explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2941: Cell Organelles

2024-06-07T15:43:38Z

108.162.238.134: Green slime references:

I'm a little disappointed there isn't a continuous endoplasmic reticulum with a zigzag in it.
Rogue mathematician away [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.77|172.71.154.77]] 19:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflicts, attempting to fix.... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.237|108.162.245.237]] 20:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Re [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2941:_Cell_Organelles&diff=343629&oldid=343628] is LLM use forbidden? I recall we have several ChatGPT-authored explanations, and had an ongoing discussion back when it was new. In any case, I've proofread and vouch for it, so I'm replacing the text. I encourage anyone who's bothered by it to paraphrase instead of delete. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.237|108.162.245.237]] 21:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

:If you've got the time to check AI-generated content properly and agree that it's what ''you'' would have written, you've got time to write it from scratch exactly how you'd have written it. And you get dangerously close to just putting in AI-content without checking at all, which right now is remains foolhardy.
:But, most of all, anything anyone submits can be changed by anyone else, and I don't know who picked up on it being AI and dealt with it the way they did, but only consensus can truly resolve where any attempt to impose an edit leads. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.119|162.158.74.119]] 22:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

::I almost completely agree with you for Wikipedia (I'd just change 'would' to 'could') and similar wikis, but it's undeniable that ExplainXkcd is different in some very substantial and obvious ways, many of which bear on whether to utilize AI. In particular, I would accept pretty much anything that helps explain the comic whether authored by human, machine, animal, or alien, but not hesitate for a second to, as the text below the Summary text input box says, edit it "mercilessly" whether I thought it was LLM-generated or not. But I wouldn't delete an even barely serviceable explanation ''just'' because I thought it came from an LLM, even if it was objectively low quality. I would try to improve it, which almost never means starting over from scratch. I'm not sure I believe the same is true for humans, who often insert, e.g., vandalism, trolling, or extremely undue and/or fringe topic passages. If an LLM is doing that, there's probably a human behind it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.17|108.162.245.17]] 00:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

:Both the paragraphs and the table have been edited far enough from what ChatGPT pretty obviously came up with (almost all of which I would say merit inclusion unaltered, [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2941:_Cell_Organelles&diff=343604&oldid=343601 looking at the initial edits; although there is evidence that the LLM output was copyedited and wikilinked in a way that it would probably not do,] i.e., we use the {{tl|w}} template here which is not at all a Mediawiki standard, the Wikimedia wikis having a different form <nowiki>[[w:...]]</nowiki>) so that whatever deleterious LLM contamination they had has surely been beat out of them at this stage. Perhaps the GenAI deletionist is trying to encourage others to not fall prey to reliance on LLMs? A worthy goal, but I agree paraphrasing is far superior. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.180|172.69.34.180]] 01:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Re: the chloroplasts explanation: how do we know that this is an animal cell? (Would be good to say why...) -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 22:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:The cell has a membrane instead of a wall. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.199|162.158.90.199]] 22:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:::NO!!! ALL cells have membranes. Cell Walls are exterior to plasma (cell) membrane (from a real biologist) {{unsigned ip|172.71.174.161|19:21, 5 June 2024}}
::No, that’s human skin. [[User:Usb-rave|Usb-rave]] ([[User talk:Usb-rave|talk]]) 00:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:: There are lots of organisms out there that have plastids (chloroplasts) and do not have cell walls ... that, in fact, do not fit the common conception of either 'plant' or 'animal'. Euglena might still be the most famous example - Euglena is more closely related to the protozoa that cause trypanosomiasis than to either plants or animals - but there are many others, and it's a deep rabbit hole. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.117|162.158.41.117]] 18:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:: And speaking of "lucky to have them", did you know that plastids are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptoplasty worth stealing]? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.200|172.68.23.200]] 21:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

:::Yeah, the rule of thumb is of course a generalization worthy of chemistry "rules" -- the {{w|bone cell}} being perhaps the most obvious uncategorizable corner case of several. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.236|172.71.150.236]] 02:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Why does Golgi look like an alien, he's so little and cute. Wtf. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 23:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

:You know what I would like to see from AI? A tiny white Grey Golgi alien working in the cytoplasm to build his apparatus. Please see below. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.106|172.71.147.106]] 03:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
::What if ''you'' animated it? Destroy all Plagiarized Information Synthesis Systems. (P.I.S.S.) [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 21:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Should 2732: Bursa of Fabricius be referenced? It feels like the Golgi Apparatus is making a similar joke, if somewhat inverted. [[User:Dkfenger|Dkfenger]] ([[User talk:Dkfenger|talk]]) 01:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

To me, 'Drain plug' is an engine oil-drain plug. Yes it is a bolt, rarely used in biological systems. But a cell and an engine are normally full of fluid, while plumbing sinks are normally empty. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 02:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:To me it's about as often something you would find in a kitchen or bathroom sink, especially if the plumbing was from the 1970s or earlier. Honestly I'm too young to know when sink plugs fell out of favor to levers. In any case, an actual hole in the cell membrane is almost always a potentially mortal wound, and few cells have any means of repairing all but the smallest tears. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.197|172.70.207.197]] 02:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello there! 👋 I think you guys mixed up midichlorian and mitochondria explanations. 👋 You surely will want to fix that. 👋 Also, you want to make me a sandwich. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.177|172.70.85.177]] 05:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:LGTM. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.218|172.71.146.218]] 09:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little bit disappointed that there's no Sulawesi hidden in there. This is the sort of comci you'd expect it in. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 06:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
: I'm disappointed that, alongside the drain plug, there isn't a pain drug.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.183|172.69.195.183]] 12:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:: It would have had to have been a generic. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.141|172.71.147.141]] 03:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::: Generic, or genetic?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.123|172.70.90.123]] 09:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::: Generic, as in "not fancy". [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.74|172.68.23.74]] 13:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::I thought that was a {{w|Generic drug|pharmaceutical reference}}... Oh well. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.42|172.71.242.42]] 16:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::: It was. A generic is a plain drug, compared to its fancy siblings that are still under copyright. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.121|162.158.41.121]] 20:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I dislike that this table is in alphabetical order instead of the top-down order they were meant to be read.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.231.39|172.70.231.39]] 10:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:"Fixed." Click the column heading to return to alphabetical order. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.196|162.158.186.196]] 17:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to fail my Biology exam tomorrow because of this :( ([[User talk:SectorCorruptor|talk]]) 11:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to leave a message to the person who added the 'citation needed' footnote to the remark that Golgi was not and is not an alien in our cells: Your, dear person, made my day. Thanks a ton! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.43|172.70.250.43]] 08:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC) c-schroed

Wouldn't "Nucleololus" be a better continuation to "Nucleus" and "Nucleolus", with each term getting one more "ol" between "e" and the second "u"? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.50|172.71.222.50]] 08:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Golgi by AI art contest ===

Survey questions: (1) Which of these do you like the best? https://ibb.co/album/68tCSn Can you do better?

(2) Does anyone know how to make AI animations like those? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.181|172.71.142.181]] 03:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:Does anyone know how to animate? No asking an algorithm, that's cheating :) [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 21:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::I'd just use GIMP, save layers of the necessary art as an animated .gif (other related formats are available). The art bit is the difficult bit for me, I'm better at retouching what's already there. Probably loads of more specialised onion-skinning animation apps around, too, but I know what I like. (You could also program your own transformation algorithms, to arbitrary degrees, but I reckon that either of you could do good things with the stretch/skew matrices without having to delve into that business.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.183|172.69.195.183]] 22:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Green Slime References ===
https://markrobinsonwrites.com/the-music-that-makes-me-dance/2017/5/2/green-slime-and-you-cant-do-that-on-television
https://nickelodeon.fandom.com/wiki/Slime "Slime is a (usually) green semi-viscous substance that has been synonymous with Nickelodeon since its introduction on You Can't Do That On Television. It is typically dumped on a person's head in an act of either humiliation or celebration, referred to as being slimed."

1529: Bracket

2015-05-26T03:09:03Z

108.162.238.134:

{{comic
| number = 1529
| date = May 25, 2015
| title = Bracket
| image = bracket.png
| titletext = I'm staring at the "doctor" section, and I can't help but feel like I've forgotten someone.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Explain the specific groupings. Also, if the names are put in another wikitable, it will look much nicer.}}
A {{w|Bracket (tournament)|tournament bracket}} shows the planned series of matchups in a tournament. In this comic Randall has shown a plan for a tournament between a wide range of cultural icons, both real and fictional, based mostly on similarities in their names. Various internet groups have speculated on who would win in a fight between characters from different films. It may be relevant that the film {{w|Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice}} is soon to be released where the two namesake {{w|superheros}}, {{w|Batman}} and {{w|Superman}}, fight against each other.

The individual starting pairings are generally based on common or similar given or surnames. Some adjacent brackets are "segued" by someone like Jeff Daniels who segues from a bracket of "Jeff"s into a bracket of "Daniels"es. The bracket itself is fairly arbitrary. Most initial matchups are pairs, although several are trios and there's a quadruplet in the Russels group, while a single entry, Beyoncé, is given a first- and second-round {{w|bye (sports)|bye}}. Most of the participants in the tournament are people with a few exceptions: {{w|Shallots}} (small onions), {{w|scallops}} (bivalve mollusks), and {{w|scallions}} (green onions) are similar sounding foods, therefore may be confusing for some individuals (perhaps including [[Randall]]). The final grouping on the lower right of the bracket features a several retail stores and a film.

The [[title text]] may be referring to {{w|Dr. Dre}}, particularly as a reference to his 2001 song "{{w|Forgot About Dre}}" or it could be a reference to {{w|Dr. Who}} where {{w|Asylum of the Daleks}} the Dalek's memory of The Doctor is wiped implying that Randall is a {{w|Dalek}}. Alternatively, the title text could simply be a reference to the large number of pop culture personas that include the word "Doctor", such as {{w|Gregory House|Doctor House}}, {{w|Mehmet Oz|Dr. Oz}}, {{w|Phil McGraw|Dr. Phil}}, {{w|Dr. Watson}}, {{w|Emmett Brown|"Doc" Brown}}, {{w|Dr. Seuss}}, {{w|Dr Pepper}}, {{w|Doctor Doom}}, and {{w|List of fictional doctors|many others}} (or, in fact, [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/futurama-zoidberg-why-not-zoidberg why not Dr. Zoidberg]?). Another possibility is that the [[title text]] is supposed to make the readers ask themselves "{{w|Doctor who}}?" Though "The Doctor" is already listed, this could refer to either {{w|The Doctor (Doctor Who)|the Doctor from ''Doctor Who''}} or {{w|Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager)|the ''Star Trek: Voyager'' character}}. Notably, while the Doctor in "Doctor Who" is technically one character, the Doctor has currently been played by 13 different actors. The mythos of the Doctor Who even includes individual incarnations of the Doctor interacting with each other; knowing they are the same person, yet often expressing annoyance when grouped together. So perhaps Randall is implying that to just include the Doctor as one individual is not an accurate representation of this character.

The names and other entries in the bracket are:
{| class="wikitable" style="background:transparent;border:none;width:100%;"
| style="background:transparent;border:none;"|
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Armstrong:
:{{w|Louis Armstrong}} (musician)
:{{w|Neil Armstrong}} (first human on the moon)
:{{w|Lance Armstrong}} (bicyclist)
:{{w|Stretch Armstrong}} (action figure)

Jeff *:
:Jeff Gordan (Misspelled {{w|Jeff Gordon}}, a racecar driver)
:{{w|Jeff Bridges}} (Actor)

J* Daniels:
:{{w|Jeff Daniels}}
:{{w|Jack Daniels}} (Alcoholic beverage)

Mr. Well*s:
:{{w|Orson Welles}} (Director of "Citizen Kane")
:{{w|H.G. Wells}} (Known for "The War of the Worlds" and "The Time Machine")

<nowiki>*</nowiki>well*:
:{{w|George Orwell}} (Author of "1984" and "Animal Farm")
:{{w|Wells Fargo}} (Bank and stage coach company)

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Russell *:
:{{w|Kurt Russell}} (Actor)
:{{w|Russell Brand}} (Comedian)
:{{w|Russell Crowe}} (Actor)
:{{w|Russell Simmons}}

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Simmons:
:{{w|Richard Simmons}} (Host of exercise program)
:{{w|Gene Simmons}} (Musician)

<nowiki>*</nowiki>ckman:
:{{w|Gene Hackman}} (Actor)
:{{w|Hugh Jackman}} (Actor)
:{{w|Alan Rickman}} (Actor)

Alan Par*:
:{{w|Alan Parsons}}
:{{w|Alan Partridge}}

McCarthy/Eugene:
:{{w|Jenny McCarthy}}
:{{w|Joseph McCarthy}} (Senator known for anti-communist witchhunt)
:{{w|Eugene McCarthy}} (Senator and Presidential candidate)
:{{w|Eugene V. Debs}} (labor leader)

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Wilde*
:{{w|Gene Wilder}} (Actor)
:{{w|Olivia Wilde}} (Actress)
:{{w|Oscar Wilde}} (Writer)

Oscar De La *:
:{{w|Oscar De La Renta}} (Fashion Designer)
:{{w|Oscar De La Hoya}}

Jack Nic*:
:{{w|Jack Nicklaus}} (Golf player)
:{{w|Jack Nicholson}} (Actor)

<nowiki>*</nowiki>ickle* / *ickel*:
:{{w|Phil Mickelson}} (Golf player)
:{{w|Nicholas Nickelby}} (Novel by Charles Dickens and name of main character)

<nowiki>*</nowiki>ryan Adams:
:{{w|Ryan Adams}}
:{{w|Bryan Adams}} (Singer)

Singers with Stage Names Referencing Weight/Games:
:{{w|Chubby Checker}} (Singer famous for "The Twist")
:{{w|Fats Domino}} (Rock and Roll Singer)

Colin *:
:{{w|Colin Firth}} (Actor)
:{{w|Colin Farrell}} (Actor)

F*rell:
:{{w|Will Ferrell}} (Actor)
:{{w|The Farrelly Brothers}}

<nowiki>*</nowiki>itt:
:{{w|Joseph Gordon-Levitt}} (Actor)
:{{w|Jennifer Love Hewitt}} (Actress)

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Glover:
:{{w|Danny Glover}}
:{{w|Donald Glover}}

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Wahlberg:
:{{w|Donnie Wahlberg}}
:{{w|Mark Wahlberg}} (Actor)

Mark *:
:{{w|Mark Ruffalo}} (Actor)
:{{w|Mark Shuttleworth}} (entrepreneur, founder of {{w|Ubuntu (operating system)|Ubuntu}})

| style="background:transparent;border:none;"|
Bill */* Pullman:
:{{w|Philip Pullman}} (Author)
:{{w|Bill Pullman}}
:{{w|Bill Paxton}}

Ghostbusters:
:{{w|Bill Murray}} (Actor)
:{{w|Dan Aykroyd}} (Actor)

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Rogers:
:{{w|Ginger Rogers}} (Woman known for dancing with {{w|Fred Astaire}})
:Mister/Fred Astaire/Rogers (Confusing reference to {{w|Fred Rogers}} (host of children's show, popularly known as "Mister Rogers") and to {{w|Fred Astaire}} (Dancer, actor, and singer))

Doctor */* Spock:
:{{w|Mister Spock}} (Character on Star Trek)
:{{w|Doctor Spock}} (Author of book on childcare)
:{{w|Doctor Octopus}} (Villain in Spider-man comic books)

Doctors:
:{{w|Doctor Manhattan}} (Character in Alan Moore's Watchmen)
:{{w|Doctor Strangelove}} (Character based on Henry Kissinger in movie about nuclear war)
:{{w|Doctor Strange}} (Sorceror Supreme in Marvel Comics)

More doctors:
:{{w|Julius No|Dr. No}} (Main villain in the {{w|Dr. No (film)|first James Bond movie}})
:{{w|The Doctor (Doctor Who)|The Doctor}} (Main protagonist of the science fiction series {{w|Doctor Who}})
:{{w|Cory Doctorow}} (Real person - [[:Category:Comics featuring Cory Doctorow| who has been in a number of xkcd comics]])

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Jerry Lewis:
:{{w|Jerry Lee Lewis}} (Rock and Roll Singer)
:{{w|Jerry Lewis}} (Comedian and former chairman of charitable organization)

Others with initial J:
:{{w|Jenny Lewis}}
:{{w|Xeni Jardin}}

Chris *:
:{{w|Chris Evans}} (Actor)
:{{w|Chris Hemsworth}} (Actor)

Chris P*:
:{{w|Chris Pine}} (Actor)
:{{w|Chris Pratt}} (Actor)

Homophones of Shallots:
:{{w|Shallots}} (small onions)
:{{w|Scallops}} (bivalve mollusks)
:{{w|Scallions}} (green onions)

S* (Similar phonetics):
:{{w|Siouxie Sioux}}
:{{w|Suzanne Vega}}

Arnold */* Palmer:
:{{w|Tom Arnold}} (ex-husband of Roseanne Barr)
:{{w|Arnold Palmer}} (Golf player)
:{{w|Amanda Palmer}}

Wes *:
:{{w|Wes Craven}}
:{{w|Wes Anderson}} (Movie Director)

P* Anderson:
:{{w|Paul Thomas Anderson}}
:{{w|Poul Anderson}} (Science fiction author)

Sir Walter *:
:{{w|Sir Walter Scott}} (Scottish poet and writer)
:{{w|Sir Walter Raleigh}} (British explorer of Virginia)

F* Drake:
:{{w|Sir Francis Drake}} (British explorer, 2nd to circumnavigate the Earth)
:{{w|Frank Drake}}

Van *:
:{{w|Van Halen}} (Rockband)
:{{w|Van Morrison}}
:{{w|Van Wilder}}

<nowiki>*</nowiki> Van Winkle:
:{{w|Robert Van Winkle}}
:{{w|Rip Van Winkle}} (fictional character)

Connects the "Rip"s with Natalie Imbruglia - her most famous hit was the song "Torn":
:{{w|Rip Torn}} (Actor)
:{{w|Natalie Imbruglia}}

Businesses with the word "Body" in their name:
:{{w|The Body Shop}} (Shop)
:{{w|Bath and Body Works}} (Shop)

Beyon*:
:{{w|Bed Bath and Beyond}} (Shop)
:{{w|Beyond Thunderdome}} (Motion picture)
:{{w|Beyoncé}} (Singeress)
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript}}

:[A tournament bracket. The matchups are the following, on left-hand side and right-hand side:]

{| class="wikitable" style="background:transparent;border:none;width:100%;"
| style="background:transparent;border:none;"|
:(1) {{w|Louis Armstrong}} and {{w|Neil Armstrong}}
:(2) {{w|Lance Armstrong}} and {{w|Stretch Armstrong}}

:(3) {{w|Jeff Gordan}} and {{w|Jeff Bridges}}
:(4) {{w|Jeff Daniels}} and {{w|Jack Daniels}}

:(5) {{w|Orson Welles}} and {{w|H.G. Wells}}
:(6) {{w|George Orwell}} and {{w|Wells Fargo}}

:(7) {{w|Kurt Russell}}, {{w|Russell Brand}}, {{w|Russell Crowe}} and {{w|Russell Simmons}}
:(8) {{w|Richard Simmons}} and {{w|Gene Simmons}}
:(9) {{w|Gene Hackman}}, {{w|Hugh Jackman}} and {{w|Alan Rickman}}
:(10) {{w|Alan Parsons}} and {{w|Alan Partridge}}

:(11) {{w|Jenny McCarthy}}, {{w|Joseph McCarthy}}, {{w|Eugene McCarthy}} and {{w|Eugene V. Debs}}
:(12) {{w|Gene Wilder}}, {{w|Olivia Wilde}} and {{w|Oscar Wilde}}
:(13) {{w|Oscar De La Renta}} and {{w|Oscar De La Hoya}}

:(14) {{w|Jack Nicklaus}} and {{w|Jack Nicholson}}
:(15) {{w|Phil Mickelson}} and {{w|Nicholas Nickelby}}

:(16) {{w|Ryan Adams}} and {{w|Bryan Adams}}

:(17) {{w|Chubby Checker}} and {{w|Fats Domino}}

:(18) {{w|Colin Firth}} and {{w|Colin Farrell}}
:(19) {{w|Will Ferrell}} and {{w|The Farrelly Brothers}}

:(20) {{w|Joseph Gordon-Levitt}} and {{w|Jennifer Love Hewitt}}

:(21) {{w|Danny Glover}} and {{w|Donald Glover}}
:(22) {{w|Donnie Wahlberg}} and {{w|Mark Wahlberg}}
:(23) {{w|Mark Ruffalo}} and {{w|Mark Shuttleworth}}

| style="background:transparent;border:none;"|
:(24) {{w|Philip Pullman}}, {{w|Bill Pullman}} and {{w|Bill Paxton}}
:(25) {{w|Bill Murray}} and {{w|Dan Aykroyd}}

:(26) {{w|Ginger Rogers}} and {{w|Fred Rogers|Mister/Fred Astaire/Rogers}}
:(27) {{w|Mister Spock}}, {{w|Doctor Spock}} and {{w|Doctor Octopus}}
:(28) {{w|Doctor Manhattan}}, {{w|Doctor Strangelove}} and {{w|Doctor Strange}}
:(29) {{w|Dr. No}}, {{w|The Doctor}} and {{w|Cory Doctorow}}

:(30) {{w|Jerry Lee Lewis}} and {{w|Jerry Lewis}}
:(31) {{w|Jenny Lewis}} and {{w|Xeni Jardin}}

:(32) {{w|Chris Evans}} and {{w|Chris Hemsworth}}
:(33) {{w|Chris Pine}} and {{w|Chris Pratt}}

:(34) {{w|Shallots}}, {{w|Scallops}} and {{w|Scallions}}

:(35) {{w|Siouxie Sioux}} and {{w|Suzanne Vega}}

:(36) {{w|Tom Arnold}}, {{w|Arnold Palmer}} and {{w|Amanda Palmer}}

:(37) {{w|Wes Craven}} and {{w|Wes Anderson}}
:(38) {{w|Paul Thomas Anderson}} and {{w|Poul Anderson}}

:(39) {{w|Sir Walter Scott}} and {{w|Sir Walter Raleigh}}
:(40) {{w|Sir Francis Drake}} and {{w|Frank Drake}}

:(41) {{w|Van Halen}}, {{w|Van Morrison}} and {{w|Van Wilder}}
:(42) {{w|Robert Van Winkle}} and {{w|Rip Van Winkle}}
:(43) {{w|Rip Torn}} and {{w|Natalie Imbruglia}}

:(44) {{w|The Body Shop}} and {{w|Bath and Body Works}}
:(45) {{w|Bed Bath and Beyond}} and {{w|Beyond Thunderdome}}
:(46) Winner of 44 and winner of 45
:(47) Winner of 46 and {{w|Beyoncé}}
|}

[Those are later interconnected:]

:(48) Winner of 1 and winner of 2
:(49) Winner of 3 and winner of 4
:(50) Winner of 5 and winner of 6
:(51) Winner of 7 and winner of 8
:(52) Winner of 9 and winner of 10
:(53) Winner of 12 and winner of 13
:(54) Winner of 14 and winner of 15
:(55) Winner of 16 and winner of 17
:(56) Winner of 18 and winner of 19
:(57) Winner of 21 and winner of 22

:(58) Winner of 24 and winner of 25
:(59) Winner of 26 and winner of 27
:(60) Winner of 28 and winner of 29
:(61) Winner of 30 and winner of 31
:(62) Winner of 32 and winner of 33
:(63) Winner of 34 and winner of 35
:(64) Winner of 37 and winner of 38
:(65) Winner of 39 and winner of 40
:(66) Winner of 41 and winner of 42

:(67) Winner of 49 and winner of 50
:(68) Winner of 51 and winner of 52
:(69) Winner of 11 and winner of 53
:(70) Winner of 54 and winner of 55
:(71) Winner of 56 and winner of 20
:(72) Winner of 57 and winner of 23

:(73) Winner of 59 and winner of 60
:(74) Winner of 61 and winner of 62
:(75) Winner of 63 and winner of 36
:(76) Winner of 64 and winner of 65
:(77) Winner of 66 and winner of 43

:(78) Winner of 48 and winner of 67
:(79) Winner of 68 and winner of 69
:(80) Winner of 71 and winner of 72

:(81) Winner of 58 and winner of 73
:(82) Winner of 75 and winner of 76
:(83) Winner of 77 and winner of 47

:(84) Winner of 78 and winner of 79
:(85) Winner of 70 and winner of 80

:(86) Winner of 81 and winner of 74
:(87) Winner of 82 and winner of 83

:(88) Winner of 84 and winner of 85

:(89) Winner of 86 and winner of 87

:[The two sides finally join up in:]

:(90) Winner of 88 and winner of 89

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cory Doctorow]]

Talk:1201: Integration by Parts

2014-09-18T10:11:51Z

108.162.238.134:

I think the joke is that's not the full explanation.
--[[Special:Contributions/128.113.151.84|128.113.151.84]] 04:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
: Exactly; he omits the final step part of the process: ∫udv= uv - ∫vdu. This is only helpful if you can easily obtain v from ∫dv and can integrate ∫vdu . The key trick is picking u and dv properly; it's rarely as easy as saying u = f(x) and v=g(x)dx. So the joke is that he's treating integration by parts as if it's a "magic rule" on the order of the product rule for differentiation, when it's not. [[Special:Contributions/66.202.132.250|66.202.132.250]] 21:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:: I think this is it. It's funny because the described conversation happens universally every time someone who's not a full-blown math teacher tries to explain IBP to someone else. You just sort of hit this humiliating brick wall if you haven't comprehensively studied it. I'd also like to point out if u = v = x then dv = dx, f(x) = x, g(x) = 1 and your original integral was just ∫x dx to begin with (you wouldn't need IBP in the first place). [[User:Echo Seven|Echo Seven]] ([[User talk:Echo Seven|talk]]) 01:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the joke that it's only PART of a guide to integration by parts? Ergo, integration by parts by parts?

Not the full explanation?But what exactly is the joke here?It takes a lot of practice to be able to do integration sums correctly.[[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 05:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the joke is rather “which definitely looks easier” — that’s how mathematics is generally perceived by non-mathematicians: You rewrite something, state that it looks easier / more beautiful / more elegant — which the non-mathematician usually perceives differently — and even if it does, you’re not a tad nearer to the answer. --[[Special:Contributions/84.191.162.248|84.191.162.248]] 08:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Symbolic integration ALWAYS require experience and trial-and-error, which is flustrating given that the reverse process - derivation - can be described with simple alghorithm and done mechanically. I heart that derivation is easy as geting toothpaste out of tube and integration is reverse process ... meaning its as hard as puting the toothpaste back into tube. The reason is that there is simple rule for derivation of product, whereas integration of product is usually done by GUESSING the product which will derivate into given integral (which is what integration by parts actually is, only reformulated to sound little easier). -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

: By using the term ''derivation'', you mean it as the same as the term ''differentiation'', correct? I've never used the term derivation before. I like it, it's shorter. If so, YES, integration of products is WAY harder. 'u' substitutions alone are a pain - having a 'v' substitution as well requires a lot of hard work and trial and error... {{unsigned|Dangerkeith3000}}

::Ummm ... the term is shorter but I'm not sure if it's correct, I'm not native english speaker. Wikipedia redirects {{w|Differentiation_(mathematics)|differentiation to derivative}} and there is {{w|Partial_derivative|partial derivative}}, but {{w|Derivation_(abstract_algebra)|derivation}} may have little different meaning in english. What I meant was the process of finding partial derivative (compared to {{w|Symbolic_integration|symbolic integration}}, to have the exact definitions complete ... assuming the wikipedia itself have it correct). -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

''Oh, and add a '+C' or you'll get yelled at.''
Best part. This is something I experienced many times in my first semester of mathematics for scientists.
The joke seems to me to be the presentation of the idea accurately; after the initial step, there's no real advice to give. Good luck is the best you can hope for. [[Special:Contributions/49.176.36.57|49.176.36.57]] 12:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Cripes, to do something by parts means to do something without enthusiasm or leave something incomplete. The joke is that he didn't complete the explanation! [[Special:Contributions/124.189.64.231|124.189.64.231]]

The title text refers to a ridiculously specific case (integrating x), which would not normally be done using integration by parts. This suggests that the narrator is pretending to know more about integration by parts than he actually does, which would explain why he left in such a hurry. [[User:Concomitant|Concomitant]] ([[User talk:Concomitant|talk]]) 11:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

: "''If you can manage to choose u and v such that u = v = x, then ...''"
It seems to me the problem here is in making such a choice. Suppose f(''x'') = ''x''^2, and g(''x'') = sin(''x''). How to split that?

Not only did he not complete the explanation -- he didn't really start it! All he did was describe how to convert from one of the *notation* systems for differential calculus, to the other. [[Special:Contributions/184.144.110.31|184.144.110.31]] 01:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I would prefer the more sophmoric answer of (1/2)x^2 - C. After all the sum of the parts is greater than the whole, correct? [[Special:Contributions/66.88.136.254|66.88.136.254]] 19:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:I personally prefer (1/2)x^2 - C^2 because we can use the difference of squares factorization. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 19:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::Sure, but if you square the (variable) constant, then any result like (1/2)x^2+2 is impossible. Unless you really like complex numbers, of course - but most integration is done for functions which have "real" x. So the variant "(1/2)x^2-C" is "more correct" for the majority of people ;-) {{unsigned ip|91.89.211.18}}
::How about (1/2)x^2 - C^10497 then? --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 19:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

:as an altruistic individual, for everyone learning integration by parts, please look up both LIATE and tabular integration. You'll thank me later. [[Special:Contributions/99.20.64.64|99.20.64.64]] 23:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
::Is is ILATE,(as I learned it).[[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 12:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I just finished a summer Calculus I course. You have no idea how it felt to actually recognize what Randall was doing for the first time. Wow. [[User:NealCruco|NealCruco]] ([[User talk:NealCruco|talk]]) 00:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1379: 4.5 Degrees

2014-06-10T05:46:23Z

108.162.238.134:

Scary thoughts there... [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 05:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I imagine the Earth's axial tilt wouldn't change even if the temperature changed by +2 IAU. So, would palm trees survive the extreme day/night lengths at the poles? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 05:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. Also, wouldn't the North Pole be underwater, so incapable of supporting palm trees?
Also, regarding the IAU, is it a reference to the {{w|International Astronomical Union|IAU}} that named an {{w|4942 Munroe|asteroid}} after Randall?

"While it says it's "probably no big deal," this is probably a joke, because even half of an Ice Age would be a lot of ice." The article has it wrong. It's a 2 degree increase, not decrease. Ice would melt. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.134|108.162.238.134]] 07:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:-- Fixed {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.77}}

To prevent global warming, act yesterday! ... or, well, since we already failed to do it, maybe ... just maybe ... we should invest some resources to ADAPTING to the change. Because the USSR communist party wanted to command “wind and rain” and how it worked?
... of course, we SHOULD be trying to lower the CO2 emissions ... not like Germany, which [http://www.realclearenergy.org/charticles/2014/01/16/germanys_plans_for_new_coal_plants_107463.html replaced it's nuclear power plants with coal ones] ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:While it is true that we have build more coal plants, the majority part that replace the nuclear power is from renewable energy, see [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strommix#mediaviewer/Datei:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg diagram] on wikipedia. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.75.89|141.101.75.89]] 15:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, ''this'' seems like a topic that could generate heated comments. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.208.9|108.162.208.9]] 10:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone care to comment on the +200 meter sea rise? I googled "how much would sea level rise" a bit, and I seem to bump into 60 to 70 meters repeatedly for all glaciers melting. I found nothing direct from IPCC. I wonder if Randall really has another view on this. {{unsigned ip|108.162.254.45}}
:I hope the explanation isn't that he made a meter/feet mistake. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 13:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
::I would assert that he rounded for a clean read for a relative scale. Also, the '+' denotes the likelihood of a larger actual amount. {{unsigned ip|108.162.217.41}}
:::60 meters is indeed the amount the sea would rise if all the glacial ice melted. However, that figure presumably does not take into account have much the sea would rise by expansion due to the increased heat. That is, after all, the main reason for rising sea levels today. So I would guess that the +200 figure is the 60 meters of added water from glacial ice ''plus'' the amount it would rise due to warming and expanding. [[User:Calebxy|Calebxy]] ([[User talk:Calebxy|talk]])
::::While that's possible, and desalination of water can also cause it to expand (sea water is more dense than fresh), we shouldn't try to justify the numbers if they are incorrect. If we can find some reliable data to suggest the rise would be 200 ft instead of 200m, we should include that. Or at least include a range of estimates from reliable sources. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.134|108.162.238.134]] 15:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::Having just re-read the explanation after posting my comment, I can see that the article attempts to do just that. But the link provided says 110 to 770 mm. Isn't the millimeters? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.134|108.162.238.134]] 15:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::But the sea level ''would'' rise more than 60m if the expansion of the sea is taken into account. If the earth became as hot as the graph indicates, then logically the seas would expand considerably. [[User:Calebxy|Calebxy]] ([[User talk:Calebxy|talk]]) 16:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:Cretaceous sea levels seem to have been that high, but this tends to be attributed to the shape of the ocean basins, in particular the mid-ocean ridges, rather than to the temperature. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.35|108.162.219.35]] 17:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So sad that Randall is pushing the carbon tax agenda long after the AGW myth has been debunked. [[User:IGnatius T Foobar|IGnatius T Foobar]] ([[User talk:IGnatius T Foobar|talk]]) 16:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:Waitwhat? a) I saw no mention of tax. b) AGW==Anthropogenic Global Warming==debunked? This may not be the place for this whole discussion (despite the relevence), but it's ''far'' from debunked. And even if "there was going to be some Global Warming anyway", you can't dismiss the probability that we're adding ''something'' to this effect and making it more extreme. If not pushing it over the edge in some way. (I'm actually more optimistic than that, but I do find "it's a myth!" to be annoyingly naive, so excuse me if I try to balance that out. It's really not worth tying this discussion box up in this debate, however.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.232|141.101.98.232]] 18:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:Randall is a scientist. He follows scientific consensus. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.134|108.162.238.134]] 20:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
::There is nothing scientific about following consensus. {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.86}}
:::Of course there is... When 99% of climatologists are reasonably certain (which means "very very sure" for non-scientists) that there is Global Warning and that the primary cause is us (humanity greenhouse gas emissions), I wouldn't say that AGW has been "debunked" and that there is nothing scientific in following this consensus (after having made sure of its existence by reading diverse peer-reviewed studies of the field) ! You may have an agenda to defend but could you at least try to make some sense, please. Note that this doesn't mean that the current political propositions are the right way to go about it and that this comic doesn't say anything about that. [[User:Jedaï|Jedaï]] ([[User talk:Jedaï|talk]]) 21:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
::::And this is why climatologists playing with models instead of actually examining data from the real world, aren't scientists. It's possible to get so addicted to your models, that you fail to realize that you've fallen into confirmation bias. And consensus, also known as mob-based peer pressure, is only as smart as the lowest IQ in the mob. Which is why climatologists, attempting to top each other's predictions, have a tendency to fall for worst case scenarios, such as Randall's scenario above.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 02:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I *think* (haven't confirmed) that the 200 m figure is the difference between the peak of the last ice age (sea level low—"-1 IAU" in the strip) and if everything melted. We've already come up 140 m, so we can't go up 200 m from here. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.86|108.162.215.86]] 20:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There are several troubling things with this comic (including the sea level figure), but the most basic is the opening statement: "Without prompt, aggressive limits on CO2 emissions, the Earth will likely warm by an average of 4°-5°C by the century’s end." This is probably from the latest IPCC report, but it takes the worst of several proposed scenarios, and claims it to be the likely one. RCP8.5 projects 2.6C-4.8C, and I suppose that's what getting averaged *up* to "4.5C" for the temperature line in the comic. The second most troubling thing is that mouse-over text, regarding the 2C lid if we "enact aggressive emissions limits now"—this is an entirely arbitrary (unscientific) number based on largely unspecified changes to what the world is doing now. It gives me the sense that Randall didn't look too deep... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.86|108.162.215.86]] 20:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the polar forests during the Ceretaceous period were temperate, not tropical. Thus Firs in the North and Evergreens in Antartica, not Palm trees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_forests_of_the_Cretaceous [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 21:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh wait, did he really say "Palm trees at the poles"? The north pole is already 4,261 meters under water. The nearest land is 700 km away. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.86|108.162.215.86]] 05:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
:It's hyperbole. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.134|108.162.238.134]] 05:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1379: 4.5 Degrees

2014-06-09T20:03:19Z

108.162.238.134:

Talk:1379: 4.5 Degrees

2014-06-09T15:47:20Z

108.162.238.134:

Talk:1379: 4.5 Degrees

2014-06-09T15:44:13Z

108.162.238.134:

Talk:1379: 4.5 Degrees

2014-06-09T15:42:15Z

108.162.238.134:

Talk:1379: 4.5 Degrees

2014-06-09T07:33:35Z

108.162.238.134:

Talk:1378: Turbine

2014-06-06T23:22:43Z

108.162.238.134:

Why is it "horrible, horrible"? Do you really, really not like it? It's not like it's a shaggy dog cartoon which you wasted several minutes on... Oh, wait... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.208.9|108.162.208.9]] 05:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

For me, it just sucks that Randall chose to end the week on a lame pun. On Mondays/Wednesdays, the "suckiness" of something like this would be offset by a good "what-if?" on Tuesday. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.225|103.22.201.225]] 06:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:From what I've seen, Friday comics tend to be more "wacky" than the rest. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.134|108.162.238.134]] 23:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

While I agree it isn't the best xkcd could be, let's try and keep these pages objective, and leave the opinions in the comments. [[User:Mrmakeit|Mrmakeit]] ([[User talk:Mrmakeit|talk]]) 06:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

"I'm not a huge fan" is a catchphrase of Elon Musk, his opinion on patents, which was in the news a couple of days ago. Lift-off alludes to Musk's SpaceX. Wind turbine alludes to Musk's renewable energy company Solarcity. [[User:Tww|Tww]] ([[User talk:Tww|talk]]) 07:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

What's funny to me is that a turbine really is a giant fan. You'd just have to pump a whole ton of power (at the right voltage and sync rate) into it and possibly give it a kickstart of some kind to get it to turn. You could say the same about pretty much anything that generates power from rotational motion; it's a generator, but in the opposite direction, it's also a motor. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.67|173.245.50.67]] 11:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I laughed at this comic, I thought it was great. As for the explanation, though, should it really be marked "complete" already? It reads like a first draft to me, and the comic is about a wind ''turbine'', not a wind''mill''. I'm gonna go fix that now. [[User:Enchantedsleeper|Enchantedsleeper]] ([[User talk:Enchantedsleeper|talk]]) 11:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:I also liked this one. Great pun. As Enchantedsleeper may have found out {{w|windmill}} is the old mills for grain. But in some languages a wind turbine is called the same as a windmill! [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)