ||150&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||928 mbar<br /> ||8<br /> ||$162 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1975<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Eloise|Eloise}}<br /> ||FL<br /> ||125&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||955 mbar<br /> ||80<br /> ||$560 million<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|1979<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_David|David}}<br /> ||FL<br /> ||175&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||924 mbar<br /> ||&lt;2,068<br /> ||$1.54 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Frederic|Frederic}}<br /> ||FL AS MS<br /> ||135&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||943 mbar<br /> ||14 <br /> ||$2.3 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||1980<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Allen|Allen}}<br /> ||TX<br /> ||190&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||899 mbar<br /> ||269<br /> ||$1.24 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||1984<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Diana_(1984)|Diana}}<br /> ||FL SC NC<br /> ||130&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||949 mbar<br /> ||3<br /> ||$65.5 million<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|1985<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Elena|Elena}}<br /> ||FL AL MS LA AR KY<br /> ||125&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||953 mbar<br /> ||9<br /> ||$1.3 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Gloria|Gloria}}<br /> ||NC VA MD DE NJ NY MA ME CT RI NH ME<br /> ||145&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||919 mbar<br /> ||14<br /> ||$900 million<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Kate_(1985)|Kate}}<br /> ||Fl GA<br /> ||120&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||954 mbar<br /> ||15<br /> ||$700 million<br /> |-<br /> ||1989<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Hugo|Hugo}}<br /> ||SC NC VA WV OH VI<br /> ||160&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||918 mbar<br /> ||±107<br /> ||$10 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||1991<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Bob|Bob}}<br /> ||NC ME MA NH VT RI CT<br /> ||115&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||950 mbar<br /> ||17<br /> ||$1.5 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||1992<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Andrew|Andrew}}<br /> ||FL LA <br /> ||175&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||922 mbar<br /> ||65<br /> ||$26.5 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||1995<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Opal|Opal}}<br /> ||AL FL GA<br /> ||150&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||916 mbar<br /> ||63<br /> ||$5.1 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||1996<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Fran|Fran}}<br /> ||SC NC VA WV MD PA<br /> ||120&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||946 mbar<br /> ||27<br /> ||$3.2 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||1998<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Bonnie_(1998)|Bonnie}}<br /> ||NC<br /> ||115&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||954 mbar<br /> ||5<br /> ||$1 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||1999<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Floyd|Floyd}}<br /> ||FL to ME<br /> ||155&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||921 mbar<br /> ||77-87<br /> ||$6.9 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||2002<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Lili|Lili}}<br /> ||LA MS AK<br /> ||145&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||938 mbar<br /> ||15<br /> ||$925 million<br /> |-<br /> ||2003<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Isabel|Isabel}}<br /> ||NC to PA<br /> ||165&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||915 mbar<br /> ||51<br /> ||$5.37 billion<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;5&quot;|2004<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Charley|Charley}}<br /> ||FL SC NC<br /> ||150&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||941 mbar<br /> ||35<br /> ||$16.3 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Frances|Frances}}<br /> ||VI PR FL<br /> ||145&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||935 mbar<br /> ||49<br /> ||$9 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Gaston_(2004)|Gaston}}<br /> ||SC NC VA MD DE MA<br /> ||75&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||985 mbar<br /> ||9<br /> ||$130 million<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Ivan|Ivan}}<br /> ||AL FL LA TX<br /> ||165&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||910 mbar<br /> ||123<br /> ||$18 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Jeanne|Jeanne}}<br /> ||VI PR FL<br /> ||120&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||950 mbar<br /> ||&lt;3,035<br /> ||$7 billion<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|2005<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Dennis|Dennis}}<br /> ||Fl Al MS GA TN OH<br /> ||150&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||930 mbar<br /> ||89<br /> ||$4 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Katrina|Katrina}}<br /> ||FL LA MS AL <br /> ||175&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||902 mbar<br /> ||&lt;1,833<br /> ||$108 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Rita|Rita}}<br /> ||FL MS LA TX AR MO IL<br /> ||180&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||895 mbar<br /> ||97-125<br /> ||$12 billion<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|2008<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Gustav|Gustav}}<br /> ||PR AL MS LA TX OK AR MO IL MI<br /> ||155&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||941 mbar<br /> ||153<br /> ||$6.61 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Ike|Ike}}<br /> ||FL OH LA TX MS<br /> ||145&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||935 mbar<br /> ||195<br /> ||$37.5 billion<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|2011<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Irene|Irene}}<br /> ||NC CT NJ NY <br /> ||120&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||942 mbar<br /> ||56<br /> ||$16.6 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Tropical_Storm_Lee_(2011)|Lee}}<br /> ||NY PA<br /> ||60&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||986 mbar<br /> ||18<br /> ||$1.6 billion<br /> |-<br /> ||2012<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Sandy|Sandy}}<br /> ||NJ NY PA MD DE<br /> ||115&amp;nbsp;mph<br /> ||940 mbar<br /> ||286<br /> ||≥ $68 billion<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> <br /> :What's The<br /> :;Worst Hurricane<br /> :Anyone In Your Town Remembers?<br /> :Estimated from Hurdat Database and NCEP rainfall totals<br /> :1914-2014<br /> :[A map of the east coast of the United States as far southwest as the Texas/Mexico border, as far northeast as the Maine/Canada border, and as far inland as Kentucky. The map has coastal regions blocked out with the name and year of the worst hurricane in the last 100 years.]<br /> ===Map===<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable sortable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Date<br /> !Hurricane name<br /> !States (Postcode form)<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|1915<br /> ||{{w|1915_Galveston_hurricane|Galveston}}<br /> ||LA TX OK AR<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|1915_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Six|1915 VI}}<br /> ||LA MS AL TN KY WV PA<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|1916<br /> ||{{w|1916_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Four|1916 IV}}<br /> ||SC NC<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|1916_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Six|1916 VI}}<br /> ||TX<br /> |-<br /> ||1918<br /> ||{{w|1918_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_One|1918 I}}<br /> ||LA<br /> |-<br /> ||1921<br /> ||{{w|1921_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Six|1921 VI}}<br /> ||FL<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;4&quot;|1926<br /> ||{{w|1926_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_One|1926 I}}<br /> ||FL<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|1926_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Two|1926 II}}<br /> ||GA<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|1926_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Three|1926 III}}<br /> ||TX LA AL<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|1926_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Seven|1926 VII}}<br /> ||FL AL MS LA<br /> |-<br /> ||1928<br /> ||{{w|1928_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Four|1928 IV}}<br /> ||FL SC NC<br /> |-<br /> ||1932<br /> ||{{w|1932_Freeport_hurricane|Freeport}}<br /> ||TX<br /> |-<br /> ||1933<br /> ||{{w|1933_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Six|1933 VI}}<br /> ||NC VA MD PA<br /> |-<br /> ||1935<br /> ||{{w|1935_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Three|1935 III}}<br /> ||FL<br /> |-<br /> ||1938<br /> ||{{w|1938_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Six|1938 VI}}<br /> ||NY CT<br /> |-<br /> ||1940<br /> ||{{w|1940_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Three|1940 III}}<br /> ||SC NC<br /> |-<br /> ||1941<br /> ||{{w|1941_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Two|1941 II}}<br /> ||LA TX<br /> |-<br /> ||1942<br /> ||{{w|1942_Matagorda_hurricane|Matagorda}}<br /> ||TX NM OK<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|1944<br /> ||{{w|1944_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Seven|1944 VII}}<br /> ||NY NC to CT<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|1944_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Thirteen|1944 XIII}}<br /> ||FL<br /> |-<br /> ||1946<br /> ||{{w|1946_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Six|1946 VI}}<br /> ||FL NC<br /> |-<br /> ||1947<br /> ||{{w|1947_Cape_Sable_hurricane|King}}<br /> ||FL GA SN NC<br /> |-<br /> ||1949<br /> ||{{w|1949_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Two|1949 II}}<br /> ||FL GA to NH<br /> |-<br /> ||1950<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Easy_(1950)|Easy}}<br /> ||FL GA AK<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|1954<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Carol|Carol}}<br /> ||NY CT NH NC MA VA DC DE NJ<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Edna|Edna}}<br /> ||NY VA NC NJ MA ME NH<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Hazel|Hazel}}<br /> ||NC VA WV MD DE NY PA NJ DC<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|1955<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Connie|Connie}}<br /> ||NC SC VA DC MD MI PA NJ NY <br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Diane|Diane}}<br /> ||PA NJ NY NC WV MA RI VT <br /> |-<br /> ||1957<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Audrey|Audrey}}<br /> ||TX FL LA MS AL MI MO IL NY PA VT ME<br /> |-<br /> ||1958<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Helene_(1958)|Helene}}<br /> ||SC to ME<br /> |-<br /> ||1959<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Gracie|Gracie}}<br /> ||SC GA VA PA<br /> |-<br /> ||1960<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Donna|Donna}}<br /> ||FL GA SC NC VA MD PA NJ NY CT MA VT NH <br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|1961<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Carla|Carla}}<br /> ||TX LA OK IL FL NE MO MI WI IN AL AK MS IA <br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Esther_(1961)|Esther}}<br /> ||NC VA MD DE NJ NY CT MA NH<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|1964<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Dora|Dora}}<br /> ||FL<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Hilda|Hilda}}<br /> ||FL TX LA GA MS NC SC AL TN VA MD DE<br /> |-<br /> ||1965<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Betsy|Betsy}}<br /> ||FL LA MS AR TE MO<br /> |-<br /> ||1966<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Alma_(1966)|Alma}}<br /> ||FL (up to FL/GA border)<br /> |-<br /> ||1967<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Beulah|Beulah}}<br /> ||TX<br /> |-<br /> ||1969<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Camille|Camille}}<br /> ||AS MS LA<br /> |-<br /> ||1970<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Celia|Celia}}<br /> ||FL TX<br /> |-<br /> ||1972<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Agnes|Agnes}}<br /> ||FL GA NC VA MD PA NY<br /> |-<br /> ||1974<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Carmen|Carmen}}<br /> ||LA TX<br /> |-<br /> ||1975<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Eloise|Eloise}}<br /> ||FL<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|1979<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_David|David}}<br /> ||FL<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Frederic|Frederic}}<br /> ||FL AS MS<br /> |-<br /> ||1980<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Allen|Allen}}<br /> ||TX<br /> |-<br /> ||1984<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Diana_(1984)|Diana}}<br /> ||FL SC NC<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|1985<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Elena|Elena}}<br /> ||FL AL MS LA AR KY<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Gloria|Gloria}}<br /> ||NC VA MD DE NJ NY MA ME CT RI NH ME<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Kate_(1985)|Kate}}<br /> ||Fl GA<br /> |-<br /> ||1989<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Hugo|Hugo}}<br /> ||SC NC VA WV OH VI<br /> |-<br /> ||1991<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Bob|Bob}}<br /> ||NC ME MA NH VT RI CT<br /> |-<br /> ||1992<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Andrew|Andrew}}<br /> ||FL LA <br /> |-<br /> ||1995<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Opal|Opal}}<br /> ||AL FL GA<br /> |-<br /> ||1996<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Fran|Fran}}<br /> ||SC NC VA WV MD PA<br /> |-<br /> ||1998<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Bonnie_(1998)|Bonnie}}<br /> ||NC<br /> |-<br /> ||1999<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Floyd|Floyd}}<br /> ||FL to ME<br /> |-<br /> ||2002<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Lili|Lili}}<br /> ||LA MS AK<br /> |-<br /> ||2003<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Isabel|Isabel}}<br /> ||NC to PA<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;5&quot;|2004<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Charley|Charley}}<br /> ||FL SC NC<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Frances|Frances}}<br /> ||VI PR FL<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Gaston_(2004)|Gaston}}<br /> ||SC NC VA MD DE MA<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Ivan|Ivan}}<br /> ||AL FL LA TX<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Jeanne|Jeanne}}<br /> ||VI PR FL<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|2005<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Dennis|Dennis}}<br /> ||Fl Al MS GA TN OH<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Katrina|Katrina}}<br /> ||FL LA MS AL <br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Rita|Rita}}<br /> ||FL MS LA TX AR MO IL<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|2008<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Gustav|Gustav}}<br /> ||PR AL MS LA TX OK AR MO IL MI<br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Ike|Ike}}<br /> ||FL OH LA TX MS<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|2011<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Irene|Irene}}<br /> ||NC CT NJ NY <br /> |-<br /> ||{{w|Tropical_Storm_Lee_(2011)|Lee}}<br /> ||NY PA<br /> |-<br /> ||2012<br /> ||{{w|Hurricane_Sandy|Sandy}}<br /> ||NJ NY PA MD DE<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Trivia==<br /> *Hurricanes have a maximum wind speed in the eye-wall around the centre of the storm. After a storm passes over land it loses the warm water needed to power it, and rapidly dissipates. Around the Caribbean Sea there are major storms, such as Katrina, that affect a long path inland, and storms such as Carmen that have had significant effects on local coastal areas. Further north the pattern changes, as hurricanes will be beginning to transform to an extra-tropical depression, and can intensify over land. There may be a degree of sample bias, as hurricanes from the early half of the twentieth century may not have been monitored as intensely after making landfall.<br /> *Randall wrote &quot;Esther 1951&quot; instead of &quot;Esther 1961&quot; in the map.<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> [[Category:Hurricanes]]<br /> [[Category:Maps]]</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1122:_Electoral_Precedent&diff=128173 2016-10-03T23:52:01Z

<p>108.162.218.101: /* Explanation */</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 1122<br /> | date = October 17, 2012<br /> | title = Electoral Precedent<br /> | image = electoral_precedent.png<br /> | titletext = No white guy who's been mentioned on twitter has gone on to win.<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> During election season in U.S. presidential elections — and especially in election night coverage — it is common for the media to make comments like the ones set out in the first panel of this comic. [[Randall Munroe|Randall]] is demonstrating the problem with making such statements, many of which simply come down to coincidence.<br /> <br /> After the first panel the next 56 panels in this comic refer to each one of the {{w|United States presidential election#Electoral college results|56 presidential elections}} in U.S. history before {{w|Barack Obama|Obama's}} re-election in 2012. The panels depict a pre-election commentator noting a quality or condition that has never occurred to a candidate, until one of the candidates in that election broke the streak. In other words, one can always find at least one unique thing about a candidate who has gone on to win (or in some cases, lose) or the circumstances under which they won (or lost) that is unique from all previous winners (or losers). It's worth noting that some of these 'firsts' were truly precedent-setting (such as the first incumbent losing, the first president to win a third term, the first Catholic president, etc.), but the fact that they hadn't happened was no assurance that there wouldn't be a first time. As the years pass on, these 'streaks' become more and more nested and complicated, and then brought by Randall to the point of absurdity by pointing out very trivial things, such as &quot;No Democratic {{w|incumbent}} without combat experience has ever beaten someone whose first name is worth more in {{w|Scrabble}}&quot; (1996).<br /> <br /> The flaw made by pundits while reporting such streaks is that there will always be ''something'' that has never happened before in an election, and they purport to suggest that these things are related to the candidate's win or loss. Randall considers this a logical flaw. A common one is, as noted in several panels, candidates can't win without winning certain states. The question, however, is one of {{w|Correlation does not imply causation|cause or effect}}.<br /> <br /> Given that there have only been 56 elections, there are always going to be things that haven't happened before. If you go out looking for them, you're sure to find some. There is no magic about why these events haven't happened. In most cases, it is merely coincidence.<br /> <br /> In the last two panels two more statements like the previous are given. They were both true before the {{w|United States presidential election, 2012|election in 2012}} on November the 6th. The comic came out in the middle of the campaign on October the 17th. The statements were constructed so that the first predicts that Obama can't win over {{w|Mitt Romney}}, and the second that he cannot lose. As Obama won the election he thus ended the streak ''Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers'' whereas the other streak is still valid.<br /> <br /> The title text refers to the fact that {{w|Twitter}} was founded in 2006. Obama won in 2008, so it is true that no white male person mentioned on Twitter has ever gone on to win the presidency; although certainly some former presidents, all of whom were white, have subsequently been mentioned on Twitter.<br /> <br /> During these last four week before the election Randall posted no fewer than four comics related to this election. The others being: [[1127: Congress]], [[1130: Poll Watching]] and [[1131: Math]].<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> :The problem with statements like<br /> :&quot;No &lt;party&gt; candidate has won the election without &lt;state&gt;&quot;<br /> :Or<br /> :&quot;No president has been reelected under &lt;circumstances&gt;&quot;<br /> <br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1788-1789|1788}}... No one has been elected president before. ...But Washington was.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1792|1792}}... No incumbent has ever been reelected. ...Until Washington.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1796|1796}}... No one without false teeth has become president. ...But Adams did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1800|1800}}... No challenger has beaten an incumbent. ...But Jefferson did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1804|1804}}... No incumbent has beaten a challenger. ...Until Jefferson.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1808|1808}}... No congressman has ever become president. ...Until Madison.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1812|1812}}... No one can win without New York. ...But Madison did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1816|1816}}... No candidate who doesn't wear a wig can get elected. ...Until Monroe was.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1820|1820}}... No one who wears pants instead of breeches can be reelected. ...But Monroe was.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1824|1824}}... No one has ever won without a popular majority. ...J.Q. Adams did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1828|1828}}... Only people from Massachusetts and Virginia can win. ...Until Jackson did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1832|1832}}... The only presidents who get reelected are Virginians. ...Until Jackson.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1836|1836}}... New Yorkers always lose. ...Until Van Buren.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1840|1840}}... No one over 65 has won the presidency. ...Until Harrison did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1844|1844}}... No one who's lost his home state has won. ...But Polk did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1848|1848}}... The Democrats don't lose when they win Pennsylvania. ...But they did in 1848.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1852|1852}}... New England Democrats can't win. ...Until Pierce did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1856|1856}}... No one can become president without getting married. ...Until Buchanan did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1860|1860}}... No one over 6'3&quot; can get elected. ...Until Lincoln.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1864|1864}}... No one with a beard has been reelected. ...But Lincoln was.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1868|1868}}... No one can be president if their parent are alive. ...Until Grant.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1872|1872}}... No one with a beard has been reelected in peacetime. ...Until Grant was.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1876|1876}}... No one can win a majority of the popular vote and still lose. ...Tilden did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1880|1880}}... As goes California, so goes the nation. ...Until it went Hancock.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1884|1884}}... Candidates named &quot;James&quot; can't lose. ...Until James Blaine.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1888|1888}}... No sitting president has been beaten since the Civil War. ...Cleveland was.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1892|1892}}... No former president has been elected. ...Until Cleveland.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1896|1896}}... Tall midwesterners are unbeatable. ...Bryan wasn't.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1900|1900}}... No Republican shorter than 5'8&quot; has been reelected. ...Until McKinley was.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1904|1904}}... No one under 45 has become president. ...Roosevelt did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1908|1908}}... No Republican who hasn't served in the military has won. ...Until Taft.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1912|1912}}... After Lincoln beat the Democrats while sporting a beard with no mustache, the only Democrats who can win have a mustache with no beard. ...Wilson had neither.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1916|1916}}... No Democrat has won without Indiana. ...Wilson did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1920|1920}}... No incumbent senator has won. ...Until Harding.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1924|1924}}... No one with two Cs in their name has become president. ...Until Calvin Coolidge.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1928|1928}}... No one who got ten million votes has lost. ...Until Al Smith.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1932|1932}}... No Democrat has won since women secured the right to vote. ...Until FDR did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1936|1936}}... No President's been reelected with double-digit unemployment. ...Until FDR was.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1940|1940}}... No one has won a third term. ...Until FDR did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1944|1944}}... No Democrat has won during wartime. ...Until FDR did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1948|1948}}... Democrats can't win without Alabama. ...Truman did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1952|1952}}... No Republican has won without winning the House or Senate. ...Eisenhower did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1956|1956}}... No Republican has won without Missouri. ...Until Eisenhower.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1960|1960}}... Republicans without facial hair are unbeatable. ...Kennedy beat Nixon.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1964|1964}}... No Democrat has won without Georgia. ...Johnson did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1968|1968}}... No Republican vice president has risen to the Presidency through an election. ...Until Nixon.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1972|1972}}... No wartime candidate has won without Massachusetts. ...Until Nixon did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1976|1976}}... No one who lost New Mexico has won. ...But Carter did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1980|1980}}... No one has been elected President after a divorce. ...Until Reagan was.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1984|1984}}... No left-handed president has been reelected. ...Until Reagan was.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1988|1988}}... No Democrat who has won Wisconsin (without being from there) has lost. ...Until Dukakis did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1992|1992}}... No Democrat has won without a majority of the Catholic vote. ...Until Clinton did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 1996|1996}}... No Dem. incumbent without combat experience has beaten someone whose first name is worth more in Scrabble. ...Until Bill beat Bob.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 2000|2000}}... No Republican has won without Vermont. ...Until Bush did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 2004|2004}}... No Republican without combat experience has beaten someone two inches taller. ...Until Bush did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 2008|2008}}... No Democrat can win without Missouri. ...Until Obama did.<br /> :{{w|United States presidential election, 2012|2012}}... Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers. No nominee whose first name contains a &quot;K&quot; has lost. Which streak will break?<br /> <br /> ==Trivia/Errors==<br /> * There was an error in the original 1800 panel of the comic, as Jefferson (not Adams) was the first challenger to beat an incumbent, when Jefferson beat then-president Adams in 1800. This was later corrected.<br /> <br /> * Also, one of the statements of a streak for the 2012 elections can be considered wrong: in 1952, the Republican candidate/running mate Eisenhower/Nixon defeated the Democratic alliterative ticket Stevenson/Sparkman (in what can only be described as a landslide). The comic has been changed, and now reads &quot;Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers&quot; as the streak which would have the Republican ticket as the winners.<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br /> [[Category:Statistics]]<br /> [[Category:Politics]]<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring John F. Kennedy]]</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1474:_Screws&diff=122876 2016-07-05T21:57:54Z

<p>108.162.218.101: /* Transcript */</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 1474<br /> | date = January 16, 2015<br /> | title = Screws<br /> | image = screws.png<br /> | titletext = If you encounter a hex bolt, but you only brought screwdrivers, you can try sandwiching the head of the bolt between two parallel screwdriver shafts, squeezing the screwdrivers together with a hand at either end, then twisting. It doesn't work and it's a great way to hurt yourself, but you can try it!<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> Appliance makers sometimes use strange screw heads to hinder attempts from users to remove appliance covers. Users usually have handy screwdrivers for the first two screw types drawn, Phillips and Flat. More advanced users usually have some less standard drivers, such as Torx or Allen, however appliance makers keep designing increasingly strange screw heads and users keep acquiring increasingly strange screwdrivers.<br /> <br /> The comic is about the frustration a user may feel when faced with a screw for which they have no screwdriver. Usually the user will try to fit one of the drivers they have handy into the strange screw, leading to damaging the screw and/or the driver and/or the person wielding the tool.<br /> <br /> The types of screws listed are the following:<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! style=&quot;width: 25%&quot;|Screw type<br /> ! Description<br /> |-<br /> | Phillips head<br /> | {{w|List of screw drives#Phillips|Phillips screw drive}} and its corresponding screw head is one of the most recognizable types of screw heads that is commonly used in construction. This type of screw head was named after its inventor, a US businessman {{w|Henry F. Phillips}}. Neither the inventor nor his invention have any relationship to the Dutch electronics manufacturing company with similar, but not exactly the same name {{w|Philips}}.<br /> |-<br /> | Flat head<br /> | {{w|List_of_screw_drives#Slot|Slot head screws}} are frequently erroneously referred to as flat heads (a flat head screw refers, in fact, to the shape of the screw head, regardless of the shape of the drive socket). The slot head is also commonly used in construction. Although the diagram shows the slot truncated, the slot almost always runs across the entire head of the screw (as in the case of the &quot;uranium screw&quot; below).<br /> |-<br /> | Uh oh. Maybe it's on Amazon? (star-shaped screw)<br /> | Manufacturers sometimes use screws that require special screwdrivers in order to prevent the customer from opening the product. The reference to Amazon is presumably a suggestion to search Amazon.com for the screwdriver. A number of star-shaped screw heads exist, notably the six-pointed {{w|Torx}}, and Apple's rounded {{w|Pentalobe screw|pentalobe screw}}, although there is no popular design that uses the 5-pointed star shape depicted in the comic. Torx screws are common in automotive applications — Phillips heads are designed to &quot;cam out&quot; at high torque to protect the screw, whereas Torx do not — and on bicycles where a higher tightening torque is needed than hex screws can support. They are also commonly used on disk brake mounts and in Smartphones.<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | Cursed -1 Phillips head<br /> | The head of a screw can be stripped by overuse, tightening the screw too much, using the wrong size screwdriver, or other misuse. As the driving surfaces wear away, removing the screw becomes more difficult, and the added pressure needed to drive the screw usually damages it further. <br /> <br /> The addition of &quot;cursed&quot; and &quot;-1&quot; in the titles is a reference to various role playing games (e.g. Dungeons and Dragons), where magical &quot;cursed&quot; items appear frequently. This often makes the cursed equipment (in the case of armor or weapons) incredibly difficult to remove, as it will cling to the wielder. Similarly, the cursed Phillips Head screw becomes difficult to remove due to the stripped head.<br /> Alternatively, this may imply that the damage to the screw head was caused ''because'' the screw is &quot;cursed&quot; and therefore difficult to remove.<br /> <br /> The &quot;-1&quot; refers to the damage of the screw head. In role playing games, items such as weapons and armor may have an &quot;enchantment&quot;, with a positive enchantment making the item more effective, and a negative enchantment making the item less effective. Negatively enchanted items are often also cursed, as is the case with this screw head. The &quot;-1&quot; does not appear to be a reference to a Philips bit-size number, as those are always positive.<br /> <br /> Notably, the stripped screw bears a resemblance to a {{w|List_of_screw_drives#Pozidriv|Pozidriv head}}, a modified version of the Phillips head designed to resist slipping and subsequent stripping. Using a Phillips head screwdriver in a Pozidriv screw is very likely to damage the screw head and cause a real Pozidriv screwdriver to no longer mate correctly.<br /> |-<br /> | Crap, it's a ''rivet''.<br /> | A {{w|rivet}} is not a screw - it is a permanent fastener which is secured by deforming the body of the fastener. Rivets cannot be removed with a screwdriver, they must be &quot;drilled out&quot;. Some bolts also have rounded rivet-style heads, though, with no means of gripping them.<br /> |-<br /> | Phillips head ruiner ''(actually a hex screw)''<br /> | A reference to the fact that {{w|List_of_screw_drives#Hex_socket|hex socket}} screws can, in a pinch, be removed with a Phillips screwdriver (rather than the intended {{w|Allen wrench}}) but this will likely ruin the screwdriver in the process. <br /> |-<br /> | Uranium screw<br /> | Uranium screws were [http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/11/10/fat-mans-uranium/ used] in the [http://www.scintillators.ru/booc/criticality/reports/ref_050.pdf construction] of [http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/769001 nuclear weapons] during the twentieth century. Multiple radially extending short wave-like lines around the screw head symbolize radiant energy output, although real uranium screws were most likely made of depleted uranium, which is [http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabc.htm 40 percent less radioactive] than &quot;raw&quot; naturally-occurring uranium.<br /> |-<br /> | Phillip's head<br /> | This is a morbidly literal interpretation of the misuse of an apostrophe in &quot;Phillip's head&quot;. This &quot;screw&quot; is actually a bloody bag containing the severed head of someone named Phillip. Intentionally or otherwise, this last punchline could be described as a &quot;[http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MindScrew mind screw]&quot;.<br /> |-<br /> |Hex bolt (title text)<br /> |A {{w|List_of_screw_drives#Hex|hex bolt}} has six external sides, so it could in theory be held by squeezing two screwdriver shafts together with the bolt in between. The amount of force on the two screwdriver shafts needed to turn the hex bolt will probably exceed the strength of human hands - the attempt would most likely only result in causing your hands to cramp or causing the screwdrivers to slip and cause further injury.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> :[Eight drawings of different types of heads each with a caption:]<br /> :[Plus sign-shaped screw.]<br /> :Phillips head<br /> :[Minus sign-shaped screw.]<br /> :Flat head<br /> :[Star-shaped screw.]<br /> :Uh oh. Maybe it's on Amazon?<br /> :[Plus sign-shaped screw with warn edges.]<br /> :Cursed -1 Phillips head<br /> :[No screw, just a circle.]<br /> :Crap, it's a ''rivet''.<br /> :[Hexagon-shaped screw.]<br /> :Phillips-head ruiner<br /> :[Minus sign-shaped screw going through the whole circle. Also giving off radiation.]<br /> :Uranium screw (a real thing)<br /> :[A sack with blood oozing out of it.]<br /> :Phillip's head<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1658:_Estimating_Time&diff=115371 2016-03-21T22:33:16Z

<p>108.162.218.101: </p> <hr /> <div>Nice to see [[Danish]] so clearly back in action. It was also way too long since there have been any clear references to self reference although it of course doesn't reach the level of [[688: Self-Description]]. ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Makes me wonder if Randall is working on another big comic, and how long those take him. - Dan - [[Special:Contributions/198.41.235.77|198.41.235.77]] 13:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Why does it make you wonder if he is working on another big comic? I mean, that'd be cool, but why?<br /> <br /> What am I missing?<br /> <br /> ANSWER ME<br /> <br /> [[1627: Woosh]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Why is this talking about adding doubling imaginary numbers? Time estimates are usually non-negative real numbers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.165|162.158.91.165]] 15:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> : I was thinking the exact same thing until I realized that in this context, &quot;imaginary&quot; refers to &quot;non-existent&quot;: The numbers being doubled only exist in Ponytail's head. I was very confused until I realized that he wasn't referring to complex numbers with a real component of zero. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.35|173.245.54.35]] 16:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> : lolol &quot;Yes, yes, you're very smart. Now shut up.&quot; [[User:NotLock|NotLock]] ([[User talk:NotLock|talk]]) 16:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> This may be a reference to the rule of thumb that you double your estimate and raise to the next higher unit. E.g.if you think it will take two days, give an estimate of four weeks. There are of course amny similar rules out there.<br /> --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.133.144|162.158.133.144]] 15:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> This is only too real.[[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 17:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> What about the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference? (&quot;Don't Panic&quot;) [[User:Arthulia|Arthulia]] ([[User talk:Arthulia|talk]]) 21:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1658:_Estimating_Time&diff=115370 2016-03-21T22:32:54Z

<p>108.162.218.101: </p> <hr /> <div>Nice to see [[Danish]] so clearly back in action. It was also way too long since there have been any clear references to self reference although it of course doesn't reach the level of [[688: Self-Description]]. ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Makes me wonder if Randall is working on another big comic, and how long those take him. - Dan - [[Special:Contributions/198.41.235.77|198.41.235.77]] 13:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Why does it make you wonder if he is working on another big comic? I mean, that'd be cool, but why?<br /> <br /> What am I missing?<br /> <br /> ANSWER ME<br /> <br /> [[1627: Woosh]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Why is this talking about adding doubling imaginary numbers? Time estimates are usually non-negative real numbers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.165|162.158.91.165]] 15:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> : I was thinking the exact same thing until I realized that in this context, &quot;imaginary&quot; refers to &quot;non-existent&quot;: The numbers being doubled only exist in Ponytail's head. I was very confused until I realized that he wasn't referring to complex numbers with a real component of zero. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.35|173.245.54.35]] 16:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> : lolol &quot;Yes, yes, you're very smart. Now shut up.&quot; [[User:NotLock|NotLock]] ([[User talk:NotLock|talk]]) 16:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> This may be a reference to the rule of thumb that you double your estimate and raise to the next higher unit. E.g.if you think it will take two days, give an estimate of four weeks. There are of course amny similar rules out there.<br /> --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.133.144|162.158.133.144]] 15:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> This is only too real.[[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 17:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> What about the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference? (&quot;Don't Panic&quot;) [[User:Arthulia|Arthulia]] ([[User talk:Arthulia|talk]]) 21:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1658:_Estimating_Time&diff=115369 2016-03-21T22:31:55Z

<p>108.162.218.101: </p> <hr /> <div>Nice to see [[Danish]] so clearly back in action. It was also way too long since there have been any clear references to self reference although it of course doesn't reach the level of [[688: Self-Description]]. ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Makes me wonder if Randall is working on another big comic, and how long those take him. - Dan - [[Special:Contributions/198.41.235.77|198.41.235.77]] 13:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Why does it make you wonder if he is working on another big comic? I mean, that'd be cool, but why?<br /> <br /> What am I missing?<br /> <br /> ANSWER ME<br /> <br /> [[1627: Woosh]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Why is this talking about adding doubling imaginary numbers? Time estimates are usually non-negative real numbers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.165|162.158.91.165]] 15:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> : I was thinking the exact same thing until I realized that in this context, &quot;imaginary&quot; refers to &quot;non-existent&quot;: The numbers being doubled only exist in Ponytail's head. I was very confused until I realized that he wasn't referring to complex numbers with a real component of zero. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.35|173.245.54.35]] 16:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> : lolol &quot;Yes, yes, you're very smart. Now shut up.&quot; [[User:NotLock|NotLock]] ([[User talk:NotLock|talk]]) 16:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> This may be a reference to the rule of thumb that you double your estimate and raise to the next higher unit. E.g.if you think it will take two days, give an estimate of four weeks. There are of course amny similar rules out there.<br /> --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.133.144|162.158.133.144]] 15:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> This is only too real.[[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 17:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> What about the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference? (&quot;Don't Panic&quot;) [[User:Arthulia|Arthulia]] ([[User talk:Arthulia|talk]]) 21:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1658:_Estimating_Time&diff=115368 2016-03-21T22:29:27Z

<p>108.162.218.101: </p> <hr /> <div>Nice to see [[Danish]] so clearly back in action. It was also way too long since there have been any clear references to self reference although it of course doesn't reach the level of [[688: Self-Description]]. ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Makes me wonder if Randall is working on another big comic, and how long those take him. - Dan - [[Special:Contributions/198.41.235.77|198.41.235.77]] 13:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> @Dan <br /> Why does it make you wonder if he is working on another big comic? I mean, that'd be cool, but why?<br /> <br /> Why is this talking about adding doubling imaginary numbers? Time estimates are usually non-negative real numbers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.165|162.158.91.165]] 15:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> : I was thinking the exact same thing until I realized that in this context, &quot;imaginary&quot; refers to &quot;non-existent&quot;: The numbers being doubled only exist in Ponytail's head. I was very confused until I realized that he wasn't referring to complex numbers with a real component of zero. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.35|173.245.54.35]] 16:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> : lolol &quot;Yes, yes, you're very smart. Now shut up.&quot; [[User:NotLock|NotLock]] ([[User talk:NotLock|talk]]) 16:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> This may be a reference to the rule of thumb that you double your estimate and raise to the next higher unit. E.g.if you think it will take two days, give an estimate of four weeks. There are of course amny similar rules out there.<br /> --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.133.144|162.158.133.144]] 15:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> This is only too real.[[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 17:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> What about the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference? (&quot;Don't Panic&quot;) [[User:Arthulia|Arthulia]] ([[User talk:Arthulia|talk]]) 21:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1658:_Estimating_Time&diff=115367 2016-03-21T22:26:17Z

<p>108.162.218.101: /* Explanation */</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 1658<br /> | date = March 21, 2016<br /> | title = Estimating Time<br /> | image = estimating_time.png<br /> | titletext = Corollary to Hofstadter's Law: Every minute you spend thinking about Hofstadter's Law is a minute you're NOT WORKING AND WILL NEVER FINISH! PAAAAAANIIIIIIC!<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> <br /> Estimation is difficult; many people seem to greatly underestimate the amount of time or other resources required. <br /> <br /> [[Ponytail]] is working at her computer and becomes frustrated as it seems her project will (again) take much longer than she has estimated. She is annoyed with herself for always failing to make a decent guess. [[Danish]] begins to give [[Ponytail]] advice on how to estimate the time, starting with the comforting words {{w| Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Don.27t_Panic |Don’t panic}} and a common guideline of taking the initial estimate and doubling it. <br /> <br /> However, [[Danish]]'s true personality appears (and the comic becomes self-referential) as this doubled time would now be her most realistic estimate and [[Danish]] thus tells [[Ponytail]] she should double this again, and by the way add five minutes. Unless the project to begin with was estimated to somewhat less than an hour, those five minutes will do nothing but confuse [[Ponytail]]. But [[Danish]] does not stop here, because per the first step, you could always say that your current guess is the most realistic and thus you have to double this and that and so on and so on. [[Ponytail]] still doesn’t get where this goes, saying plainly ''okay'' to that. <br /> <br /> But then it turns out that [[Danish]] was not at all trying to help, but just mess with [[Ponytail]], as she now tells her that the only thing she has accomplished by listening to her advice is wasting half a minute doubling imaginary numbers, i.e. even her first estimate is just something she has imagined especially since she states herself how bad she is at those kind of estimates.<br /> <br /> [[Danish]] completes her frustration of [[Ponytail]] by saying ''Paaaniiic!'', negating the initial advice.<br /> <br /> The title text refers to {{w|Hofstadter's law}} which is a non-scientific self-referential time-related adage coined by {{w|Douglas Hofstadter}} and named after him. It states: ''It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.'' The title text is an extra corollary to the law, that states that using the law to estimate anything about the time your project takes is not only wasted time you could have spent working there is a substantial risk that you will conclude that you will never finish, and thus panic instead of just get the job done now.<br /> <br /> Self-reference is a [[:Category:Self-reference|recurring theme]] on xkcd and this comic is quite self-referential both in the comic but also refering to other comics especially to [[917: Hofstadter]]. He is perhaps most famous for his book {{w|Gödel, Escher, Bach}} from where the quote is taken (in a section on {{w|recursion}} and self-reference, rather than estimation). This book has been directly referenced in [[24: Godel, Escher, Kurt Halsey]].<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> :[Ponytail is sitting back from her a laptop lifting her hands of the keyboard, having presumably just paused work on a project.]<br /> :Ponytail: Aaaa! I'm so bad at estimating how long projects take.<br /> <br /> :[Danish walks into the panel towards Ponytail who seems to relax back against the chair.]<br /> :Danish: Don't panic-there's a simple trick for that:<br /> :Danish: Take your most realistic estimate and double it.<br /> :Ponytail: Okay, but-<br /> <br /> :[A frame less panel with only Danish holding a hand up.]<br /> :Danish: Now double it again. Add five minutes. <br /> :Danish: Double it a third time.<br /> :Ponytail (from off panel): Okay...<br /> <br /> :[Danish raises her arms above her head in mock hysteria. Ponytail runs away from her desk screaming.]<br /> :Danish: 30 seconds have gone by and you've done nothing but double imaginary numbers! You're making no progress and will never finish!<br /> :Ponytail: &lt;big&gt;''Aaaaaa!''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> :Danish: ''Paaaniic!''<br /> :Ponytail: &lt;big&gt;''Aaaaaaa!''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Danish]]<br /> [[Category:Self-reference]]</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1658:_Estimating_Time&diff=115366 2016-03-21T22:22:31Z

<p>108.162.218.101: /* Explanation */</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 1658<br /> | date = March 21, 2016<br /> | title = Estimating Time<br /> | image = estimating_time.png<br /> | titletext = Corollary to Hofstadter's Law: Every minute you spend thinking about Hofstadter's Law is a minute you're NOT WORKING AND WILL NEVER FINISH! PAAAAAANIIIIIIC!<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> {{incomplete|First draft.}}<br /> <br /> Estimation is difficult; many people seem to greatly underestimate the amount of time or other resources required. <br /> <br /> [[Ponytail]] is working at her computer and becomes frustrated as it seems her project will (again) take much longer than she has estimated. She is annoyed with herself for always failing to make a decent guess. [[Danish]] begins to give [[Ponytail]] advice on how to estimate the time, starting with the comforting words {{w| Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Don.27t_Panic |Don’t panic}} and a common guideline of taking the initial estimate and doubling it. <br /> <br /> However, [[Danish]]'s true personality appears (and the comic becomes self-referential) as this doubled time would now be her most realistic estimate and [[Danish]] thus tells [[Ponytail]] she should double this again, and by the way add five minutes. Unless the project to begin with was estimated to somewhat less than an hour, those five minutes will do nothing but confuse [[Ponytail]]. But [[Danish]] does not stop here, because per the first step, you could always say that your current guess is the most realistic and thus you have to double this and that and so on and so on. [[Ponytail]] still doesn’t get where this goes, saying plainly ''okay'' to that. <br /> <br /> But then it turns out that [[Danish]] was not at all trying to help, but just mess with [[Ponytail]], as she now tells her that the only thing she has accomplished by listening to her advice is wasting half a minute doubling imaginary numbers, i.e. even her first estimate is just something she has imagined especially since she states herself how bad she is at those kind of estimates.<br /> <br /> [[Danish]] completes her frustration of [[Ponytail]] by saying ''Paaaniiic!'', negating the initial advice.<br /> <br /> The title text refers to {{w|Hofstadter's law}} which is a non-scientific self-referential time-related adage coined by {{w|Douglas Hofstadter}} and named after him. It states: ''It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.'' The title text is an extra corollary to the law, that states that using the law to estimate anything about the time your project takes is not only wasted time you could have spent working there is a substantial risk that you will conclude that you will never finish, and thus panic instead of just get the job done now.<br /> <br /> Self-reference is a [[:Category:Self-reference|recurring theme]] on xkcd and this comic is quite self-referential both in the comic but also refering to other comics especially to [[917: Hofstadter]]. He is perhaps most famous for his book {{w|Gödel, Escher, Bach}} from where the quote is taken (in a section on {{w|recursion}} and self-reference, rather than estimation). This book has been directly referenced in [[24: Godel, Escher, Kurt Halsey]].<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> :[Ponytail is sitting back from her a laptop lifting her hands of the keyboard, having presumably just paused work on a project.]<br /> :Ponytail: Aaaa! I'm so bad at estimating how long projects take.<br /> <br /> :[Danish walks into the panel towards Ponytail who seems to relax back against the chair.]<br /> :Danish: Don't panic-there's a simple trick for that:<br /> :Danish: Take your most realistic estimate and double it.<br /> :Ponytail: Okay, but-<br /> <br /> :[A frame less panel with only Danish holding a hand up.]<br /> :Danish: Now double it again. Add five minutes. <br /> :Danish: Double it a third time.<br /> :Ponytail (from off panel): Okay...<br /> <br /> :[Danish raises her arms above her head in mock hysteria. Ponytail runs away from her desk screaming.]<br /> :Danish: 30 seconds have gone by and you've done nothing but double imaginary numbers! You're making no progress and will never finish!<br /> :Ponytail: &lt;big&gt;''Aaaaaa!''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> :Danish: ''Paaaniic!''<br /> :Ponytail: &lt;big&gt;''Aaaaaaa!''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Danish]]<br /> [[Category:Self-reference]]</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=557:_Students&diff=113951 2016-03-04T15:03:13Z

<p>108.162.218.101: /* Explanation */</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 557<br /> | date = March 18, 2009<br /> | title = Students<br /> | image = students.png<br /> | titletext = The same goes for the one where you're wrestling the Green Ranger in the swimming pool full of Crisco. You guys all have that dream, right? It's not just me. Right?<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> Students often dream they have assessments they have forgotten about that are due in a very short time period, leaving no time to complete the assignment, and thus filling them with the feeling of impending failure. The panic and helplessness of being unable to complete the work in time only subsides when the dreamer wakes from the {{w|nightmare}}, although sometimes they wake to a reality where there actually is a looming deadline. <br /> <br /> This comic suggests these dreams continue well after graduation, although there may be a nagging feeling that &quot;I thought I completed everything and graduated&quot;.<br /> <br /> The title text refers to the {{w|List_of_Power_Rangers_S.P.D._characters#Bridge_Carson|Green Ranger}} from the {{w|Mighty Morphin Power Rangers}}. Or, indeed, any of the many Power Rangers/Super Sentai seasons with a green ranger. {{w|Crisco}} is a brand of vegetable shortening, a fat that is solid at room temperature and frequently used in baking. It has already been referenced as a sexual lubricant twice before in [[330: Indecision]] and in the title text of [[414: Mistranslations]]. The joke is that [[Randall]] has a very odd recurring dream, and wants reassurance that he is not the only one... but he likely is!<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> :[Megan as a teacher speaks to a crowded classroom, where all students are grayed out except one of the Cueball students who is drawn in the normal black line. He has a big thought bubble over his head]<br /> :Megan: Your projects are due today by 5:00 PM.<br /> :Cueball (thinking): ...I didn't even know we had one.<br /> <br /> :[Zoom in in Cueball at his small desk still thinking. No other students are visible, but the desk next to his is shown although also fading out.]<br /> :Cueball (thinking): Wait. I don't think I've been attending. I must have forgotten I had this class. Shitshitshit.<br /> <br /> :[Cueball is sitting at his desk, but now seen from the side, looking from the edge of his desk. The very right part of the drawing, with Cueballs back and chair, now begins to fade.]<br /> :Cueball (thinking): Okay, I'm gonna fail. Will it hold me back? I just want to get out of here. I thought I had ''finished'' my requirements already.<br /> <br /> :[Cueball takes his hand to his face. This panel fades so much it is only about half a panel. Even the frame around the panel disappears.]<br /> :Cueball (thinking): In fact, I think I remember graduating. What the hell is—<br /> <br /> :[As the previous scene completely fades we find Cueball waking up in his bed with small blobs above his head to indicate the dream disappearing.]<br /> <br /> :[Caption below the last three panels of the comic:]<br /> :Fun Fact: Decades from now, with school a distant<br /> :memory, you'll &lt;u&gt;still&lt;/u&gt; be having this dream.<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br /> [[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]<br /> [[Category:Dreams]]<br /> [[Category:Fun fact]]</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1130:_Poll_Watching&diff=113886 2016-03-03T22:33:39Z

<p>108.162.218.101: /* Explanation */</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 1130<br /> | date = November 5, 2012<br /> | title = Poll Watching<br /> | image = poll_watching.png<br /> | titletext = The choices we make Tuesday could have MASSIVE and PERMANENT effects on the charts on Nate Silver's blog!<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> This is a comic about the {{w|United States presidential election, 2012|2012 U.S. presidential election}}, as it was posted the day before the election on November 6, 2012 (&quot;this Tuesday&quot;). It is the third comic on the subject, the previous two being [[1122: Electoral Precedent]] and [[1127: Congress]]. And the next comic [[1131: Math]] continues the issue raised in this one.<br /> <br /> In the comic, [[Cueball]] is glued to his laptop reading media coverage of the election. The offscreen character remarks that Cueball should take a break, suggesting that Cueball has been reading media coverage for quite a while.<br /> <br /> Cueball is so caught up in media coverage that he is speculating on the effect that incumbent President {{w|Barak Obama|Obama}} winning the election (and the resulting news coverage) could have on challenger {{w|Mitt Romney}}'s campaign. The joke is that the end-goal of Romney's campaign is to win the election. If Obama wins, the campaigning is already over, regardless of media coverage. Cueball is simply so invested that he overanalyzes potential scenarios and fails to see the big picture.<br /> <br /> Specifically, he has become so concerned with following the polls that he's lost sight of their purpose as a predictive tool. After the election is over, polling becomes trivial since the result they are intended to forecast is already known (and so in reality will not be conducted at all). This is possibly intended as a rebuke to those {{w|pundits}} (''talking heads'') who seemingly care more about (or whose jobs are contingent on caring more about) the &quot;game&quot; of analyzing and predicting the politics of the race rather than caring about the actual policies the candidates are likely to pursue after coming into office.<br /> <br /> The title text repeats this theme with {{w|Nate Silver}}, an American statistician, {{w|psephologist}}, and writer (among other things). He has a political blog called {{w|FiveThirtyEight}} which was originally written under a pseudonym. The Blog and its associated website primarily discuss tracking polls in respect to elections. Thus, the choices made on Tuesday (election day) ''will'' have massive and permanent effects on FiveThirtyEight's charts, which will obviously change to reflect the actual votes cast — but all the charts will have become trivial since the purpose of the blog is to predict the results. This is a parody of the bold statements often made during campaigns, such as that the choices made on election day could have massive and permanent effects on such things as your health care, the economy, your job, etc.<br /> <br /> Polls and pundits are also referenced in the next comic, [[1131: Math]], published the day after the election.<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> :[Cueball kneels on his desk chair, hunched over a laptop]<br /> :Cueball: This Tuesday will be huge!<br /> :Cueball: If Obama wins the election, it could generate news coverage ''devastating'' to Romney's position in the tracking polls!<br /> :Offscreen character: ... Maybe you should take a break.<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br /> [[Category:Politics]]</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1590:_The_Source&diff=113857 2016-03-03T14:58:08Z

<p>108.162.218.101: /* Explanation */</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 1590<br /> | date = October 14, 2015<br /> | title = The Source<br /> | image = the_source.png<br /> | titletext = Why did we even have that thing?<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> This comic is about experiencing a high pitched hum in an empty room. It refers to the title text in comic [[597: Addiction]]. An &quot;empty-room hum&quot; is a high pitched buzzing noise, which [http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_high_pitched_humming_sound_often_heard_in_an_otherwise_empty_and_silent_room it is suggested] results from the brain increasing its sensitivity to noises.<br /> <br /> Sometimes not everyone can hear &quot;empty-room hum&quot;; however, those who can hear it usually find it immensely annoying. If you do hear the noise, you would like to locate '''The Source''' – hence the title of the comic. Hopefully when you find the source, you can do something about it. Or if you don't find it, you can at least be at ease knowing that others experience the empty-room hum, it having been referenced in two xkcd comics now and [http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_high_pitched_humming_sound_often_heard_in_an_otherwise_empty_and_silent_room elsewhere] on the internet.<br /> <br /> This comic alludes to the perspective of an outside observer who doesn't hear the hum but is watching someone who can hear it: because the sound isn't written out in text, the comic reader at first is confused by Cueball's inexplicable searching.<br /> <br /> In the first two frames of the comic we see [[Cueball]] trying to locate the direction of the sound, by standing in the middle of the room, turning his head from one to the other side. Finally he walks down a flight of stairs (probably to the basement) and here he locates the source: A machine whose only function is to generate a high pitched hum. The title text asks why on Earth they had such a machine in the first place, which is somewhat difficult to explain and likely the crux of the title text's joke.<br /> <br /> Luckily it was thus easy for Cueball to get rid of this sound at the source. But in real life most electronics generate hums and cannot reasonably be turned off without losing functionality. For instance fluorescent lights, phone chargers and computer modems are common culprits, refrigerators and washing machines less commonly. It could also come from outside the house, in which case it will be much harder either to locate the source or to do anything about it. Power lines and transformers are common outside sources.<br /> <br /> There do, however, exist devices that are meant to create a high pitched hum, that people might wish to install in their house. These will be humming in the {{w|ultrasound|ultrasonic}} regions, although cheap versions can often be heard by young people. They are typically used for {{w|Electronic_pest_control#Ultrasonic|electronic pest control}}, while slightly lower frequencies which can typically be heard only by young people are sometimes used to {{w|The Mosquito|repel children}}. It is possible that someone tried to get rid of Cueball.<br /> <br /> There do exist {{w|white noise}} generators (which make equal volume noise on every frequency) and {{w|pink noise}} generators (which make noise that sounds equally loud to the human ear at every frequency) which are used to test recording studios to see if they have good sound quality. It seems unlikely that the device is one of these, as it seems to be designed to generate a high-pitched hum: pink/white noises are categorically and perceptually different from a hum.<br /> <br /> The empty white room is also could be a reference to a scene from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix_Reloaded The Matrix Reloaded] in which Neo searches for &quot;The Source,&quot; though this is likely just a coincidence.<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> :[Cueball is standing in an empty room looking in the direction of the next frame.]<br /> <br /> :[Cueball turns his head and looks the other way.]<br /> <br /> :[Three smaller panels with the same total height as the first two frames follows. In the first frame Cueball walks on a grey surface.]<br /> <br /> :[In the next Cueball is standing between two doors, looking over his shoulder towards the one to the left, but choosing the one to the right behind which a stair is. He is waking towards this door with his hand out towards the knob.]<br /> <br /> :[In the last of these smaller panels Cueball has just walked down to the bottom of the stairs.]<br /> <br /> :[Cueball walks towards a machine that is standing near a wall connected to a socket in the wall. On the machine it says:]<br /> :High pitched hum generator<br /> <br /> :[Cueball kneels behind the machine and unplugs it from the socket in the wall.]<br /> :High pitched hum generator<br /> <br /> :[Cueball walks away from the machine, the plug now lying on the floor between the wall and the machine.]<br /> :High pitched hum generator<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1614:_Kites&diff=106670 2015-12-09T13:03:02Z

<p>108.162.218.101: /* Explanation */</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 1614<br /> | date = December 9, 2015<br /> | title = Kites<br /> | image = kites.png<br /> | titletext = [Dog returns with the end of a string in its mouth] [Voice drifts down from the sky] Kites are fun!<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> In this comic, we see [[Megan]] and [[Beret Guy]] both holding on to skyward lines. Megan's line is clearly connected to a {{w|kite}}, and she (like the reader) initially assumes that Beret Guy's line is as well -- only for it to be revealed that he is not holding a line for a kite, but instead the line goes up to a small dog. This move on [[Randall|Randall's]] part is known as a ''{{w|Bait and Switch}}'', a technique that relies on human intuition and pattern seeking in order to play a trick on the viewer. The 'switch' portion of the bait and switch comes with the added humor of an unconventional dog that flies/floats instead of walking on the ground, so the joke comes by surprise and with little warning to the reader.&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Beret Guy is fond of unconventional approaches to standard conventional issues. Amongst others he is know to posses several [[:Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy|strange powers]], and making a dog fly, and then later flying on (or as?) a kite (in the title text) just adds one more to this already long list.<br /> <br /> The title text plays a subversion once more on the unsuspecting reader, with the kite being flown as expected -- albeit with an added payload of one beret-wearing human and flown by a small dog. The dog obviously no longer flies, since it can return to Megan with the line in it's mouth. Of course it is not even sure that there is a kite, it could be that Beret Guy is the kite!<br /> <br /> The comics title is the plural form for kite, although it turns out that there is only one kite in the comic. That is until the dog comes back with Beret Guy as a kite... Previously another comic has already used the singular ''kite'' as it's title: [[235: Kite]]. <br /> <br /> Megan is also seen with a kite (and a coin) to the left in the game comic [[1608: Hoverboard]] from two weeks ago. Probably not a coincidence. In the same comic Beret Guy is flying down from the sky on a torpedo. Maybe he can just jump off in time and float back up, like his dog and when he is on a kite.<br /> <br /> This comic could be a reference to the &quot;Yo Mama&quot; panel in [[1037: Umwelt]], where dogs can float and thus need a ballast to be on the ground.<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> :[Zoom out of Megan holding on to a long line going up to a kite high op in he air. Beret Guy comes walking in from the right. He is also holding on to a line that goes up in the air with the same slope. But the top of it disappears outside the frame to the right.]<br /> <br /> :[Zoom in on Megan standing with a roll with the rest of the line, and the line for her kite goes up in the air between her and Beret Guy who has now almost reached her. He is just holding on to the end of the line, with only a small part of the line hanging down below his hands.]<br /> :Megan: I love kites.<br /> :Beret Guy: Hey, Me too!<br /> <br /> :[Beret Guy is looking up along his line and takes a better hold on the line.]<br /> :Beret Guy: I'll go get mine, once I finish walking my dog!<br /> <br /> :[Beret Guy begins pulling the line down, rolling it up in one hand, while pulling at it with the other. The line vibrates under this extra tension, shown with lines above and below the line.]<br /> :Beret Guy: C'mon boy! <br /> <br /> :[In a drawing without a frame around it, Beret Guy has pulled in his flying dog (a small white dog with black ears). It still hangs just above head height, wagging its tail happily. The line has now been rolled up and hangs from one of Beret Guys hands, while the other still pulls at the part of the line that is going towards the dog in the sky.]<br /> :Dog: Arf arf arf<br /> <br /> :[Beret Guys takes the dog under his arm, while holding the line in the other hand, and then he walks past Megan who turns to look after him while still holding on to her roll and line to her kite.]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]<br /> [[Category:Animals]]<br /> [[Category:Kites]]<br /> [[Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy]]</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1381:_Margin&diff=96256 2015-06-24T08:02:03Z

<p>108.162.218.101: Added another possible explanation for the title</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 1381<br /> | date = June 13, 2014<br /> | title = Margin<br /> | image = margin.png<br /> | titletext = PROTIP: You can get around the Shannon-Hartley limit by setting your font size to 0.<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> This is a reference to {{w|Fermat's Last Theorem}}, of which {{w|Pierre de Fermat}} claimed he had a proof that was too large to fit in the margin of a copy of ''{{w|Arithmetica}}''. Despite its simple formulation, the problem remained unsolved for three centuries; it was cracked only with advanced techniques developed in the 20th century, leading many to believe that Fermat didn't actually possess {{w|Fermat's Last Theorem#Did Fermat possess a general proof?|a (correct) proof}} (see [[#trivia|trivia]]).<br /> <br /> In the comic, the person writing in the margin attempts to pull a similar trick, without actually having any proof, by claiming that he has found a proof that information is infinitely compressible, but pretending not to be able to show it due to lack of space in the margin. In this particular case, however, this approach backfires, precisely because if information was actually infinitely compressible, the writer ''would'' be able to fit the proof in the margin (due to his own proof). The writer realizes that if he had a proof he should be able to fit it into the margin, and thus he realizes that he cannot pull this trick. Or perhaps the writer really thought he had a proof, but then realized that his statement was a counterexample, and was disappointed that his idea for a proof was wrong.<br /> <br /> What it seems he did not realize, is that it would be impossible to read the proof if the writer actually was able to compress his proof to fit in the margin. This is because you would need to know the algorithm described in the proof before you could decompress the proof text so you can read it. So he could actually have used this trick instead, writing that he had compressed it into - say a dot &quot;'''.'''&quot; - and then people would have to find his proof to read it. And since they cannot find such a proof - they could not check his dot. Unfortunately this would also have backfired - because there is already a {{w|Pigeonhole principle#Uses and applications|proof that this is not possible}}!<br /> <br /> The title text, yet another [[:Category:Protip|protip]], makes a reference to the {{w|Shannon–Hartley theorem}}, which limits the maximum rate at which information can be transmitted. Setting the font size of text only changes its ''representation'' on the screen, and not the actual characters themselves. Trying to decrease the amount of space needed to store or transmit it like advised would be nonsensical. Another possible interpretation is that if you set the font size to 0, the text cannot be seen, and therefore, nothing is being transmitted period.<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> :[Written on the right margin of a page:]<br /> :I have<br /> :discovered<br /> :a truly<br /> :marvelous<br /> :proof that<br /> :information<br /> :is infinitely<br /> :compressible,<br /> :but this<br /> :margin is too<br /> :small to...<br /> <br /> :...oh<br /> <br /> :never mind :(<br /> <br /> ==Background to Fermat's Last Theorem==<br /> *Fermat's Last Theorem states that no three positive integers ''a'', ''b'', and ''c'' can satisfy the equation ''a''&lt;sup&gt;''n''&lt;/sup&gt; + ''b''&lt;sup&gt;''n''&lt;/sup&gt; = ''c''&lt;sup&gt;''n''&lt;/sup&gt; for any integer value of ''n'' greater than two.<br /> **In the case with n=2, a b and c are the sides {{w|Pythagorean theorem|right triangle}}. There are an infinite number of integer solutions for a, b and c, such as ''3''&lt;sup&gt;''2''&lt;/sup&gt; + ''4''&lt;sup&gt;''2''&lt;/sup&gt; = ''5''&lt;sup&gt;''2''&lt;/sup&gt;. This was known to Euclid.<br /> *Fermat's Last Theorem was {{w|Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem|solved}} in 1995 by {{w|Andrew Wiles}} with some assistance by {{w|Richard Taylor (mathematician)|Richard Taylor}} who helped him close a gap in his original proof from 1993.<br /> **The proof involved some of the most complicated mathematics used today, and it has been speculated that only a handful of people in the world would be able to understand it.<br /> **For people interested in the subject, {{w|Simon Singh}} has written a [http://simonsingh.net/books/fermats-last-theorem/the-book/ popular science book] about it, called ''{{w|Fermat's Last Theorem (book)|Fermat's Last Theorem}}''.<br /> ***[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiNcEguuFSA Fermat's Last Theorem - Numberphile]<br /> ***[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXbsIbRVios Fermat's Last Theorem (extra footage) - Numberphile]<br /> *There are US Patents in this very area, analyzed by [http://gailly.net/05533051.html Jean-loup Gailly].<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> [[Category:Protip]]<br /> [[Category:Math]]</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1184:_Circumference_Formula&diff=66872 2014-05-07T16:49:44Z

<p>108.162.218.101: </p> <hr /> <div>:Tau x Radius, superscript 2<br /> ::Since tau is more commonly used for the Golden Ratio, that's a silly idea. [[Special:Contributions/121.74.169.237|121.74.169.237]] 11:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Leaves one wondering what the superscript 1 refers. {{unsigned|‎74.215.40.250}}<br /> ::It's 2''&amp;pi;r''&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, '''not''' ''&amp;tau;r''&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. —[[Special:Contributions/173.199.215.5|173.199.215.5]] 05:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> :::You're missing the point. ''&amp;tau;'' == 2''&amp;pi;'' and is considered better than using ''&amp;pi;'' by some people {{unsigned|138.195.69.136}}<br /> ::::Only for very loose definitions of &quot;better.&quot; [[Special:Contributions/71.201.53.130|71.201.53.130]] 14:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> ::::Whoa! Never heard about that before, but after 2 hrs or so, I think I'm getting convinced! Check this site out: http://tauday.com/ What do you think? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 18:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::I think tau is pointless. Using tau what then happens to Euler's famous formula, the most beautiful equation of them all? Pi shows up in so many different ways and places in mathematics. Tau appears pretty much only in the formula for a circle's circumference. Why bother needlessly proliferating symbols? [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 18:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> ::: Surface area of a sphere is 2τr^2, or if you want to get pi in there ''&amp;pi;''d^2<br /> <br /> :::RE: Euler's Identity: e^(tau*i) - 1 = 0 --[[User:Max Nanasy|Max Nanasy]] ([[User talk:Max Nanasy|talk]]) 18:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC) <br /> ::::Ok, that works [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 17:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> ::::Why not just e^(tau*i) = 1. Do you routinely do 2 + 2 - 4 = 0?[[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 20:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> :::::Because:<br /> :::::* Symmetry wrt the original Euler's Identity (e^(pi*i) + 1 = 0)<br /> :::::* According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_identity#Mathematical_beauty, &quot;in algebra and other areas of mathematics, equations are commonly written with zero on one side of the equals sign.&quot;<br /> :::::--[[User:Max Nanasy|Max Nanasy]] ([[User talk:Max Nanasy|talk]]) 00:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I think Euler only did that because he disliked negative numbers. It really is less a deal than people make of it.[[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 03:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Also, it uses the five most important constants in mathematics: ''e'', ''π'' (or ''τ''), ''i'', 1, and 0. [[User:Curtmack|Curtmack]] ([[User talk:Curtmack|talk]]) 20:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)<br /> ::::The tau variant of Euler's identity above, ''e^(tau*i)=1'', appears to miss the point. Normally, a positivt number to the power of any real number is positive. Thus ''i'' could be any normal number. Well, not any number. ''i'' could be 0 and the equation will hold. With pi however, ''e^(pi*i)=-1'', ''i'' must be magical. /David A [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.111|141.101.80.111]] 23:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)<br /> :::[http://tauday.com/tau-manifesto The tau manifesto] fairly well convinced me that all occurances of &amp;pi; in mathematics utimately trace back from the formula C = 2''&amp;pi;r''. If so, &amp;pi; naturally ''enter'' calculations as 2&amp;pi;. Can anyone find a counterexample to this thesis? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> ::::How could there be a counter-example? I think it is true. In complex analysis, it really should be 2&amp;pi;, and thus Gaussian integrals. And then number theory applications. Even [http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2589152?uid=3739704&amp;uid=2&amp;uid=4&amp;uid=3739256&amp;sid=21101976916347 this] neat result really stems from trig identities, so it really is a result for 2&amp;pi;. [[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 02:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC) <br /> :From what I understand, the thesis from the tau-proponents is that 2*pi is the fundamental natural constant, and that virtually ''every time'' that pi shows up without the factor 2, there originally was a factor two that was cancelled out. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 01:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> :For everyone who suddenly started a debate about 2pi and tau: http://xkcd.com/1292/ [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.61|108.162.222.61]] 06:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Not completely sure Earth Prime is from Sliders, but it's true it's the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Prime only one named exactly that] ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> There's also a [http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Prime_Earth Prime Earth] now. Just so DC can screw with us. [[User:Hogtree Octovish|Hogtree Octovish]] ([[User talk:Hogtree Octovish|talk]]) 10:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> I still don't get it.[[Special:Contributions/49.176.102.213|49.176.102.213]] 12:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :If you don't get it, you don't need to get it [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 18:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Well, that was lame. --[[Special:Contributions/87.122.60.227|87.122.60.227]] 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> This comic illustrates the strategy of &quot;The Unconsummated Asterisk&quot;, from the essay &quot;Mathmanship&quot; by Nicholas Vanserg (available at [http://e-science.ru/forum/index.php?act=attach&amp;type=post&amp;id=7701]).<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> The other side of the asterisk gambit is to use a superscript as a key to a real footnote. The knowledge‐seeker reads that S is – 36.7&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt; calories and thinks &quot;Gee what a whale of a lot of calories&quot; until he reads to the bottom of the page, finds footnote 14 and says &quot;oh.&quot;<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> For bonus points, Randall could have used also &quot;Pi-Throwing&quot;:<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> For example every schoolboy knows what &amp;pi; stands for so you can hold him at bay by heaving some entirely different kind of &amp;pi; into the equation. The poor fellow will automatically multiply by 3.1416, then begin wondering how a &amp;pi; got into the act anyhow, and finally discover that all the while &amp;pi; was osmotic pressure. If you are careful not to warn him, this one is good for a delay of about an hour and a half.<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt; [[User:Chymicus|Chymicus]] ([[User talk:Chymicus|talk]]) 19:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> :Another good one is &amp;pi; as a symbol for profit in financial discussions. -&lt;span style=&quot;background-color: #bbbbff;&quot;&gt;[[User:DrGaellon|DrGaellon]] &lt;span style=&quot;font-size: smaller;&quot;&gt;([[User talk:DrGaellon|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/DrGaellon|contribs]])&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 23:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I believe the current description of prime as denoting derivatives is true but irrelevant. Since the area and circumference refers to geometry (not really calculus), it's more likely that the title text is referring to the common use of primes in geometry. For example, there might be two or more parallel lines that are denoted by x, x′, x′′, etc. Wikipedia also notes another geometric use of {{w|prime}}: &quot;if a point is represented by the Cartesian coordinates (x, y), then that point rotated, translated or reflected might be represented as (x′, y′).&quot; [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 23:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> that is so wrong, i feel my mind corrupted now. -- [[User:Anarcat|Anarcat]] ([[User talk:Anarcat|talk]]) 23:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> This explanation was hillarious -- where is the up-vote button ?? [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])<br /> <br /> :+1 [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 16:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> So, where's todays comic? How many times has Randal been late?[[Special:Contributions/70.199.225.225|70.199.225.225]] 16:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Today's comic was posted just a few minutes ago. I'm anxiously awaiting its explanation as it picks on a programming language I'm not familiar with (possibly SQL). [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 16:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> It uses pseudocode. The new one is about sorting algorithms in general, not any particular language. [[Special:Contributions/130.245.231.101|130.245.231.101]] 17:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Perhaps it's just me, but did no one see the &quot;square the circle&quot; gag...? --[[Special:Contributions/128.232.142.37|128.232.142.37]] 09:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC) No one but you saw the square-the-circle gag, because it's not there. For it to be there, it would require this: (2πr)² [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 15:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1352:_Cosmologist_on_a_Tire_Swing&diff=64745 2014-04-07T07:54:15Z

<p>108.162.218.101: Created page with &quot;See this TED talk for clue: http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_adams_the_discovery_that_could_rewrite_physics ~~~~&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>See this TED talk for clue: http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_adams_the_discovery_that_could_rewrite_physics<br /> [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.101|108.162.218.101]] 07:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=812:_Glass&diff=64309 2014-04-03T23:08:10Z

<p>108.162.218.101: /* Explanation */</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 812<br /> | date = October 29, 2010<br /> | title = Glass<br /> | image = glass.png<br /> | titletext = I read in this one article that the breaking of electroweak symmetry is the reason we have SOULS. This guy with a degree said so!<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> In the beginning of the comic, [[Megan]] is trying to break a wine glass like an opera singer. This is a rather famous trick where the vocalist sings at the resonant, or natural frequency of the glass and cause it to resonate more and more until it can no longer handle the stress and breaks - for more info, see the {{w|Mythbusters}} episode about the Earthquake Machine. If the resonant frequency of the glass is outside of the singer's range, then putting some water in the glass will lower its resonant frequency. This effect can be used to play different notes on the rim of a glass by varying the amount of water in it. For example, see this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULiNR-k4m70 video].<br /> <br /> The term &quot;God Particle&quot; was coined by 1993 by physicist {{w|Leon M. Lederman}} to describe the {{w|Higgs boson}} because it's &quot;central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive.&quot; Many people misinterpret the name to be some kind of link between physics and religion, so physics is getting back at them by playing pranks that resemble famous miracles from Christian tradition:<br /> *Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage in Cana.<br /> *The first of the ten plagues in Egypt turned all of the water into blood--the rivers, canals, ponds, pools, and every sort of container holding water. <br /> <br /> The title text refers to the fact that people would believe anything that comes from someone with a college degree, since the degree implies that he was highly educated, thus very knowledgeable.<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> :[Megan is singing, Cueball is staring at a glass of water on a table.]<br /> :Megan: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE... Anything break?<br /> :Cueball: No, but the water in the glass turned to wine.<br /> <br /> :[Cueball picks up glass]<br /> :Megan: Weird.<br /> :Cueball: No, wait. This is blood.<br /> <br /> :Megan: Okay, physics, quit fucking with us.<br /> :Physics: You stop looking for the Higgs boson and we'll talk.<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br /> [[Category:Physics]]<br /> [[Category:Religion]]</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1210:_I%27m_So_Random&diff=63557 2014-03-28T21:10:37Z

<p>108.162.218.101: </p> <hr /> <div>;&quot;Random&quot;<br /> Are the numbers in the speech bubble truely random (as in is there a real pattern)? Can someone check?<br /> --[[User:Charlesisbozo|Charlesisbozo]] ([[User talk:Charlesisbozo|talk]]) 08:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I was wondering that myself. I did a quick tally of the digits and for 0..9 I have frequencies of {24,9,18,18,14,17,14,8,9,14} respectively for the readily identifiable digits (YMMV, and while I counted the probable 5 behind Hairy's left ear, I didn't count the ''possible'' five behind his left knee, for example.) It doesn't seem to have fallen for the &quot;too many 3s and 7s&quot; trap, nor &quot;too ''few'' 3s and 7s, because I know I'll pick them if I try to be random&quot; one, because one is 'high' and one is 'low'. Ditto the &quot;avoiding zero and using nine a lot&quot;, says I, vaguely half remembering something from the New Scientists a decade or two ago... While it's not a ''flat'' distribution, I'd also suspect it as 'constructed' if it ''was'' nearly equal tallies. Someone else can probably tell me if this sample of 145 is within variation limits but I'm still going on intuition.<br /> :What I was originally going to do is also go so far as to compare neighbours-on-neighbours. It appeared to me that there were two many like-like neighbours. It's not as easy as in if a grid-system (without holes, etc), but I trivially count a couple of dozen (probably more) and even some 'triples' and that 'stripe' of zeros (from top down to his right knee) is interesting.<br /> ::That's a sign that it probably is random. Over 100 digits, let's say average 5 neighbours (in a hex grid the internal ones would each have 6 but the ones on the edge fewer), there must be close to 300 or more pairs of neighbours. One-tenth of those would be identical. Truly random sequences have far more identical neighbours than sequences that seem random to us. [[User:MGK|MGK]] ([[User talk:MGK|talk]]) 10:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> :::Yup, that's where I was heading with that fact (see &quot;Preliminarily&quot;, below). Also, I don't have much more free time today, but if you're interested the ''corrected'' frequencies are {24,9,19,19,14,17,14,8,9,15} (I'd missed some!) and the guide to which marks I counted as which numbers is at http://i43.tinypic.com/awc602.png if anyone wants to do the more aesthetic job, like I was originally planning on doing... [[Special:Contributions/178.98.253.89|178.98.253.89]] 10:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> :Preliminarily, I choose to believe that Randall used a PRNG or even a noise source and stuck to it (''even when'' patterns may have become apparent). Also that, on examining the image closely, he pasted Hairy's anti-aliased image over the top of the numbers then did a little extra editing. ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.253.89|178.98.253.89]] 10:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> :They are all copied directly from the first few lines of [http://www.amazon.com/Million-Random-Digits-Normal-Deviates/dp/0833030477 A Million Random Digits (and 100000 Normal Deviates)] [[Special:Contributions/87.64.94.247|87.64.94.247]] 14:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The irony though, is that for a human being to be able to ''create'' truly random content, is indeed interesting. We are pattern forming machines [[User:Boxy|Boxy]] ([[User talk:Boxy|talk]]) 11:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> This is Black Hat. I'd personally believe he'd have an (unhackable) /dev/random stream personally available on tap for whenever he needs some significant entropy. Although I imagine he'd use the /dev/urandom one in this instance, knowing that the 'fuller' randomness wouldn't be appreciated enough...<br /> <br /> Anyway, I found some free time, and ''this'' is the result: http://i39.tinypic.com/nm13dc.png If there's nothing better and it helps at all then anyone please feel free to tidy up (or correct?) and I naturally grant the whole Creative Commons doolally (i.e. to the extent that came with the original source material and what I can personally grant by dint of it being a derivative work by myself) to anyone with a Wiki account who thinks its worthwhile to officially upload it. Or just do it better yourself.<br /> <br /> I decided to plump for what another few part-hidden numbers were, as well, while I was at it. Some 9s and a 4, in particular. Now all that is left uncoloured is one possible 5/possible 6 number at the knee area, one that ''might'' be a zero behind the head and a smaller fragment behind his lower leg that I imagine is either a 6 ''or'' 0, due to the hint of a curve emerging the other side. The 5 behind the left ear is now coloured, but it's possible you might disagree and think it's a 6. (However, I believe Hairy's hair was drawn on ''after'' his general bodyplan was moved into position over the numbers, and there is a possible hint of the top-stroke for the 5 emerging from behind the head's anti-aliasing.)<br /> <br /> So, while doing this I additionally quanitified the frequencies of neighbouring numbers as I had originally intended.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! # !! Freq !! -&gt;0 !! -&gt;1 !! -&gt;2 !! -&gt;3 !! -&gt;4 !! -&gt;5 !! -&gt;6 !! -&gt;7 !! -&gt;8 !! -&gt;9 !! -&gt;?<br /> |-<br /> | 0 || 24 || 20 || 8 || 16 || 11 || 11 || 16 || 11 || 4 || 10 || 19 || 4<br /> |-<br /> | 1 || 9 || 9 || 4 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 7 || 5 || 1 || 1 || 9 || -<br /> |-<br /> | 2 || 19 || 15 || 3 || 12 || 13 || 11 || 12 || 8 || 7 || 5 || 13 || 1<br /> |-<br /> | 3 || 21 || 9 || 2 || 12 || 18 || 8 || 8 || 12 || 10 || 8 || 6 || 5<br /> |-<br /> | 4 || 15 || 11 || 3 || 14 || 8 || 6 || 10 || 10 || 6 || 8 || 11 || -<br /> |-<br /> | 5 || 17 || 16 || 9 || 11 || 7 || 10 || 10 || 10 || 7 || 3 || 11 || 4<br /> |-<br /> | 6 || 15 || 10 || 4 || 10 || 11 || 12 || 11 || 9 || 4 || 4 || 7 || -<br /> |-<br /> | 7 || 10 || 5 || 1 || 8 || 9 || 6 || 8 || 5 || 3 || 5 || 3 || 2<br /> |-<br /> | 8 || 9 || 8 || 1 || 5 || 9 || 8 || 4 || 4 || 5 || 3 || 7 || -<br /> |-<br /> | 9 || 18 || 19 || 8 || 13 || 7 || 13 || 10 || 8 || 3 || 6 || 12 || -<br /> |}<br /> <br /> (That came out better than I expected. Not used Wiki table markup for a ''long'' time...)<br /> <br /> Not included, but analysed, is that average neighbours ranged from 4.67 for 3s to 6.00 for 8s. I'm not sure if that helps any though.<br /> <br /> Note that it isn't ''perfectly'' symmetrical around the x=y line. I used a strict, but entirely visual, method for deciding whether A neighboured B, and sometimes it did by that measure and yet B did not really neighbour A when later assessed in return. Or vice-versa. Digit size differences and packing of nearby neighbours may have been the prime cause. Input errors also possible of course.<br /> <br /> Taking into account the differing frequencies of the (known) numbers, I came up with following table of &quot;actual / theoretical&quot; pairing frequency ratios:<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |-<br /> ! # !! Dif !! -&gt;0 !! -&gt;1 !! -&gt;2 !! -&gt;3 !! -&gt;4 !! -&gt;5 !! -&gt;6 !! -&gt;7 !! -&gt;8 !! -&gt;9<br /> |-<br /> | 0 || || 1.01 || 1.08 || 1.02 || 0.63 || 0.89 || 1.14 || 0.89 || 0.48 || 1.35 || 1.28<br /> |-<br /> | 1 || || 1.21 || 1.44 || 0.51 || 0.46 || 0.65 || 1.33 || 1.08 || 0.32 || 0.36 || 1.61<br /> |-<br /> | 2 || || 0.96 || 0.51 || 0.97 || 0.95 || 1.12 || 1.08 || 0.82 || 1.07 || 0.85 || 1.1<br /> |-<br /> | 3 || || 0.52 || 0.31 || 0.87 || 1.19 || 0.74 || 0.65 || 1.11 || 1.38 || 1.23 || 0.46<br /> |-<br /> | 4 || || 0.89 || 0.65 || 1.43 || 0.74 || 0.78 || 1.14 || 1.29 || 1.16 || 1.72 || 1.18<br /> |-<br /> | 5 || || 1.14 || 1.71 || 0.99 || 0.57 || 1.14 || 1.01 || 1.14 || 1.2 || 0.57 || 1.04<br /> |-<br /> | 6 || || 0.81 || 0.86 || 1.02 || 1.02 || 1.55 || 1.25 || 1.16 || 0.78 || 0.86 || 0.75<br /> |-<br /> | 7 || || 0.61 || 0.32 || 1.22 || 1.25 || 1.16 || 1.37 || 0.97 || 0.87 || 1.61 || 0.48<br /> |-<br /> | 8 || || 1.08 || 0.36 || 0.85 || 1.38 || 1.72 || 0.76 || 0.86 || 1.61 || 1.08 || 1.26<br /> |-<br /> | 9 || || 1.28 || 1.44 || 1.1 || 0.54 || 1.4 || 0.95 || 0.86 || 0.48 || 1.08 || 1.08<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> The highest values are 1.72 more frequent than ought to be by chance (4&lt;-&gt;8, with others not far behind), the lowest is 0.31 what should have occured by chance (3-&gt;1, 1&lt;-&gt;7 next, 1&lt;-&gt;8 then 1-&gt;3), and it seems to be an unremarkable progression, end-to-end with no surprising leaps and jumps that grossly disobey any 'meta-frequency' distribution expectations. Note that the 0&lt;-&gt;0 value (which stood out on visual inspection) is 1.01, with the median being 1.02, on what should have normalised somewhere around 1.00 anyway. I find the higher frequency not too large for belief, and the lower can be explained by disconnectedness (hole and edge-effect, which wouldn't have occured on a larger, or infinite, array without gaps) but I really should have quantified &quot;missing/unknown neighbours&quot; (after actually excluding the remaining unknowns from analysis), perhaps something like weighting each neighbour's significance according to rarity for the original number to ''have'' neighbours, rather than just straight tallying. Too late now without redoing the count from scratch. I'd also considered weighting every instance against ''every'' other by inverse-square of distance, or similar, to be somewhat immune from the larger effects, but I'll leave that as an exercise for someone else who wishes to look into it...<br /> <br /> Does someone want to calculate P for all of this, anyway? ;)<br /> <br /> Finally, I also attempted to discover any embedded steganography. Odd numbers vs even numbers, for a start, but then looking for how &quot;XKCD&quot; or smiley faces or heart-shapes could be marked down in patterns. There are several non-linear sequences of sequential numbers, I noted (can't find anything longer than 4..8 now that I look for them again), but nothing stands out particularly as being above and beyond chance. Yet something might still exist that is far simpler but I managed to overlook it... Unless Black Hat(/Randall) has been so ub3r-1447 as choose such 'randomness' as to encode something into the ''derivative'' data!<br /> <br /> Anyway, that's it. HTH, HAND, and I'm not spending any more time on this analysis from now on. Probably... [[Special:Contributions/178.98.253.89|178.98.253.89]] 15:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ;&quot;I'm so Random&quot;<br /> Is it just me, or does this sound like those people at parties who drink a tiny bit, and then spend the whole party saying, &quot;oh my Julia I'm soooo drunk right now!&quot;<br /> [[Special:Contributions/99.237.74.83|99.237.74.83]] 11:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I would argue that if Google finds the phrase, it's not random enough. Monkey tacos fails miserably by that measure. It took me several tries [1], but I came up with platypus vindaloo. You have to google with quotes around it to get no matches. Many pages have those words, but none have the phrase. ''&amp;mdash; [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 11:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)'' (Practicing structured procrastination. I have code to write! But this is so fun.)<br /> <br /> [1] kitten cupcakes, kitten falafel, snail falafel, snail corn, aardvark corn, aardvark baklava, aardvark vindaloo<br /> <br /> :Of course, now that you've written it here, that is no longer the case. Although surprisingly, the only result that came up was an unrelated Italian blog with a generic link back to this wiki. For the time being, however, you are the proud owner of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlewhack Googlewhack]. --[[User:H|H]] ([[User talk:H|talk]]) 18:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::Haha. I don't think any googlewhacks have been discovered in years. A true googlewhack must be found without quotes. ''&amp;mdash; [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 16:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)''<br /> :::if you count antewhacks, then zwoddery aphasia counts<br /> ;&quot;lexical white noise&quot;<br /> Interesting, since Black Hat speaks only digits! No letters, words, diacritical marks, silly unicode characters, or Fred Flintstone outbursts. The blast of numbers seems to come out in a 2D bubble, yet speech is strictly sequential (each character can have at most two neighbors). The noise is uninteresting at best and likely unwanted, but not unnecessary (sic). It did seem to do the trick. The pesky kid was squelched, Black Hat resumed his work (or whatever).[[User:Galois|Galois]] ([[User talk:Galois|talk]]) 14:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> In fact randomness contains more information as it can't be compressed; I have no idea what Randall means by saying that in information theory randomness is uninteresting.[[User:Yehoshua2|Yehoshua2]] ([[User talk:Yehoshua2|talk]]) 17:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> ...'mean and []bullying'? I find this an appropriate response/retribution towards all those proles who think that being random is a viable source of humour. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 23:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ;Odd things that have results<br /> <br /> :Endothermic Zymurgy<br /> :Syzygy Chimneysweep<br /> :Thermobaric CheeseGrater (???) {{unsigned ip|108.162.218.101}}<br /> <br /> ;Is it random<br /> <br /> GOOOGLE is still prove (every law is wrong):<br /> <br /> Search 1954678<br /> About 57,600 results (0.09 seconds) <br /> <br /> Search 2954678<br /> About 83,300 results (0.10 seconds) <br /> <br /> Search 3954678<br /> About 497,000 results (0.24 seconds) <br /> <br /> Search 4954678<br /> About 451,000 results (0.24 seconds) <br /> <br /> Search 5954678<br /> About 359,000 results (0.25 seconds) <br /> <br /> Search 6954678<br /> About 46,300 results (0.40 seconds) <br /> <br /> Search 7954678<br /> About 348,000 results (0.24 seconds) <br /> <br /> Search 8954678<br /> About 45,400 results (0.24 seconds) <br /> <br /> Search 9954678<br /> About 287,000 results (0.23 seconds) <br /> <br /> <br /> So this law is not valid according to my investigations above:<br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law]<br /> <br /> And I am also random...<br /> --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> : Just for understanding: I should get get a peak at 1xxxxxx and the lowest result at 9xxxxxx. Just changing the first number.<br /> : According to Benford it should be look much different, and my first test on Gooo a few weeks ago did match. Maybe my 7-digit test is not random or it's just a mystery...<br /> :--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :: Maybe the second digit z9xxxxx is my problem. Still strange, Ask Benford...<br /> ::--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::: Seven digit is too low. Telephone numbers may have 7 digits (up to 10 actually) and they are not random (at least not in a way Benford's law need). And multiple entries in that google search ARE related to telephone numbers. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ;Trochees<br /> You sure &quot;tacos&quot; is a trochee? Seems more like a spondee to me. [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 01:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> That's some stealth nerd sniping there, Randall. I sincerely did not expect to read someone suggesting that he could've encoded data in the derivative data. Even after reading 1210 comics. Also, it's been two of those in the last three comics. Damn. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.37|108.162.229.37]] 04:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:903:_Extended_Mind&diff=63556 2014-03-28T21:05:02Z

<p>108.162.218.101: </p> <hr /> <div>Title text is true - unless you happen to stumble upon any one of: {{w|Fact}}, {{w|Proof (truth)}}, {{w|Evidence}}, or {{w|Truth}}. Then you'll be stranded in an eternal loop. <br /> :What do you mean? {{w|Fact}} works fine, you get there in 7 steps. Proof gets you there in 6 - you go to {{w|Necessity and Sufficiency}} not {{w|Evidence}}. Same for {{w|Evidence}}. {{w|Truth}} leads you to {{w|Fact}}. So all of your examples actually work.<br /> --[[User:T0IVI|T0IVI]] ([[User talk:T0IVI|talk]]) 09:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)<br /> :Also, I add another rule to my wikiwalks: No purple links. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.101|108.162.218.101]] 21:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Yeah, I hit a loop on the page Community. Went right from National community to Community again. {{unsigned|69.91.105.111}}<br /> <br /> These infinite loops seem to be 'fixed', I went through fact and other stuff right to philosophy.{{unsigned|141.35.48.11}}<br /> <br /> Another loop is &quot;England&quot;. It goes right to &quot;Countries of the United Kingdom&quot; which returns immediately to England. <br /> <br /> Finally we all end up in {{w|Reality}}. [[Special:Contributions/85.178.28.173|85.178.28.173]] 21:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I do have to say that the best loop that doesn't feed to Philosophy is {{w|Sand Fence}} and {{w|Snow Fence}}. The first sentence of each article is identical except for switching the instances of sand and snow. --[[Special:Contributions/68.97.21.122|68.97.21.122]] 05:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Saying that everything ends up in &quot;philosophy&quot; is simply choosing from a long list of possible entries to suit an argument. I found it much more interesting, having gotten to philosophy, to keep going through the loop, then to see where certain pages drop you into said loop. The loop currenty is reality, existence, world, human, hominini, tribe, biology, natural science, sciences, knowledge, fact, proof, necessity and sufficiency, logic, reason, consciousness, quality (philosophy), property (philosophy), modern philosophy, then finally philosophy. It's as if we've stumbled upon a new classification of knowledge. If only we could look recursively at ALL the things that lead into a certain topic in the loop. For example, goat drops you into the loop at biology, which makes perfect sense, but Volvo drops you in at natural sciences from a very convoluted path which includes physics, time, dimension, list of time periods, and scandinavia. In other words, it's the journey not the destination that I find interesting. - naginalf [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.40|108.162.216.40]] 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Randall is either mistaken or intentionally misinformative (or rather, politically correct) in his IQ estimates. What's a car hyperbole aside, the cluelessness, sentence length, and spelling of the outage-messages remind of a person in their low 90s-high 80s, if not lower, and Randall is clearly more than 120, (conservative) average for physics majors as it might be. [[Special:Contributions/178.42.101.38|178.42.101.38]] 20:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ;What can we learn?<br /> I've learned that memorizing facts is so yesteryear. Over next few years facts will be even easier to find, understand, use, reference and forget. When in school we should concentrate not on memorizing facts we can look up later, but rather new methods to think outside the box full of facts others placed inside it. (Thank you Mr. XKCD) - [[User:E-inspired|E-inspired]] ([[User talk:E-inspired|talk]]) 13:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)<br /> : That is true, but the overhead for looking something up versus remembering it is usually great enough that memorizing some things (multiplication tables come to mind) can increase the speed we can arrive at conclusions, or can give us other options (correlation between spark plug gapping and engine performance) that might not have come to mind otherwise. Outside of that, even though we forget much of it, having a vague sense of things (dates, locations/countries, etc) allow us to start out knowing at least something (order of things that occurred, Egypt being in Africa, Pythagorean theorem). This is just my opinion, and I may be biased, since I like facts. [[User:Tryc|Tryc]] ([[User talk:Tryc|talk]]) 13:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> You can't teach everyone to think outside the box, that would spoil my advantage over the common man. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 03:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Wikiloop: (noun) A loop that results in wikipedia articles from clicking the first link not in brackets or italics over and over again. <br /> Here is the most commonly encountered wikiloop. (Reality is also the first link in Philosophy) --[[User:ParadoX|ParadoX]] ([[User talk:ParadoX|talk]]) 09:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)<br /> Reality<br /> Existence<br /> World<br /> Human<br /> Primate<br /> Mammal<br /> Clade<br /> Tree of life (biology)<br /> Metaphor<br /> Figure of speech<br /> Word<br /> Linguistics<br /> Science<br /> Knowledge<br /> Fact<br /> Reality<br /> ...<br /> <br /> ;wikipedia outages<br /> <br /> There was a major outage in 2005 when a power failure hit their database servers http://cyberbrahma.com/power-corrupts-power-failure-corrupts-absolutely/. I also remember countless minor outages over the years (though not recently). -- plugwash<br /> :And just after I wrote the above wikipedia went down....... -- plugwash {{unsigned}}<br /> <br /> ::Yeah, a link like {{w|Sand Fence}} should be work like {{w|Sand fence}}, but it doesn't right now. So some outages for the &quot;Extended Mind&quot;... --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 00:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1346:_Career&diff=63271 2014-03-24T18:19:02Z

<p>108.162.218.101: </p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 1346<br /> | date = March 24, 2014<br /> | title = Career<br /> | image = career.png<br /> | titletext = They'd convince me to come out of retirement for one last job: biting into a giant lump of slightly soft wax a couple of times.<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> {{incomplete|There is a probability of some nontrivial connection between those three tasks}}<br /> <br /> Cueball is presumably asked to answer the typical HR interview question: What is your dream job? Rather than going with the more common answers that are designed to increase the chances of landing that particular job, Cueball talks about unrealistic jobs that are fun, given to whims, and child-like. Peeling lint off a dryer is quite fun, but it gets boring soon, so Cueball wants to do that only for 5 minutes, followed by pressing a lightsaber handle up to things (this does not exist yet, sadly) for an hour. Then Cueball would like to retire to a life of luxury, and the only way to bring him out of it is to offer him to do another fun task till he gets bored again.<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> :[Cueball is talking to a woman sitting behind a desk]<br /> :Cueball: It would start with five minutes of peeling lint from dryer traps<br /> :Cueball: Followed by an hour of pressing a lightsaber handle against things and switching it on.<br /> :Cueball: Then I'd retire to a life of luxury.<br /> <br /> When people ask me to describe my dream job, I'm never sure how realistic to be.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1210:_I%27m_So_Random&diff=63086 2014-03-20T22:19:38Z

<p>108.162.218.101: </p> <hr /> <div>;&quot;Random&quot;<br /> Are the numbers in the speech bubble truely random (as in is there a real pattern)? Can someone check?<br /> --[[User:Charlesisbozo|Charlesisbozo]] ([[User talk:Charlesisbozo|talk]]) 08:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I was wondering that myself. I did a quick tally of the digits and for 0..9 I have frequencies of {24,9,18,18,14,17,14,8,9,14} respectively for the readily identifiable digits (YMMV, and while I counted the probable 5 behind Hairy's left ear, I didn't count the ''possible'' five behind his left knee, for example.) It doesn't seem to have fallen for the &quot;too many 3s and 7s&quot; trap, nor &quot;too ''few'' 3s and 7s, because I know I'll pick them if I try to be random&quot; one, because one is 'high' and one is 'low'. Ditto the &quot;avoiding zero and using nine a lot&quot;, says I, vaguely half remembering something from the New Scientists a decade or two ago... While it's not a ''flat'' distribution, I'd also suspect it as 'constructed' if it ''was'' nearly equal tallies. Someone else can probably tell me if this sample of 145 is within variation limits but I'm still going on intuition.<br /> :What I was originally going to do is also go so far as to compare neighbours-on-neighbours. It appeared to me that there were two many like-like neighbours. It's not as easy as in if a grid-system (without holes, etc), but I trivially count a couple of dozen (probably more) and even some 'triples' and that 'stripe' of zeros (from top down to his right knee) is interesting.<br /> ::That's a sign that it probably is random. Over 100 digits, let's say average 5 neighbours (in a hex grid the internal ones would each have 6 but the ones on the edge fewer), there must be close to 300 or more pairs of neighbours. One-tenth of those would be identical. Truly random sequences have far more identical neighbours than sequences that seem random to us. [[User:MGK|MGK]] ([[User talk:MGK|talk]]) 10:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> :::Yup, that's where I was heading with that fact (see &quot;Preliminarily&quot;, below). Also, I don't have much more free time today, but if you're interested the ''corrected'' frequencies are {24,9,19,19,14,17,14,8,9,15} (I'd missed some!) and the guide to which marks I counted as which numbers is at http://i43.tinypic.com/awc602.png if anyone wants to do the more aesthetic job, like I was originally planning on doing... [[Special:Contributions/178.98.253.89|178.98.253.89]] 10:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> :Preliminarily, I choose to believe that Randall used a PRNG or even a noise source and stuck to it (''even when'' patterns may have become apparent). Also that, on examining the image closely, he pasted Hairy's anti-aliased image over the top of the numbers then did a little extra editing. ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.253.89|178.98.253.89]] 10:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> :They are all copied directly from the first few lines of [http://www.amazon.com/Million-Random-Digits-Normal-Deviates/dp/0833030477 A Million Random Digits (and 100000 Normal Deviates)] [[Special:Contributions/87.64.94.247|87.64.94.247]] 14:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The irony though, is that for a human being to be able to ''create'' truly random content, is indeed interesting. We are pattern forming machines [[User:Boxy|Boxy]] ([[User talk:Boxy|talk]]) 11:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> This is Black Hat. I'd personally believe he'd have an (unhackable) /dev/random stream personally available on tap for whenever he needs some significant entropy. Although I imagine he'd use the /dev/urandom one in this instance, knowing that the 'fuller' randomness wouldn't be appreciated enough...<br /> <br /> Anyway, I found some free time, and ''this'' is the result: http://i39.tinypic.com/nm13dc.png If there's nothing better and it helps at all then anyone please feel free to tidy up (or correct?) and I naturally grant the whole Creative Commons doolally (i.e. to the extent that came with the original source material and what I can personally grant by dint of it being a derivative work by myself) to anyone with a Wiki account who thinks its worthwhile to officially upload it. Or just do it better yourself.<br /> <br /> I decided to plump for what another few part-hidden numbers were, as well, while I was at it. Some 9s and a 4, in particular. Now all that is left uncoloured is one possible 5/possible 6 number at the knee area, one that ''might'' be a zero behind the head and a smaller fragment behind his lower leg that I imagine is either a 6 ''or'' 0, due to the hint of a curve emerging the other side. The 5 behind the left ear is now coloured, but it's possible you might disagree and think it's a 6. (However, I believe Hairy's hair was drawn on ''after'' his general bodyplan was moved into position over the numbers, and there is a possible hint of the top-stroke for the 5 emerging from behind the head's anti-aliasing.)<br /> <br /> So, while doing this I additionally quanitified the frequencies of neighbouring numbers as I had originally intended.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! # !! Freq !! -&gt;0 !! -&gt;1 !! -&gt;2 !! -&gt;3 !! -&gt;4 !! -&gt;5 !! -&gt;6 !! -&gt;7 !! -&gt;8 !! -&gt;9 !! -&gt;?<br /> |-<br /> | 0 || 24 || 20 || 8 || 16 || 11 || 11 || 16 || 11 || 4 || 10 || 19 || 4<br /> |-<br /> | 1 || 9 || 9 || 4 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 7 || 5 || 1 || 1 || 9 || -<br /> |-<br /> | 2 || 19 || 15 || 3 || 12 || 13 || 11 || 12 || 8 || 7 || 5 || 13 || 1<br /> |-<br /> | 3 || 21 || 9 || 2 || 12 || 18 || 8 || 8 || 12 || 10 || 8 || 6 || 5<br /> |-<br /> | 4 || 15 || 11 || 3 || 14 || 8 || 6 || 10 || 10 || 6 || 8 || 11 || -<br /> |-<br /> | 5 || 17 || 16 || 9 || 11 || 7 || 10 || 10 || 10 || 7 || 3 || 11 || 4<br /> |-<br /> | 6 || 15 || 10 || 4 || 10 || 11 || 12 || 11 || 9 || 4 || 4 || 7 || -<br /> |-<br /> | 7 || 10 || 5 || 1 || 8 || 9 || 6 || 8 || 5 || 3 || 5 || 3 || 2<br /> |-<br /> | 8 || 9 || 8 || 1 || 5 || 9 || 8 || 4 || 4 || 5 || 3 || 7 || -<br /> |-<br /> | 9 || 18 || 19 || 8 || 13 || 7 || 13 || 10 || 8 || 3 || 6 || 12 || -<br /> |}<br /> <br /> (That came out better than I expected. Not used Wiki table markup for a ''long'' time...)<br /> <br /> Not included, but analysed, is that average neighbours ranged from 4.67 for 3s to 6.00 for 8s. I'm not sure if that helps any though.<br /> <br /> Note that it isn't ''perfectly'' symmetrical around the x=y line. I used a strict, but entirely visual, method for deciding whether A neighboured B, and sometimes it did by that measure and yet B did not really neighbour A when later assessed in return. Or vice-versa. Digit size differences and packing of nearby neighbours may have been the prime cause. Input errors also possible of course.<br /> <br /> Taking into account the differing frequencies of the (known) numbers, I came up with following table of &quot;actual / theoretical&quot; pairing frequency ratios:<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |-<br /> ! # !! Dif !! -&gt;0 !! -&gt;1 !! -&gt;2 !! -&gt;3 !! -&gt;4 !! -&gt;5 !! -&gt;6 !! -&gt;7 !! -&gt;8 !! -&gt;9<br /> |-<br /> | 0 || || 1.01 || 1.08 || 1.02 || 0.63 || 0.89 || 1.14 || 0.89 || 0.48 || 1.35 || 1.28<br /> |-<br /> | 1 || || 1.21 || 1.44 || 0.51 || 0.46 || 0.65 || 1.33 || 1.08 || 0.32 || 0.36 || 1.61<br /> |-<br /> | 2 || || 0.96 || 0.51 || 0.97 || 0.95 || 1.12 || 1.08 || 0.82 || 1.07 || 0.85 || 1.1<br /> |-<br /> | 3 || || 0.52 || 0.31 || 0.87 || 1.19 || 0.74 || 0.65 || 1.11 || 1.38 || 1.23 || 0.46<br /> |-<br /> | 4 || || 0.89 || 0.65 || 1.43 || 0.74 || 0.78 || 1.14 || 1.29 || 1.16 || 1.72 || 1.18<br /> |-<br /> | 5 || || 1.14 || 1.71 || 0.99 || 0.57 || 1.14 || 1.01 || 1.14 || 1.2 || 0.57 || 1.04<br /> |-<br /> | 6 || || 0.81 || 0.86 || 1.02 || 1.02 || 1.55 || 1.25 || 1.16 || 0.78 || 0.86 || 0.75<br /> |-<br /> | 7 || || 0.61 || 0.32 || 1.22 || 1.25 || 1.16 || 1.37 || 0.97 || 0.87 || 1.61 || 0.48<br /> |-<br /> | 8 || || 1.08 || 0.36 || 0.85 || 1.38 || 1.72 || 0.76 || 0.86 || 1.61 || 1.08 || 1.26<br /> |-<br /> | 9 || || 1.28 || 1.44 || 1.1 || 0.54 || 1.4 || 0.95 || 0.86 || 0.48 || 1.08 || 1.08<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> The highest values are 1.72 more frequent than ought to be by chance (4&lt;-&gt;8, with others not far behind), the lowest is 0.31 what should have occured by chance (3-&gt;1, 1&lt;-&gt;7 next, 1&lt;-&gt;8 then 1-&gt;3), and it seems to be an unremarkable progression, end-to-end with no surprising leaps and jumps that grossly disobey any 'meta-frequency' distribution expectations. Note that the 0&lt;-&gt;0 value (which stood out on visual inspection) is 1.01, with the median being 1.02, on what should have normalised somewhere around 1.00 anyway. I find the higher frequency not too large for belief, and the lower can be explained by disconnectedness (hole and edge-effect, which wouldn't have occured on a larger, or infinite, array without gaps) but I really should have quantified &quot;missing/unknown neighbours&quot; (after actually excluding the remaining unknowns from analysis), perhaps something like weighting each neighbour's significance according to rarity for the original number to ''have'' neighbours, rather than just straight tallying. Too late now without redoing the count from scratch. I'd also considered weighting every instance against ''every'' other by inverse-square of distance, or similar, to be somewhat immune from the larger effects, but I'll leave that as an exercise for someone else who wishes to look into it...<br /> <br /> Does someone want to calculate P for all of this, anyway? ;)<br /> <br /> Finally, I also attempted to discover any embedded steganography. Odd numbers vs even numbers, for a start, but then looking for how &quot;XKCD&quot; or smiley faces or heart-shapes could be marked down in patterns. There are several non-linear sequences of sequential numbers, I noted (can't find anything longer than 4..8 now that I look for them again), but nothing stands out particularly as being above and beyond chance. Yet something might still exist that is far simpler but I managed to overlook it... Unless Black Hat(/Randall) has been so ub3r-1447 as choose such 'randomness' as to encode something into the ''derivative'' data!<br /> <br /> Anyway, that's it. HTH, HAND, and I'm not spending any more time on this analysis from now on. Probably... [[Special:Contributions/178.98.253.89|178.98.253.89]] 15:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ;&quot;I'm so Random&quot;<br /> Is it just me, or does this sound like those people at parties who drink a tiny bit, and then spend the whole party saying, &quot;oh my Julia I'm soooo drunk right now!&quot;<br /> [[Special:Contributions/99.237.74.83|99.237.74.83]] 11:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I would argue that if Google finds the phrase, it's not random enough. Monkey tacos fails miserably by that measure. It took me several tries [1], but I came up with platypus vindaloo. You have to google with quotes around it to get no matches. Many pages have those words, but none have the phrase. ''&amp;mdash; [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 11:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)'' (Practicing structured procrastination. I have code to write! But this is so fun.)<br /> <br /> [1] kitten cupcakes, kitten falafel, snail falafel, snail corn, aardvark corn, aardvark baklava, aardvark vindaloo<br /> <br /> :Of course, now that you've written it here, that is no longer the case. Although surprisingly, the only result that came up was an unrelated Italian blog with a generic link back to this wiki. For the time being, however, you are the proud owner of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlewhack Googlewhack]. --[[User:H|H]] ([[User talk:H|talk]]) 18:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::Haha. I don't think any googlewhacks have been discovered in years. A true googlewhack must be found without quotes. ''&amp;mdash; [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 16:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)''<br /> ;&quot;lexical white noise&quot;<br /> Interesting, since Black Hat speaks only digits! No letters, words, diacritical marks, silly unicode characters, or Fred Flintstone outbursts. The blast of numbers seems to come out in a 2D bubble, yet speech is strictly sequential (each character can have at most two neighbors). The noise is uninteresting at best and likely unwanted, but not unnecessary (sic). It did seem to do the trick. The pesky kid was squelched, Black Hat resumed his work (or whatever).[[User:Galois|Galois]] ([[User talk:Galois|talk]]) 14:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> In fact randomness contains more information as it can't be compressed; I have no idea what Randall means by saying that in information theory randomness is uninteresting.[[User:Yehoshua2|Yehoshua2]] ([[User talk:Yehoshua2|talk]]) 17:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> ...'mean and []bullying'? I find this an appropriate response/retribution towards all those proles who think that being random is a viable source of humour. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 23:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ;Odd things that have results<br /> <br /> :Endothermic Zymurgy<br /> :Syzygy Chimneysweep<br /> :Thermobaric CheeseGrater (???)<br /> <br /> ;Is it random<br /> <br /> GOOOGLE is still prove (every law is wrong):<br /> <br /> Search 1954678<br /> About 57,600 results (0.09 seconds) <br /> <br /> Search 2954678<br /> About 83,300 results (0.10 seconds) <br /> <br /> Search 3954678<br /> About 497,000 results (0.24 seconds) <br /> <br /> Search 4954678<br /> About 451,000 results (0.24 seconds) <br /> <br /> Search 5954678<br /> About 359,000 results (0.25 seconds) <br /> <br /> Search 6954678<br /> About 46,300 results (0.40 seconds) <br /> <br /> Search 7954678<br /> About 348,000 results (0.24 seconds) <br /> <br /> Search 8954678<br /> About 45,400 results (0.24 seconds) <br /> <br /> Search 9954678<br /> About 287,000 results (0.23 seconds) <br /> <br /> <br /> So this law is not valid according to my investigations above:<br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law]<br /> <br /> And I am also random...<br /> --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> : Just for understanding: I should get get a peak at 1xxxxxx and the lowest result at 9xxxxxx. Just changing the first number.<br /> : According to Benford it should be look much different, and my first test on Gooo a few weeks ago did match. Maybe my 7-digit test is not random or it's just a mystery...<br /> :--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :: Maybe the second digit z9xxxxx is my problem. Still strange, Ask Benford...<br /> ::--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::: Seven digit is too low. Telephone numbers may have 7 digits (up to 10 actually) and they are not random (at least not in a way Benford's law need). And multiple entries in that google search ARE related to telephone numbers. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ;Trochees<br /> You sure &quot;tacos&quot; is a trochee? Seems more like a spondee to me. [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 01:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> That's some stealth nerd sniping there, Randall. I sincerely did not expect to read someone suggesting that he could've encoded data in the derivative data. Even after reading 1210 comics. Also, it's been two of those in the last three comics. Damn. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.37|108.162.229.37]] 04:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1227:_The_Pace_of_Modern_Life&diff=62431 2014-03-11T13:25:29Z

<p>108.162.218.101: /* Explanation */</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 1227<br /> | date = June 19, 2013<br /> | title = The Pace of Modern Life<br /> | image = the pace of modern life.png<br /> | titletext = 'Unfortunately, the notion of marriage which prevails ... at the present time ... regards the institution as simply a convenient arrangement or formal contract ... This disregard of the sanctity of marriage and contempt for its restrictions is one of the most alarming tendencies of the present age.' --John Harvey Kellogg, Ladies' guide in health and disease (1883)<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> The debate as to whether or not the pace of modern life is detrimental to society, culture, and the human experience in general has been going on for longer than we may realize. Presently, the debate has focused on technology such as smartphones, tablets, and other portable electronics; however, many of the same arguments were made against newspapers, magazines, telegraphs, telephones, and even written correspondence 100 years ago.<br /> <br /> People often tend to think of older times as better. The people complaining compare their present time to the time they lived in before, that is, a couple of decades ago, and this has been happening for over a century (at least). This comic makes a point that the older times people refer to, were also criticized in exactly the same fashion. Since the same criticism is applied to each generation by the generation before that one, every generation thinks that the one they were born in is the good one. This is presentism as explained by Randall in [[24: Godel, Escher, Kurt Halsey|comic 24]]. <br /> <br /> The comic begins and ends with very similar arguments, perhaps emphasizing how these debates cycle and repeat over time. The comic does not directly state whether these opinions and criticisms were justified or simple fallacies. There is a desire to consider our present existence as good and reasonable and that society has been improving over time. The difficulty lies in considering the possibility that each generation was perhaps correct in their criticism.<br /> <br /> On reading all of these quotes, one may find these quotes redundant and tiresome to read. Readers may find themselves skimming the text and skipping several quotes once they get the overall idea. This could be a self-referential point demonstrating that the writing style of older times was less convenient than the oft-criticized brief modern style.<br /> <br /> Some parts of all that long texts are in bold, others not. Here is the summary for only this bold text, picturing just our ''Modern World'':<br /> <br /> :The art of letter-writing is fast dying out. We fire off a multitude of rapid and short notes, instead of sitting down to have a good talk over a real sheet of paper.<br /> :In olden times it was different. Men now live think and work at express speed. Sulkily read as they travel leaving them no time to talk with the friend who may share the compartment with them.<br /> :The age of leisure is dead, and the art of conversation is dying. A craving for literary nips. There never was an age in which so many people were able to write badly.<br /> :The art of pure line engraving is dying out. We live at too fast a rate nothing is left to the imagination and human faculty dwindle away amid the million inventions that have been introduced to render its exercise unnecessary.<br /> :Thirty pages is now too much. Fifteen pages further condensed a summary of the summary.<br /> :Those who are dipping into so many subjects and gathering information in a summary and superficial form lose the habit of settling down to great works.<br /> :Hurried reading can never be good reading. Mental and nervous degeneration among a growing class of people, a brain incapable of normal working in a large measure due to the hurry and excitement of modern life, almost instantaneous communication between remote points of the globe.<br /> :Teach the children how to play instead of shutting them in badly ventilated schoolrooms, increased demand made by the conditions of modern life upon the brain.<br /> :We talk across a continent, telegraph across an ocean, we take even our pleasures sadly and make a task of our play.<br /> :The managers of sensational newspapers create perverted tastes and develop vicious tendencies.<br /> :To take sufficient time for our meals seems frequently impossible, may I be permitted to say a word in favour of a very worthy and valuable old friend of mine, Mr. Long walk? I am afraid that this good gentleman is in danger of getting neglected, if not forgotten.<br /> :People talk as they ride bicycles&amp;ndash;at a rush&amp;ndash;without pausing to consider their surroundings the profession of letters is so little understood, tendency among the children of today to rebel against restraint. Our modern family gathering, silent, each individual with his head buried in his favourite magazine, deal openly with situations which no person would have dared to mention in general society forty years ago.<br /> :A hundred years ago it took so long and cost so much to send a letter that it seemed worth while to put some time and thought into writing it. A brief letter to-day may be followed by another next week&amp;ndash;a &quot;line&quot; now by another to-morrow.<br /> <br /> The title text shows that the meaning of the institute of marriage debate has likewise been going on for quite some time.<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> :'''The art of letter-writing is fast dying out.''' When a letter cost nine pence, it seemed but fair to try to make it worth nine pence ... Now, however, we think we are too busy for such old-fashioned correspondence. '''We fire off a multitude of rapid and short notes, instead of sitting down to have a good talk over a real sheet of paper.'''<br /> ::''The Sunday Magazine''<br /> :::1871<br /> <br /> :It is, unfortunately, one of the chief characteristics of modern business to be always in a hurry. '''In olden times it was different.'''<br /> ::''The Medical Record''<br /> :::1884<br /> <br /> :With the advent of cheap newspapers and superior means of locomotion... The dreamy quiet old days are over... '''For men now live think and work at express speed.''' They have their ''Mercury'' or ''Post'' laid on their breakfast table in the early morning, and if they are too hurried to snatch from it the news during that meal, they carry it off, to be '''sulkily read as they travel ... leaving them no time to talk with the friend who may share the compartment with them'''... The hurry and bustle of modern life ... lacks the quiet and repose of the period when our forefathers, the day's work done, took their ease...<br /> ::William Smith, Morley: ''Ancient and Modern''<br /> :::1886<br /> <br /> :Conversation is said to be a lost art ... Good talk presupposes leisure, both for preparation and enjoyment. '''The age of leisure is dead, and the art of conversation is dying.'''<br /> ::''Frank Leslie's popular Monthly'', Volume 29<br /> :::1890<br /> <br /> :Intellectual laziness and the hurry of the age have produced '''a craving for literary nips.''' The torpid brain ... has grown too weak for sustained thought.<br /> :'''There never was an age in which so many people were able to write badly.'''<br /> ::Israel Zangwill, ''The Bachelors' Club''<br /> :::1891<br /> <br /> :'''The art of pure line engraving is dying out. We live at too fast a rate to allow for the preparation of such plates as our fathers appreciated.''' If a picture catches the public fancy, the public must have an etched or a photogravured copy of it within a month or two of its appearance, the days when engravers were wont to spend two or three years over a single plate are for ever gone.<br /> ::''Journal of the Institute of Jamaica'', Volume 1<br /> :::1892<br /> <br /> :So much is exhibited to the eye that '''nothing is left to the imagination'''. It sometimes seems almost possible that the modern world might be choked by its own riches, '''and human faculty dwindle away amid the million inventions that have been introduced to render its exercise unnecessary.'''<br /> :The articles in the ''Quarterlies'' extend to thirty or more pages, but '''thirty pages is now too much''' so we witness a further condensing process and, we have the ''Fortnightly'' and the ''Contemporary'' which reduce thirty pages to '''fifteen pages''' so that you may read a larger number of articles in a shorter time and in a shorter form. As if this last condensing process were not enough the condensed articles of these periodicals are '''further condensed''' by the daily papers, which will give you a '''summary of the summary''' of all that has been written about everything.<br /> :'''Those who are dipping into so many subjects and gathering information in a summary and superficial form lose the habit of settling down to great works.'''<br /> :Ephemeral literature is driving out the great classics of the present and the past ... '''hurried reading can never be good reading.'''<br /> ::G. J. Goschen, ''First Annual Address to the Students'', Toynbee Hall. London<br /> :::1894<br /> <br /> :The existence of '''mental and nervous degeneration among a growing class of people''', especially in large cities, is an obvious phenomenon ... the mania for stimulants ... diseases of the mind are almost as numerous as the diseases of the body... This intellectual condition is characterized by '''a brain incapable of normal working ... in a large measure due to the hurry and excitement of modern life''', with its facilities for rapid locomotion and '''almost instantaneous communication between remote points of the globe'''...<br /> ::''The Churchman'', Volume 71<br /> :::1895<br /> <br /> :If we '''teach the children how to play''' and encourage them in their sports ... '''instead of shutting them in badly ventilated schoolrooms''', the next generation will be more joyous and will be healthier than the present one.<br /> ::''Public Opinion: A Comprehensive Summary of the Press Throughout the World'', Volume 18<br /> :::1895<br /> <br /> :The cause of the ... increase in nervous disease is '''increased demand made by the conditions of modern life upon the brain'''. Everything is done in a hurry. '''We talk across a continent, telegraph across an ocean''', take a trip to Chicago for an hour's talk... '''We take even our pleasures sadly and make a task of our play''' ... what wonder if the pressure is almost more than our nerves can bear.<br /> ::G. Shrady (from P.C. Knapp)<br /> ::&quot;Are nervous diseases increasing?&quot; ''Medical Record''<br /> :::1896<br /> <br /> :'''The managers of sensational newspapers''' ... do not try to educate their readers and make them better, but tend to '''create perverted tastes and develop vicious tendencies.''' The owners of these papers seem to have but one purpose, and that is to increase their circulation.<br /> ::''Medical Brief'', Volume 26<br /> :::1898<br /> <br /> :'''To take sufficient time for our meals seems frequently impossible''' on account of the demands on our time made by our business... We act on the apparent belief that all of our business is so pressing that we must jump on the quickest car home, eat our dinner in the most hurried way, make the closest connection for a car returning ...<br /> ::Louis John Rettger. ''Studies in Advanced Physiology''<br /> :::1898<br /> <br /> :In these days of increasing rapid artificial locomotion, '''may I be permitted to say a word in favour of a very worthy and valuable old friend of mine, Mr. Long Walk?'''<br /> :'''I am afraid that this good gentleman is in danger of getting neglected, if not forgotten.''' We live in days of water trips and land trips, excursions by sea, road and rail-bicycles and tricycles, tram cars and motor cars .... but in my humble opinion, good honest walking exercise for health beats all other kinds of locomotion into a cocked hat.<br /> ::T. Thatcher, &quot;A plea for a long walk&quot;,<br /> ::''The Publishers Circular''<br /> :::1902<br /> <br /> :The art of conversation is almost a lost one. '''People talk as they ride bicycles&amp;ndash;at a rush&amp;ndash;without pausing to consider their surroundings''' ... what has been generally understood as cultured society is rapidly deteriorating into baseness and voluntary ignorance. '''The profession of letters is so little understood''', and so far from being seriously appreciated, that ... Newspapers are full, not of thoughtful honestly expressed public opinion on the affairs of the nation, but of vapid personalities interesting to none save gossips and busy bodies.<br /> ::Marie Corelli,<br /> ::''Free opinions, freely expressed''<br /> :::1905<br /> <br /> :There is a great '''tendency among the children of today to rebel against restraint''', not only that placed upon them by the will of the parent. But against any restraint or limitation of what they consider their rights ... this fact has filled well minded people with great apprehensions for the future.<br /> ::Rev. Henry Hussmann,<br /> ::''The authority of parents''<br /> :::1906<br /> <br /> :'''Our modern family gathering, silent''' around the fire, '''each individual with his head buried in his favourite magazine''', is the somewhat natural outcome of the banishment of colloquy from the school ...<br /> ::''The Journal of Education'', Volume 29<br /> :::1907<br /> <br /> :Plays in theatres at the present time present spectacles and '''deal openly with situations which no person would have dared to mention in general society forty years ago'''... The current representations of '''nude men and women in the daily journals''' and the illustrated magazines would have excluded such periodicals from all respectable families two decades ago... Those who have been divorced ... forty and fifty years ago lost at once and irrevocably their standing in society, while to-day they continue in all their social relationships, hardly changed...<br /> ::Editorial, ''The Watchman'', Boston<br /> :::1908<br /> <br /> :We write millions more letters than did our grandfathers, but the increase in volume has brought with it an automatic artificial machine-like ring ... an examination of a file of old letters reveals not only a remarkable grasp of details. But a '''fitness and courtliness too often totally lacking''' in the mechanical curt cut and dried letters of to-day.<br /> ::Forrest Crissey, ''Handbook of Modern Business Correspondence''<br /> :::1908<br /> <br /> :'''A hundred years ago it took so long and cost so much to send a letter that it seemed worth while to put some time and thought into writing it.''' Now the quickness and the cheapness of the post seem to justify the feeling that '''a brief letter to-day may be followed by another next week&amp;ndash;a &quot;line&quot; now by another to-morrow.'''<br /> ::Percy Holmes Boynton, ''Principles of Composition''<br /> :::1915<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1134:_Logic_Boat&diff=62411 2014-03-10T23:01:28Z

<p>108.162.218.101: </p> <hr /> <div>Why not take the boat as well? The goat could drag it around, and you could use it as a makeshift shelter until you finish building a proper house. Also, why does cabbage weigh as much as a goat? [[User:Davidy22|&lt;span title=&quot;I want you.&quot;&gt;&lt;u&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;purple&quot; size=&quot;2px&quot;&gt;David&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;green&quot; size=&quot;3px&quot;&gt;y&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;indigo&quot; size=&quot;1px&quot;&gt;22&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Davidy22|&lt;tt&gt;(talk)&lt;/tt&gt;]] 05:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)<br /> &lt;p&gt;I'd say that the wolf is the only one amongst them he should keep. Seeing as how the wolf doesn't treat Cueball like the goat--i.e. rip him to shreds--and actually fears him enough to even respect the goat in his presence, I'd say that the wolf is well broken-in and might make a good companion. The goat, on the other hand, is just dead weight. (Sure, Cueball could eat her, but that's why he has the cabbage.) &lt;br&gt;[1] Take the cabbage across [2] Return alone [3] Find the goat problem solved--and your friend well-fed [4] Take the wolf across [[Special:Contributions/207.237.164.241|207.237.164.241]] 06:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)<br /> ::I am not the only one, then! I like wolves a lot more than goats. Then again, I simply like wolves. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 03:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)<br /> ::::They're like puppies! Except instead of love them, you have to occasionally beat the shit out of them to ensure that they continue to fear and respect you. Oh, and instead of love you back, they sometimes physically challenge your authority over the &quot;pack&quot;. But yeah, they're all around awesome. [[Special:Contributions/207.237.164.241|207.237.164.241]] 09:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)<br /> ::::::...<br /> ::::::I compare such a relationship (especially the &quot;beat up the wolf in order for the wolf to fear you&quot;) to [[574:_Swine_Flu|Untoward's relationship with a pig.]] [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 15:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)<br /> ::::::: Wolves are awesome in Minecraft just as in real life. And all you need is bones and rotting meat. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.101|108.162.218.101]] 23:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br /> ::You're never alone with a goat - ask Alexander Selkirk. [[Special:Contributions/86.25.154.116|86.25.154.116]] 13:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)<br /> Why would cabbage count towards the total capacity of the boat? Take the wolf and the cabbage, return alone, take the goat.--[[Special:Contributions/69.197.220.27|69.197.220.27]] 08:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)<br /> ::Maybe it's a sentient boat that knows how many passengers/objects are aboard no matter their weight?--[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 16:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The comments describing other shortcuts are really just emphasizing the joke in this comic. The logic puzzle introduces arbitrary constraints and asks the solver to come up with a solution. (This is reminiscent of the classic xkcd on [[356|Nerd Sniping]].) Most normal people would have the responses you listed about the constraints being arbitrary, but the people vulnerable to Nerd Sniping (i.e. nerds) usually are willing to ignore reality to solve a puzzle with artificial constraints. The purpose of the puzzle is to encourage logical thinking. (Maybe I should take the wolf first so it can't eat the goat. Oh, but then the goat would eat the cabbage. But if I take the cabbage first, the wolf would eat the goat. Therefore, I must take the goat first. ... Continue reasoning with trial and error until the puzzle is solved...) However, you correctly are pointing out how artificial the constraints on the puzzle are. In the actual comic, the solution of leaving the wolf behind would come as a humorous surprise to the nerd following along coming up with a solution. [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 00:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)<br /> ::And that would be the long way towards the 'Explanation' section [[Special:Contributions/207.237.164.241|207.237.164.241]] 09:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I see this as a play on the common use of “logical” to mean “consistent implicit goals or values,” as oppose to “consistent with the principles of inference” as in formal logic. For example, it's the former usage we see when Spock in Star Trek II says, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,” or in Star Trek IV, he says, “To hunt a species to extinction is not logical.” You leave the wolf because it’s not logical to hang around wolves longer than necessary –they’re dangerous. Of course, this usage of “logic” is highly relative and subjective (in contrast to formal logic). As some have argued, wolves are not only logical, but awesome. Title text drills home how subjective and relative this use of “logic” is. It’s not logical to take the cabbage because I don’t like cabbage. But I like goats so they “make sense.” --[[User:Emzed|Emzed]] ([[User talk:Emzed|talk]]) 18:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Everybody knows the classic wolf, sheep and cabbage problem, but I just realized that this is not same problem! Just read the first panel: you have the constraints that the boat can carry two and you can't leave the goat with the cabbage or the wolf with the goat as in the classic problem, but nowhere is stated that you must reach the other side with the other three! You can just do nothing, or carry the sheep on the other side and go away with the boat...<br /> --[[User:Sandman|Sandman]] ([[User talk:Sandman|talk]]) 20:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The problem actually doesn't state any requirement. An equally valid solution would be you starve to death, the cabbage rots to slime and the goat runs away while the wolf tears strips of flesh from your corpse. [[Special:Contributions/216.52.207.104|216.52.207.104]] 23:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::Alternate Solution: Share the Cabbage with the goat. The wolf obviously respects you, so take it with you to make your pet. Don't let the goat ride- make it swim. {{unsigned|66.220.143.177}}<br /> <br /> :::When I was a kid, we used the version with a dog, a chicken, and a bushel of corn. Being a farm kid, my solution was: take chicken, shoot dog, take corn. Because why the hell do you have a dog that eats chickens? Also, tie your bag o'corn up properly so a chicken couldn't get in. They're not that smart. And they cannot eat a bushel of corn in the time it takes you to cross a river and come back. Also, how did you manage to get to this point without everybody eating each other? Why isn't the chicken in a cage? That could protect it from getting eaten. Is it just sitting quietly awaiting your command? Won't it just wander away once you get it to the other side?<br /> To the above: Goats HATE water. They do not swim well either. I think the wolf should swim. <br /> My solution to the wolf/goat/cabbage is to tether the goat and the wolf far away from each other, whichever side they may be on. --[[Special:Contributions/184.21.245.225|184.21.245.225]] 22:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Goats eat cabbage..<br /> [[Special:Contributions/24.59.184.243|24.59.184.243]] 09:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)<br /> Hmm... what is to keep the human from eating the cabbage? <br /> :Send the wolf with the cabbage across and let the boat drift back, and then have the human go across with the goat. 3 steps. The real challenge of this puzzle is teaching your wolf to paddle the boat across. [[User:Zyxuvius|Zyxuvius]] ([[User talk:Zyxuvius|talk]]) 09:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Fastest solution: Get the goat in the boat, drop the cabbage in the water, row boat across, periodically pushing the cabbage in the direction of the shore with your oars. 1 step. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.150|199.27.128.150]] 04:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> &lt;br&gt;The river isn't that wide. Couldn't you just throw the cabbage across, then return and get the wolf, then return and get the goat? Or just leave the cabbage. [[User:Jake|Jake]] ([[User talk:Jake|talk]]) 14:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:813:_One-Liners&diff=60119 2014-02-16T01:12:07Z

<p>108.162.218.101: </p> <hr /> <div>I dunno, &quot;Bangarang, motherfucker!&quot; seems a lot more quotable to me than most of the others. Actually, I think I'm going to try to use it in my daily life. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.210|173.245.55.210]] 15:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> * Well, that, and Skrillex.<br /> <br /> I think the last frame is the most quotable as well. It's very similar to John McClain's one-liner from the Die Hard movies: &quot;Yippie Ki-Yay, Mother Fucker&quot;. {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.85}}</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1330:_Kola_Borehole&diff=60063 2014-02-14T19:13:21Z

<p>108.162.218.101: /* Explanation */ linking</p> <hr /> <div>{{comic<br /> | number = 1330<br /> | date = February 14, 2014<br /> | title = Kola Borehole<br /> | image = kola_borehole.png<br /> | titletext = Tonight's top story: Lucifer, the Prince of Darkness, died in his home this morning at the age of [unintelligible rune]. Due to the large number of sharks inhabiting his former kingdom, no body could be recovered.<br /> }}<br /> <br /> ==Explanation==<br /> <br /> The {{w|Kola Superdeep Borehole}} is the result of a scientific drilling project by the Soviet Union in what is now north-western Russia that began in 1970 and continued through 1992 . It was an attempt to drill as far into the Earth as possible. The deepest hole reached 12,262 metres (40,230 ft).<br /> <br /> [[Megan]] mentions {{w|Well to Hell hoax|a hoax/rumour}} that the drilling hit a super-hot cavern from which screams emanated [http://www.snopes.com/religion/wellhell.asp]. Although super-hot temperature was the reason the project was abandoned, there is no evidence of any chamber or voices being discovered. As Megan notes, the hoax plays on the popular notion that {{w|Hell}} is literally a physical place below us (therefore by definition, towards the centre of the Earth), whereas Heaven is above us; often depicted in the clouds.<br /> <br /> Megan suggests that the miners therefore sealed the hole to “seal in” Hell; there is no mention in the Wikipedia article about the hole being sealed, and given potential future scientific data, the 22 years spent drilling and the cost of sealing the hole, it seems likely that when it was abandoned, the hole was left intact.<br /> <br /> [[Black Hat]] suggests that if the Hoax were true and the miners did believe they’d drilled into Hell, a better alternative to sealing the hole would have been to dig a canal to the ocean, thereby allowing water to flow into the hole and into Hell. Given the common depiction of a subterranean hell is characterized by fire and brimstone and extreme heat, filling hell with water would both drastically alter the landscape, and presumably shortly thereafter, entirely flood Hell.<br /> <br /> Megan never thought of that possibility and compliments Black Hat’s ingenuity by suggesting that if there were ever a real conflict with Hell, she would want to be “on his side”, given his clever suggestion on how to destroy Hell. He responds by suggesting that Megan is “nice” and therefore probably won’t be on his side. This suggests Black Hat considers himself evil and thinks he would be fighting &lt;i&gt;for&lt;/i&gt; Hell (or maybe on behalf of those &lt;!-- similarly evil people who are suffering from the heat--&gt; consigned there), rather than against it.<br /> <br /> The title text parodies a non-descript news report of a person’s death. In this case it is about {{w|Lucifer}} being killed by Black Hat carrying out his plan to flood Hell. However, the report is written in a non-descript way that ignores the presumed sensationalism of the story (i.e., that Hell exists and has been flooded). It is notable that “Lucifer” is often used in modern times to refer to {{w|Satan}} and both are used to refer to the “leader” or “keeper” of Hell, although they are not biblically the same entity, and are not tied directly to hell. Much of the modern image of Hell is derived from Dante’s “{{w| Inferno (Dante) |Inferno}}” along with a variety of additional details which have been added and changed throughout the years. The reference to sharks is a reference to [[1326: Sharks]] that was released the previous week.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> [[1040: Lakes and Oceans]], [http://xkcd.com/1040/large/ 1040 large], on the right hand side.<br /> <br /> ==Transcript==<br /> :[Megan and Black Hat are sitting in front of their laptops.]<br /> :Megan: Ever hear of the Kola Borehole?<br /> :Black Hat: No -- what's that?<br /> :Megan: A Soviet project to drill deep into the Earth's crust.<br /> <br /> :Megan: There's a hoax report claiming that their drill broke through into a superhot cavern, and when they lowered a microphone into the hole, they heard tormented screaming. People say that's why the miners sealed the well and abandoned the project.<br /> <br /> :Black Hat: Why would anyone ''believe'' that story?<br /> :Megan: I guess some people think Hell is literally an underground place.<br /> <br /> :Black Hat: No -- I mean, why would the miners seal the opening? Why not just dig a canal connecting it to the ocean? Unless they '''''like''''' Hell.<br /> <br /> :Megan: ...If there's ever a war between Earth and Hell, I hope I'm on '''''your''''' side.<br /> :Black Hat: You seem nice; you probably won't be.<br /> <br /> {{comic discussion}}<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br /> [[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]<br /> [[Category:Religion]]</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:515:_No_One_Must_Know&diff=59871 2014-02-12T21:05:50Z

<p>108.162.218.101: </p> <hr /> <div>The &quot;Trivia&quot; about her name is silly. By that logic black hat should be called ''pie''. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 19:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :How can you say the truth is silly?? It just *is*. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 08:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::And in this case the truth is trivial! :¬D [[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 15:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog<br /> <br /> :That, and the internet already HAS a psychopath with &quot;pie&quot; in their name. Has anyone here even read Cupcakes? ...I just realized that this alludes to the pastry terms in the comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.101|108.162.218.101]] 21:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:RainbowDash&diff=59805 2014-02-12T03:30:28Z

<p>108.162.218.101: </p> <hr /> <div>Test comment please ignore<br /> <br /> Not ignored. Brony. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.101|108.162.218.101]] 03:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:218:_Nintendo_Surgeon&diff=59675 2014-02-10T03:38:41Z

<p>108.162.218.101: </p> <hr /> <div>Was the NES really &quot;notorious for glitching games upon start-up&quot;? I always thought it was usually after the game cartridges had been around long enough to have attracted enough dust and dirt on the contacts to prevent proper electrical connection. Since the NES cartridges were basically a circuit board in a plastic case, with one end exposed for the edge connectors, dirty contacts could effectively add resistance to the circuits. Blowing on the contacts would displace the dirt. It would be possible to use rubbing alcohol or something similar, but many 10-year-olds would not have alcohol handy, plus the alcohol could leave a residue attracting more dirt in the future. [[User:Tryc|Tryc]] ([[User talk:Tryc|talk]]) 15:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Wasn't just the NES, it was all cartridge-based systems, like the N64 and the GameBoy (I still do this with my eight-year old Advance SP). The nostalgic memories are kicking in now...{{unsigned ip|121.222.232.156}}<br /> <br /> I put tiny blobs of solder on each of the terminals and that would make it work. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 05:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I once had to do this to my Pokémon Sapphire. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.101|108.162.218.101]] 03:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:331:_Photoshops&diff=59673 2014-02-10T00:03:19Z

<p>108.162.218.101: </p> <hr /> <div>While many alarming or suspiciously interesting pictures (and videos) have later proven to be 'shopped', I believe that Randall is commenting on the abysmal existence of a certain kind of person who cries foul on *any* picture that isn't straightforward.<br /> <br /> They usually profess to be Photoshop experts and point out various 'defects' in the photo that 'prove' it has been manipulated.<br /> <br /> This is just a (hopefully unconscious) attempt to appear more cynical, more intelligent and harder to fool than everybody else who has ignored the glaring evidence.<br /> <br /> What makes it simultaneously amusing and annoying is that usually the commenter is patently, completely and obviously wrong - the image has in fact captured a real occurrence.<br /> <br /> The original examples that come to mind are the Apollo 11 photographs from the surface of the moon, but the internet abounds with such.<br /> <br /> StephenP<br /> <br /> To be entirely fair, with the advent of 3D printers, it will become possible to &quot;shop&quot; real-life objects. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.101|108.162.218.101]] 00:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 18:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.101 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:530:_I%27m_An_Idiot&diff=59636 2014-02-09T02:44:35Z

<p>108.162.218.101: Created page with &quot;Does this count as a self-nerd-snipe? ~~~~&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>Does this count as a self-nerd-snipe? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.101|108.162.218.101]] 02:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.101