explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:811: Starlight

2015-05-11T01:14:25Z

108.162.238.114:

I thought that was a picture frame, a mirror makes more sense. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 08:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

From the light's point of view, EVERYTHING is in the same place. The whole universe in one point. {{unsigned
ip|108.162.238.114}}
:Actually, I think that the universe would be a solitary plane. Since light moves only in one straight line. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.204|173.245.54.204]] 02:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I still think it's a picture frame. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.118|108.162.215.118]] 00:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a mirror, you can see the reflection of his arms. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.75.77|141.101.75.77]] 18:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I am still of the opinion, sort of, that it is a picture frame. It seems like beret guy to make art of things we consider simple, because of the actually extraordinary circumstances that happened to make it so. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|The Goyim]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 23:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This is pushing into areas beyond my expertise, but I question the validity of the assertion that the light particle will experience no time between departing the star and arriving at the planet. From what I understand, One of the pillars of relativity is that from ALL reference frames the speed of light is constant. So when we discuss things "from the point of view of a light particle" most of what we say is basically conjecture. It is impossible to have a valid reference frame moving along with a photon. To say that from the photon's point of view no time passes is to assume a reference point where the speed of light is no longer constant, but instead photons have the ability to be stationary. A stationary photon can never be observed in any valid reference frame. It is fair to say that a particle traveling at a speed infinitesimally less than the speed of light will experience almost no time between locations, but time dilation follows a curve that is only valid for speeds approaching but not including the speed of light.

Talk:811: Starlight

2015-05-11T01:12:33Z

108.162.238.114: Discussing things from a photons point of view

I thought that was a picture frame, a mirror makes more sense. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 08:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

From the light's point of view, EVERYTHING is in the same place. The whole universe in one point. {{unsigned
ip|108.162.238.114}}
:Actually, I think that the universe would be a solitary plane. Since light moves only in one straight line. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.204|173.245.54.204]] 02:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I still think it's a picture frame. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.118|108.162.215.118]] 00:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a mirror, you can see the reflection of his arms. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.75.77|141.101.75.77]] 18:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I am still of the opinion, sort of, that it is a picture frame. It seems like beret guy to make art of things we consider simple, because of the actually extraordinary circumstances that happened to make it so. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|The Goyim]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 23:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This is pushing into areas beyond my expertise, but I question the validity of the assertion that the light particle will experience no time between departing the star and arriving at the planet. From what I understand, One of the pillars of relativity is that from ALL reference frames the speed of light is constant. So when we discuss things "from the point of view of a light particle" most of what we say is basically conjecture. It is impossible to have a valid reference frame moving along with a photon. To say that from the photon's point of view no time passes is to assume a reference point where the speed of light is no longer constant, but instead photons have the ability to be stationary. A stationary photon can never be observed in any valid reference frame. It is fair to say that a particle traveling at a speed infinitesimally less than the speed of light will experience almost no time between locations, but time dilation follows an curve that is only valid for speeds approaching but not including the speed of light.

Talk:686: Admin Mourning

2014-08-08T00:02:46Z

108.162.238.114:

This reminds me of the philosophical thought that "...a person dies three times. The day he dies. The day the last person who knew him dies. The day his name is spoken for the last time." Makes you think, eh? [[Special:Contributions/31.111.35.144|31.111.35.144]] 20:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

By "their screen sessions linger," does it mean litteral {{w|GNU Screen}} sessions? [[User:Ad1217|Ad1217]] ([[User talk:Ad1217|talk]]) 04:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
:Yes. SCREEN is in the greped output of ps in the comic [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.37|108.162.219.37]] 17:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
irssi (Internet Relay Chat client software) process running in SCREEN session possibly means that Sam is logged on to the IRC and appears as a live person on some talk channels. {{unsigned ip|141.101.97.202}}

I'm not sure "old fashioned" is a correct description here. Modern Unix systems do this, too. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.114|108.162.238.114]] 00:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:849: Complex Conjugate

2014-07-04T14:05:31Z

108.162.238.114:

Actually multiplying complex number (x + iy) by its complex conjugate (x - iy) does not "remove" imaginary part, but calculate square of absolute value of complex number, (x^2 + y^2). BTW. in quantum physics the wavefunction is complex valued, and its absolute value is probability density (a real valued function). --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 00:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I got hit in the face with my complex conjugate and lost an eye.

Talk:811: Starlight

2014-07-04T02:13:02Z

108.162.238.114:

Talk:722: Computer Problems

2014-07-02T20:05:06Z

108.162.238.114:

I think this might be also a joke on how computer programming and/or hacking is presented in action movies. {{unsigned ip|77.254.185.80}}

I think the explanation of "explaining in simpler terms" should be expanded as how interactions with computers can be so complex (i.e. trying to make something specific work in Linux) but at the same time look absolutely pointless if observed by someone who understands little to nothing about computers. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.196|108.162.212.196]] 13:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I've thought a similar thing about video games. The way you win is by moving the controls in a precise sequence, which if you knew, you wouldn't need to look at the screen to be victorious.