explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:803: Airfoil

2015-06-03T21:01:43Z

108.162.231.68: A well hidden hint.

Since gases are unique in the way they convert pressure change to heat or cold, none of the above can be true. The schema shows more columns of air under the wing than pass above. How come?
We know that an actual wing pulls air down from the layers above rather than bludgeon the air in front of it.

What happens is that vortices are engendered. Wing design is all about getting them past the control sections (the major problem to aircraft design in the 1940's.)

[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 01:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a convention in fluid dynamics that the flow always comes from the left. Nobody working in this field would ever draw a picture with the flow coming from the right side. So this is a hint by its own that the image may be wrong.

Regarding the last comment: The image is from wikipedia. The original comment tells us that the wing influences the flow even at a great distance. The flow at the top is still a lot faster than below the wing.

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 21:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1497: New Products

2015-03-12T10:31:04Z

108.162.231.68:

Seems to me that the humor on the first two is based on engineers and programmers not understanding the general public's needs and wants. Also based on how engineers may find products "exciting" based on how novel the product's functionality is, not based on how useful that functionality is. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.150|108.162.215.150]] 07:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)MW
:It seems to me to be a bash on various makes, remakes, re-remakes, /(re-){2,}remakes/ and sequels of sequels that become very successful. —[[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.95|141.101.106.95]] 07:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::It looks to me that it refers for example to the Oculus rift.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.125|173.245.53.125]] 08:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:::I took the point of the first category to be that if smart people (programmers and engineers being assumed to be smart) can't understand why anyone would want some stupid useless piece of crap, that it will be a huge success because stupid people outnumber smart people a hundred to one (ref: MS Windows), and the point of the second category to be that if it excites smart people, it'll fail in the marketplace because stupid people outnumber smart people a hundred to one. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.27|199.27.133.27]] 08:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would be interested in a chart of examples of each category {{unsigned ip|108.162.242.5}}

Sean Malstrom talked about this. In general, Super Mario Bros, the Legend of Zelda, and Metroid, while classic, are actually nothing new... just having a high level of crasftmanship. Besides, people want familiar experiences. In a way, that makes sense. Meanwhile, hype tends to inflate expectations. The only game that ever fulfilled hype was Super Mario Bros. 3... still a classic. Then again, hype is a mere tactic used in getting people to buy poor games; great games do not need hype. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 13:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Reading those 'quotes', I'm minded of Bill Gates's statement on exactly how much memory we wouldn't need more than, the head of IBM far earlier predicting the need for perhaps five(? look it up) computers in the whole world, the century-old prediction that the number of cars in the world wouldn't exceed the (small number of) chauffeurs who could be trained, etc. Plus things like Microsoft's failed earlier attempts at Windows tablets (and OSes) that preceded the latest craze by a decade and then died, only for the recent mania (which might again be dying, but at least has a foothold). But is it worthwhile actually putting in loads of links to these kinds of things, to illustrate each issue? Probably not...[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.188|141.101.98.188]] 14:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the alt text refers to the 6th row of the table as well, the speaker in the quote is nervous about handing his medical information over to KimDotCom's company, which means within 5 years he will willingly do it. The 2nd and 3rd rows made me think of the Pebble Watch, which was launched on kickstarter (pre-ordered), but I don't believe it was widely commercially successful. The concept of the Pebble is being used in the Apple Watch, but with a higher quality screen, greater focus on design elements, and a much much higher price-tag. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.194|173.245.54.194]] 18:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:No it cannot fit there. Because he has signed up and thus h does not say never in my life... I have changed back and added this explantion --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody else find this explanation borderline offensive? You can describe differences groups without being derogatory.

Something between the current text and the comment labeled 199.27.133.27 08:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC) should do it.
--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.152|173.245.56.152]] 20:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Title text does seem to refer to 4th category. Please discuss before deleting. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:Well I disagree. I has already once removed a reference to the fourth category, and thus I did it again when you put it in again and also wrote alot of text where all of it basically was written below the Dotcom explanation. Try and read your versions, and see that most of what you wrote apart from the fourth category is more or less double. If the guy has signed up he have no problems with this company. Also it is mentioned that the fourth category is not a company he is afraid off, but just someone they do not like. At least we should try to avoid writing the same twice! I could say the same to you by the way: ''Please discuss before adding something others have already twice removed.'' --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::I had not seen your latest revision. I like the wording. I have kept the category four reference in my newest change, where I have merged the two paragraphs, keeping by far most of your text, but moving most of it below the Kim Dotkom paragraph, as it is importnat to explain him before going on with the explanation why he is so dangerous! I hope you can live with this version? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the consensus of engineers upon seeing the iPhone was that it was boring. I remember thinking it would make a killing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.100|108.162.219.100]] 05:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
:Compare the iPhone 1 to the Nokia E90 (also from 2007); 3G, aGPS, clipboard, optionally larger screen with higher resolution, replaceable battery. So the iPhone has been technically inferior for its time (except the capacitive touch). The correction of the shortcomings have been sold as the next generation iPhones in the following years and many engineers knew of succsssions of better alternatives during that times. The image of Apple is and has been: The devices have less options, but do what they should. The price tag makes them a status symbol. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 10:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

added Ubuntu Edge to ""I've already pre-ordered one" which I actually did :) [[User:SirKitKat|sirKitKat]] ([[User talk:SirKitKat|talk]]) 10:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1497: New Products

2015-03-12T10:28:10Z

108.162.231.68:

Seems to me that the humor on the first two is based on engineers and programmers not understanding the general public's needs and wants. Also based on how engineers may find products "exciting" based on how novel the product's functionality is, not based on how useful that functionality is. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.150|108.162.215.150]] 07:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)MW
:It seems to me to be a bash on various makes, remakes, re-remakes, /(re-){2,}remakes/ and sequels of sequels that become very successful. —[[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.95|141.101.106.95]] 07:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::It looks to me that it refers for example to the Oculus rift.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.125|173.245.53.125]] 08:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:::I took the point of the first category to be that if smart people (programmers and engineers being assumed to be smart) can't understand why anyone would want some stupid useless piece of crap, that it will be a huge success because stupid people outnumber smart people a hundred to one (ref: MS Windows), and the point of the second category to be that if it excites smart people, it'll fail in the marketplace because stupid people outnumber smart people a hundred to one. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.27|199.27.133.27]] 08:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would be interested in a chart of examples of each category {{unsigned ip|108.162.242.5}}

Sean Malstrom talked about this. In general, Super Mario Bros, the Legend of Zelda, and Metroid, while classic, are actually nothing new... just having a high level of crasftmanship. Besides, people want familiar experiences. In a way, that makes sense. Meanwhile, hype tends to inflate expectations. The only game that ever fulfilled hype was Super Mario Bros. 3... still a classic. Then again, hype is a mere tactic used in getting people to buy poor games; great games do not need hype. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 13:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Reading those 'quotes', I'm minded of Bill Gates's statement on exactly how much memory we wouldn't need more than, the head of IBM far earlier predicting the need for perhaps five(? look it up) computers in the whole world, the century-old prediction that the number of cars in the world wouldn't exceed the (small number of) chauffeurs who could be trained, etc. Plus things like Microsoft's failed earlier attempts at Windows tablets (and OSes) that preceded the latest craze by a decade and then died, only for the recent mania (which might again be dying, but at least has a foothold). But is it worthwhile actually putting in loads of links to these kinds of things, to illustrate each issue? Probably not...[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.188|141.101.98.188]] 14:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the alt text refers to the 6th row of the table as well, the speaker in the quote is nervous about handing his medical information over to KimDotCom's company, which means within 5 years he will willingly do it. The 2nd and 3rd rows made me think of the Pebble Watch, which was launched on kickstarter (pre-ordered), but I don't believe it was widely commercially successful. The concept of the Pebble is being used in the Apple Watch, but with a higher quality screen, greater focus on design elements, and a much much higher price-tag. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.194|173.245.54.194]] 18:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:No it cannot fit there. Because he has signed up and thus h does not say never in my life... I have changed back and added this explantion --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody else find this explanation borderline offensive? You can describe differences groups without being derogatory.

Something between the current text and the comment labeled 199.27.133.27 08:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC) should do it.
--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.152|173.245.56.152]] 20:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Title text does seem to refer to 4th category. Please discuss before deleting. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:Well I disagree. I has already once removed a reference to the fourth category, and thus I did it again when you put it in again and also wrote alot of text where all of it basically was written below the Dotcom explanation. Try and read your versions, and see that most of what you wrote apart from the fourth category is more or less double. If the guy has signed up he have no problems with this company. Also it is mentioned that the fourth category is not a company he is afraid off, but just someone they do not like. At least we should try to avoid writing the same twice! I could say the same to you by the way: ''Please discuss before adding something others have already twice removed.'' --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::I had not seen your latest revision. I like the wording. I have kept the category four reference in my newest change, where I have merged the two paragraphs, keeping by far most of your text, but moving most of it below the Kim Dotkom paragraph, as it is importnat to explain him before going on with the explanation why he is so dangerous! I hope you can live with this version? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the consensus of engineers upon seeing the iPhone was that it was boring. I remember thinking it would make a killing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.100|108.162.219.100]] 05:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
:Compare the iPhone 1 to the Nokia E90 (also from 2007); 3G, aGPS, clipboard, optionally larger screen with higher resolution, replaceable battery. So technically inferior for its time (except the capacitive touch). The correction of the shortcomings have been sold as the next generation iPhones in the following years and many engineers knew of succsssions of better alternatives during that times. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 10:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

added Ubuntu Edge to ""I've already pre-ordered one" which I actually did :) [[User:SirKitKat|sirKitKat]] ([[User talk:SirKitKat|talk]]) 10:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1497: New Products

2015-03-12T10:26:30Z

108.162.231.68:

Seems to me that the humor on the first two is based on engineers and programmers not understanding the general public's needs and wants. Also based on how engineers may find products "exciting" based on how novel the product's functionality is, not based on how useful that functionality is. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.150|108.162.215.150]] 07:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)MW
:It seems to me to be a bash on various makes, remakes, re-remakes, /(re-){2,}remakes/ and sequels of sequels that become very successful. —[[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.95|141.101.106.95]] 07:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::It looks to me that it refers for example to the Oculus rift.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.125|173.245.53.125]] 08:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:::I took the point of the first category to be that if smart people (programmers and engineers being assumed to be smart) can't understand why anyone would want some stupid useless piece of crap, that it will be a huge success because stupid people outnumber smart people a hundred to one (ref: MS Windows), and the point of the second category to be that if it excites smart people, it'll fail in the marketplace because stupid people outnumber smart people a hundred to one. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.27|199.27.133.27]] 08:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would be interested in a chart of examples of each category {{unsigned ip|108.162.242.5}}

Sean Malstrom talked about this. In general, Super Mario Bros, the Legend of Zelda, and Metroid, while classic, are actually nothing new... just having a high level of crasftmanship. Besides, people want familiar experiences. In a way, that makes sense. Meanwhile, hype tends to inflate expectations. The only game that ever fulfilled hype was Super Mario Bros. 3... still a classic. Then again, hype is a mere tactic used in getting people to buy poor games; great games do not need hype. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 13:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Reading those 'quotes', I'm minded of Bill Gates's statement on exactly how much memory we wouldn't need more than, the head of IBM far earlier predicting the need for perhaps five(? look it up) computers in the whole world, the century-old prediction that the number of cars in the world wouldn't exceed the (small number of) chauffeurs who could be trained, etc. Plus things like Microsoft's failed earlier attempts at Windows tablets (and OSes) that preceded the latest craze by a decade and then died, only for the recent mania (which might again be dying, but at least has a foothold). But is it worthwhile actually putting in loads of links to these kinds of things, to illustrate each issue? Probably not...[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.188|141.101.98.188]] 14:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the alt text refers to the 6th row of the table as well, the speaker in the quote is nervous about handing his medical information over to KimDotCom's company, which means within 5 years he will willingly do it. The 2nd and 3rd rows made me think of the Pebble Watch, which was launched on kickstarter (pre-ordered), but I don't believe it was widely commercially successful. The concept of the Pebble is being used in the Apple Watch, but with a higher quality screen, greater focus on design elements, and a much much higher price-tag. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.194|173.245.54.194]] 18:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:No it cannot fit there. Because he has signed up and thus h does not say never in my life... I have changed back and added this explantion --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody else find this explanation borderline offensive? You can describe differences groups without being derogatory.

Something between the current text and the comment labeled 199.27.133.27 08:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC) should do it.
--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.152|173.245.56.152]] 20:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Title text does seem to refer to 4th category. Please discuss before deleting. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:Well I disagree. I has already once removed a reference to the fourth category, and thus I did it again when you put it in again and also wrote alot of text where all of it basically was written below the Dotcom explanation. Try and read your versions, and see that most of what you wrote apart from the fourth category is more or less double. If the guy has signed up he have no problems with this company. Also it is mentioned that the fourth category is not a company he is afraid off, but just someone they do not like. At least we should try to avoid writing the same twice! I could say the same to you by the way: ''Please discuss before adding something others have already twice removed.'' --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::I had not seen your latest revision. I like the wording. I have kept the category four reference in my newest change, where I have merged the two paragraphs, keeping by far most of your text, but moving most of it below the Kim Dotkom paragraph, as it is importnat to explain him before going on with the explanation why he is so dangerous! I hope you can live with this version? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the consensus of engineers upon seeing the iPhone was that it was boring. I remember thinking it would make a killing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.100|108.162.219.100]] 05:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
:Compare the iPhone 1 to the Nokia E90 (also from 2007); 3G, aGPS, clipboard, optionally larger screen eith higher resolution, replaceable battery. So technically inferior for its time (except the capacitive touch). The correction of the shortcomings have been sold as the next generation iPhones and many engineers knew of succsssions of better alternatives during that times. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 10:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

added Ubuntu Edge to ""I've already pre-ordered one" which I actually did :) [[User:SirKitKat|sirKitKat]] ([[User talk:SirKitKat|talk]]) 10:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1491: Stories of the Past and Future

2015-02-25T06:55:24Z

108.162.231.68:

http://xkcd.com/1491/large/ will take you to the large version, which the comic currently doesn't have a link to. I expect that will be fixed shortly. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.177|108.162.210.177]] 05:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:I just realized he has a text link for it in the top banner. I'd delete my comment, but that's rude on a wiki. Whatever. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.177|108.162.210.177]] 05:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The bottom diagonal seems to be mislabelled? Shouldn't it be "Stories written X years and set X years ago" instead of "set 2X years ago"?
--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.175|108.162.250.175]] 05:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:It is correct, if you see both relative from now. The middle line is written X years ago and set X years ago and thus contemporary. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 06:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to open bug tickets, but Lest Darkness Fall actually takes place ~1500 years ago, not ~500. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.121|141.101.80.121]] 06:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Kind of reminds of a Minkowski diagram. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 06:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

More and more science fiction works wander into the category obsolete science fiction, and more and more historical works are not recognisable as such by the average viewer as the movies have been filmed such a long time ago anyway. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 06:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1491: Stories of the Past and Future

2015-02-25T06:50:31Z

108.162.231.68:

Talk:1491: Stories of the Past and Future

2015-02-25T06:46:53Z

108.162.231.68:

Talk:1485: Friendship

2015-02-11T07:44:54Z

108.162.231.68: Created page with "In the article Randall wants to make us believe friendship is a rather new phenomenon or trend and its "early" occurences are something special,which may be true for bromance ..."

In the article Randall wants to make us believe friendship is a rather new phenomenon or trend and its "early" occurences are something special,which may be true for bromance - at least for the term - but not for the concept. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 07:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1483: Quotative Like

2015-02-06T08:58:09Z

108.162.231.68:

That second panel is, like, depressing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.185|108.162.249.185]] 05:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I found [http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/01/25/linguists-are-like-get-used/ruUQoV0XUTLDjx72JojnBI/story.html the article]. [[User:Piderman|Piderman]] ([[User talk:Piderman|talk]]) 05:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:Cool, added it. Thanks. [[User:PinkAmpersand|PinkAmpersand]] ([[User talk:PinkAmpersand|talk]])
God also introduced a new concept "light" and was quicker implementing it throughout the world. And light sounds similar to (like) like. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 08:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1478: P-Values

2015-01-26T23:02:20Z

108.162.231.68:

IMHO the current explanation is misleading. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value p-value] describes how well the experiment output fits hypothesis. The hypothesis can be that the experiment output is random.
The low p-values point out that the experiment output fits well with behavior predicted by the hypothesis. The higher the p-value the more the observed and predicted values differ.[[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]] ([[User talk:Jkotek|talk]]) 08:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
: High p-values do not signify that the results differ from what was predicted, they simply indicate that there are not enough results for a conclusion. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.230.113|108.162.230.113]] 20:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I read this comic as a bit of a jab at either scientists or media commentators who want the experiments to show a particular result. As the significance decreases, first they re-do the calculations either in the hope that result might have been erroneous and would be re-classified as significant, or intentionally fudge the numbers to increase the significance. The next step is to start clutching at straws, admitting that while the result isn't ''[[Technically]]'' significant, it is very close to being significant. After that, changing the language to 'suggestive' may convince the general public that the result is actually more significant than it is, while also changing the parameters of the 'significance' value allows it to be classified as significant. Finally, they give up on the overall results, and start pointing out small sections which may by chance show some interesting features.

All of these subversive efforts could come about because of scientists who want their experiment to match their hypothesis, journalists who need a story, researchers who have to justify further funding etc etc. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:I like how you have two separate categories - "scientists" and "researchers" with each having two different goals :) [[User:Nyq|Nyq]] ([[User talk:Nyq|talk]]) 10:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
: As a reporter, I can assure you that journalists are not redoing calculations on studies. Journalists are notorious for their innumeracy; the average reporter can barely figure the tip on her dinner check. Most of us don't know p-values from pea soup.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.78|108.162.216.78]] 16:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This one resembles [https://mchankins.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/still-not-significant-2/ this interesting blog post] very much.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.222|141.101.96.222]] 13:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

[[File:null_hypothesis.png]] 
[[User:Sten|'''STEN''']] ([[User talk:Sten|talk]]) 13:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:Heh. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.189|173.245.56.189]] 20:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

See http://xkcd.com/882/ for using a subgroup to improve your p value. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1455: Trolley Problem

2014-12-03T10:13:40Z

108.162.231.68:

I think Randall missed a trick here.. He should have had Black Hat offer to leave the lever (killing the 5) if Cueball was the 1 person on the other track, for $1 of course. That way Cueball is put in a situation of moral contradiction: The utilitarian in him says save the 5 (sacrifice self), self interest says save yourself (thereby killing 5). --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Black Hat first sells his hypothetical decision for $1, which can be seen as a cheap bargain for one's life; but how probable is this concrete situation with these exact persons to come true, except we are speaking of Black Hat here. $5 still is for a hypothetical, but more probable scenario given Black Hat's attitude; agreeing to pay would make Cueball open for further blackmailing in general and so be imprudent, but even for that counter-argument Black Hat has an even more expensive solution. Black Hat goes more and more meta and counters arguments bringing the concrete decision from hypothesis to reality and earning money on the way. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 10:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)