explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2379: Probability Comparisons

2020-10-31T23:30:33Z

108.162.241.14: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2379
| date = October 30, 2020
| title = Probability Comparisons
| image = probability comparisons new.png
| titletext = Call me, MAYBE.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by LEBRON JAMES THROWING M&Ms AT A KEYBOARD. The table for the explanations of the chances isn't complete, nor is the transcript. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This is a list of probabilities for different events. There are numerous recurring themes, of which the most common are free throws (13 entries), birthdays (12), dice (12, split about evenly between d6 and d20 types), M&M candies (11), playing cards (9), NBA basketball mid-game victory predictions (9), Scrabble tiles (7), coins (7), white Christmases (7), and the NBA players Stephen Curry and LeBron James (7 each).

Themes are variously repeated and combined, for humorous effect. For instance, there are entries for both the probability that St. Louis will have a white Christmas (21%) and that it will not (79%). Also given is the 40% probability that a random Scrabble tile will contain a letter from the name "Steph Curry".

There are 80 items in the list, the last two of which devolve into absurdity - perhaps from the stress of preparing the other 78 entries.

The list may be an attempt to better understand probabilistic election forecasts for the {{w|2020 United States presidential election}} which was less than a week away at the time this comic was published, and had also been aluded to in [[2370: Prediction]] and [[2371: Election Screen Time]]. Statistician and psephologist {{w|Nate Silver}} is referenced in one of the list items. On the date this cartoon was published, Nate Silver's website FiveThirtyEight.com was publishing forecast probabilities of Donald Trump and Joe Biden winning the US Presidential election. [[https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/]]. On 31 October 2020, the forecast described the chances of Donald Trump winning as "roughly the same as the chance that it’s raining in downtown Los Angeles. It does rain there. (Downtown L.A. has about 36 rainy days per year, or about a 1-in-10 shot of a rainy day.)" A day previously, when the chances were 12%, the website had also described Trump's chances of winning as "slightly less than a six sided die rolling a 1".

The probabilities are calculated from [https://xkcd.com/2379/sources/ these sources], as mentioned in the bottom left corner.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Odds
! Text
! Explanation
|-
| 0.01%
| You guess the last four digits of someone's {{w|Social Security Number}} on the first try
| There are 10 digits in a Social Security Number. (1/10)4 = 0.0001, or 0.01%
|-
| 0.1%
| Three randomly chosen people are all left-handed
| The chances of being left handed is about 10%, and 10%3 = 0.1%.
|-
| rowspan="2" | 0.2%
| You draw 2 random {{w|Scrabble}} tiles and get M and M
| This appears to be an error. Under standard English {{w|Scrabble letter distribution}} there are 100 tiles of which 2 are M. This would give a probability of randomly drawing M and M as 2/100 × 1/99 ≈ 0.02%. However, other language editions of Scrabble have different letter distributions, some of which could allow this to be true.
|-
| You draw 3 random {{w|M&Ms}} and they're all red
| Depending on the source of one's M&Ms in the U.S., the proportion of reds is either 0.131 or 0.125 . 0.131^3 ≈ 0.225%; 0.125^3 ≈ 0.177% .
|-
| 0.3%
| You guess someone's birthday in one try.
| 1/365 ≈ 0.27%.
|-
| rowspan="2" | 0.5%
| An {{w|NBA}} team down by 30 at halftime wins
|
|-
| You get 4 M&Ms and they're all brown or yellow
| Depending on the source of one's M&Ms in the U.S., the proportion of them that is brown or yellow is either 0.25 or 0.259 . 0.25^4≈ 0.39%; 0.259^4 ≈ 0.45% .
|-
| rowspan="2" | 1%
| {{w|Steph Curry}} gets two free throws and misses both
|
|-
|{{w|LeBron James}} guesses your birthday, if each guess costs one free throw and he loses if he misses
|
|-
| rowspan="2" | 1.5%
| You get two M&Ms and they're both red
| Depending on the source of one's M&Ms in the U.S., the proportion of reds is either 0.131 or 0.125 . 0.131^2 ≈ 1.7%; 0.125^2 ≈ 1.6% .
|-
| You share a birthday with a {{w|Backstreet Boys|Backstreet Boy}}
|Each of the five Backstreet Boys has a different birthday, so the odds that you share a birthday with one is 5/365.25 ≈ 1.3% .
|-
| 2%
| You guess someone's card on the first try
| There are 52 cards in a normal deck of cards (excluding jokers), which is approximately 0.019 (2%).
|-
| rowspan="2"| 3%
| You guess 5 coin tosses and get them all right
| The chance of correctly predicting a coin toss is 0.5. The chance of predicting 5 in a row is 0.5^5, or 3.125%.
|
|-
| Steph Curry wins that birthday free throw game
|
|-
| rowspan="3"| 4%
| You sweep a 3-game {{w|rock paper scissors}} series
| Picking randomly, you have a 1 in 3 chance of beating an opponent on the first try. (1/3)3 = 1/27 ≈ 4% .
|-
| {{w|Portland, Oregon}} has a {{w|White Christmas (weather)|white Christmas}}
|
|-
| You share a birthday with two {{w|US Senator}}s
| At the time this comic was published, 9 days were birthdays for more than one Senator. Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and John Thune (R-SD) were both born January 7. Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Angus King (I-MN) were both born March 31. Sens. Jim Risch (R-ID), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and David Vitter (R-LA) were all born May 3. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) were both born June 22. Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) were both born August 24. Sens. Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Joe Donnelly (D-IA) were both born September 29. Sens. Mike Rounds (R-SD) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) were both born October 24. Sens. Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK) were both born November 17. Sens. John Boozman (R-AR) and David Perdue (R-GA) were both born December 10.
|-
| rowspan="2"| 5%
| An NBA team down 20 at halftime wins
|
|-
| You roll a natural 20
| There are twenty sides to a d20 die. 1/20 = 0.05 = 5%
|
|-
| 6%
| You correctly guess someone's card given 3 tries
| Picking a random card within 3 times gives 1 - (51/52)(50/51)(49/50) ≈ 6% .
|
|-
| 7%
| LeBron James gets two free throws and misses both
|
|-
| 8%
| You correctly guess someone's card given 4 tries
| Assuming you guess four different cards, 4/52 = 0.0769 ≈ 8% .
|
|-
| 9%
| Steph Curry misses a free throw
|
|-
| rowspan="2"|10%
| You draw 5 cards and get the Ace of Spades
| There are 52 cards in a normal deck of cards (excluding jokers), and the Ace of Spades is one of them. The chances of getting the card is 1 - 51/52 * 50/51 * 49/50 * 48/49 * 47/48 which is approximately 0.096, which rounds to the given 10%. 
|-
| There's a {{w|Moment magnitude scale|magnitude}} 8+ earthquake in the next month
|
|-
| 11%
| You sweep a 2-game rock paper scissors series
| You have a 1/3 chance of winning the first comparison, and a 1/3 chance of winning the second. (1/3) * (1/3) = 1/9 ~ 0.11 = 11% .
|
|-
| rowspan="3"|12%
| A randomly-chosen American lives in {{w|California}}
| California is the most populous state in the U.S.A. Out of the approximately 328.2 million Americans (as of 2019), 39.51 million live in California. This means that a randomly chosen American has about a 39.51/328.2 ≈ 10.33% of being in California. Due to population change and rounding based on different sources, this could be pushed to 12%.
|
|-
| You correctly guess someone's card given 6 tries
|
|-
| You share a birthday with a {{w|US President}}
| Presidents {{w|James Polk}} and {{w|Warren Harding}} share a birthday, and are the only presidents so far (in 2020) to do so, giving the odds of sharing a birthday as 44/365 ≈ 12% .
|-
| rowspan="3"|13%
| A {{w|Dice#Polyhedral_dice|d6}} beats a {{w|Dice#Polyhedral_dice|d20}}
| The odds of a d6 beating a d20 are (0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5)/(120) = 0.125 ≈ 13% .
|-
| An NBA team down 10 going into the 4th quarter wins
|
|-
| You pull one M&M from a bag and it's red
| Depending on the source of one's M&Ms in the U.S., the proportion of reds is either 0.131 or 0.125 .
|-
| 14%
| A randomly drawn scrabble tile beats a D6 die roll
| {{w|Scrabble}} is a game in which you place lettered tiles to form words. Most of the scores per letter are 1, making it rare to beat a d6. The odds are (70/100)(0) + (7/100)(1/6) + (8/100)(2/6) + (10/100)(3/6) + (1/100)(4/6) + (4/100)(6/6) ≈ 14% .
|-
| 15%
| You roll a D20 and get at least 18
| The set of "at least 18" on a d20 is 18, 19, and 20. The odds of rolling one of these is 3/20 = 15% .
|-
| 16%
| Steph Curry gets two free throws but makes only one
|
|-
| 17%
| You roll a D6 die and get a 6
| The odds are 1/6 ≈ 17% .
|-
| 18%
| A D6 beats or ties a D20
| The odds are (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6)/(120) ≈ 18% .
|-
| 19%
| At least one person in a random pair is left-handed
| The chances of being left handed is about 10%, so the probability of both people in the pair not being left-handed is 0.92=0.81, and 1-0.81=0.19.
|-
| 20%
| You get a dozen M&Ms and none of them are brown
|
|-
| 21%
| {{w|St. Louis}} has a white Christmas
|
|-
| 22%
| An NBA team wins when they're down 10 at halftime
|
|-
| rowspan="2"| 23%
| You get an M&M and it's blue
|
|-
| You share a birthday with a US senator
|
|-
| 24%
| You correctly guess that someone was born in the winter
| The winter lasts ~24% of the year, so ~24% of birthdays are in the winter.
|-
| rowspan="2"| 25%
| You correctly guess that someone was born in the fall
| The fall lasts ~25% of the year, so ~25% of birthdays are in the fall. This statement would also have been true for spring.
|-
| You roll two plain M&Ms and get M and M.
| An M&M can land on one of two sides, one with an M and one without. The odds of "rolling" two Ms is 1/4 = 25%. The term "rolling" is used jokingly in reference to the d6s and d20s above, suggesting that an M&M is a standard d2; this becomes especially true once you consider that a more accurate reference would have been two a coin, not a die.
|-
| 26%
| You correctly guess someone was born in the summer
| The summer lasts ~26% of the year, so ~26% of birthdays are in the summer.
|-
| 27%
| LeBron James misses a free throw
|
|-
| 32%
| {{w|Pittsburgh}} has a white Christmas
|
|-
| rowspan="3"| 33%
| A randomly chosen Star Wars movie (Episodes I-IX) has "of the" in the title
| Episodes II (Attack of the Clones), III (Revenge of the Sith), and VI (Return of the Jedi) are the movies. This gives the odds of 3/9 ≈ 33% .
|-
| You win the Monty Hall sports car by picking a door and refusing to switch
| The {{w|Monty Hall problem}} is a counterintuitive logic problem, in which you pick one of three doors at random. One of the doors has a car behind it, so the odds that you picked the door are 1/3 ≈ 33%. Thus, by not switching doors, your odds remain the same.
|-
| You win rock paper scissors by picking randomly
| The odds of beating an opponent on the first try by picking randomly is 1/3 ≈ 33% .
|-
| 34%
| You draw five cards and get an ace
| The odds are 1 - (48/52)(47/51)(46/50)(45/49)(44/48) ≈ 34% .
|-
| 35%
| A random Scrabble tile is one of the letters in "random"
| The odds of drawing a letter in "random" are (6 + 9 + 6 + 4 + 8 + 2)/100 = 35% .
|-
| 39%
| LeBron James gets two free throws but misses one
|
|-
| 40%
| A random Scrabble tile is a letter in "Steph Curry"
| The odds of drawing a letter in "Steph Curry" are (4 + 6 + 12 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 4 + 6 + 2)/100 = 40% .
|-
| 46%
| There's a magnitude 7 quake in LA within 30 years
|
|-
| rowspan="2"|48%
| {{w|Milwaukee}} has a white Christmas
|
|-
| A random Scrabble tile is a letter in Carly Rae Jepsen
| The odds of a Scrabble tile being in her name are (2 + 9 + 6 + 4 + 2 + 12 + 1 + 2 + 4 + 6)/100 = 48% .
|-
| 50%
| You get heads in a coin toss
| There are two options in a coin toss, heads or tails, so the odds of getting heads is 50% (1/2).
|-
| 53%
| {{w|Salt Lake City}} has a white Christmas
|
|-
| 54%
| LeBron James gets two free throws and makes both
|
|-
| 58%
| A random Scrabble tile is a letter in "Nate Silver"
| {{w|Nate Silver}} is a recurring person on xkcd. The odds of a Scrabble tile being in his name are (6 + 9 + 6 + 12 + 4 + 9 + 4 + 2 + 6)/100 = 58% .
|-
| 60%
| You get two M&Ms and neither is blue
|
|-
| 65%
| {{w|Burlington, Vermont}} has a white Christmas
|
|-
| 66%
| A randomly chosen movie from the main Lord of the Rings trilogy has “of the” in the title twice
| The titles are:
* ''The Lord '''of the''' Rings: The Fellowship '''of the''' Ring''
* ''The Lord '''of the''' Rings: The Two Towers''
* ''The Lord '''of the''' Rings: The Return '''of the''' King''
All of them have “of the” at least once, in “The Lord of the Rings”, but only the first and third have it twice, and 2/3 ≈ 66%. This number typically rounds up to 67% , however, and it is unclear why it is not, given that the same reduced fraction is written in the 67% category below.
|-
| 67%
| You roll at least a 3 with a d6
| The set of "at least 3" on a d6 refers to 3, 4, 5, and 6. The odds are 4/6 ≈ 67%.
|-
| 71%
| A random Scrabble tile beats a random dice roll
| This is a typo, as the correct probability is at the 14% entry. A random (d6) die roll beats a random Scrabble tile 71% of the time. [[Randall]] probably meant to write '''A random d6 dice roll''' beats '''a random Scrabble tile'''.
|-
| 73%
| LeBron James makes a free throw
|
|-
| 75%
| You drop two M&Ms and one of them ends with the "M" up so it's clear they're not Skittles
| The odds of at least one 'M' showing up is 1 - (1/4) = 75% . The reference to {{w|Skittles}} is that the two candies look similar to one another, and Randall has probably bit into a Skittle thinking it was an M&M, or vice versa. This trick might prevent that from happening in the future.
|-
| 76%
| You get two M&Ms and neither is red
|
|-
| 77%
| You get an an M&M and it's not blue
|
|-
| 78%
| An NBA team wins when they're up 10 at halftime
|
|-
| 79%
| St. Louis doesn't have a white Christmas
|
|-
| 81%
| Two random people are both right-handed
|
|-
| 83%
| Steph Curry gets two free throws and makes both
|
|-
| 85%
| You roll a d20 and get at least a 4
| The set "at least 4" on a d20 refers to 4, 5, 6... 18, 19, 20. The odds of this are 17/20 = 85% .
|-
| rowspan="2"| 87%
| An NBA team up by 10 going into the 4th quarter wins
|
| Someone fails to guess your card given 7 tries
|
|-
| 88%
| A randomly chosen American lives outside California
|
|-
| 89%
| You roll a 3 or higher given two tries
|
|-
| 90%
| Someone fails to guess your card given 5 tries
| Assuming they guess five different cards, there are 47 unguessed cards left. 47/52 = 0.90385 ~ 90%
|
|-
| rowspan="2"| 91%
| You incorrectly guess that someone was born in August
| The odds of someone being born in August are ~9% , so the odds that a person was not born in August is ~91% .
|-
| Steph Curry makes a free throw
|
|-
| 92%
| You guess someone's birth month at random and are wrong
| On average, a month lasts ~8% of the year. Thus, if you were to guess someone's birth month at random, you would be wrong ~92% of the time.
|-
| 93%
| Lebron James makes a free throw given two tries
|
|-
| 94%
| Someone fails to guess your card given 3 tries
| The odds of this happening are (51/52)(50/51)(49/50) ≈ 94% .
|-
| 95%
| An NBA team wins when they're up 20 at halftime
|
|-
| 96%
| Someone fails to guess your card given 2 tries
| The odds of this happening are (51/52)(50/51) ≈ 96% .
|-
| 97%
| You try to guess 5 coin tosses and fail
| The odds of this happening are 1 - (1/2)5 ≈ 97% .
|-
| 98%
| You incorrectly guess someone's birthday is this week
| The odds of this happening are about 51.14/52.14 ≈ 98% .
|-
| 98.5%
| An NBA team up 15 points with 8 minutes left wins
|
|-
| 99%
| Steph Curry makes a free throw given two tries
|
|-
| 99.5%
| An NBA team that's up by 30 points at halftime wins
|
|-
| 99.7%
| You guess someone's birthday at random and are wrong
| The odds of this are 364.25/365.25 ≈ 99.7% .
|-
| 99.8%
| There's not a {{w|Moment magnitude scale|magnitude}} 8 quake in {{w|California}} next year
|
|-
| 99.9%
| A random group of three people contains a right-hander
|
|-
| 99.99%
| You incorrectly guess the last four digits of someone's social security number
| The odds of this are 1 - (1/10)4 = 99.99% .
|-
| 99.9999999999999995%
| You pick up a phone, dial a random 10-digit number, and say 'Hello Barack Obama, there's just been a {{w|Moment magnitude scale|magnitude}} 8 earthquake in {{w|California}}!" and are wrong
|
|-
| 0.00000001%
| You add "Hang on, this is big — I'm going to loop in Carly Rae Jepsen", dial another random 10-digit number, and she picks up
| The odds of this are 1 - (1/10)10 = 0.00000001% .
|}

The title text refers to the song {{w|Call Me Maybe}} by Carly Rae Jepsen (cited twice in the list). "MAYBE" is emphasized perhaps because the probability of getting her phone number correct, as in the last item in the list, is very low. The capitalization could also be a reference to Scrabble tiles as was previously mentioned in association with Carly Rae Jepsen.

==Trivia==
In the original comic, "outside" in the 88% probability section is spelled incorrectly as "outide". In addition, the 39% section had "two free throw" instead of "throws".

The (seemingly unimportant) odds of LeBron James' versus Stephen Curry's free throws and names in Scrabble refer to [[2002: LeBron James and Stephen Curry]].

==Transcript==
Probability Comparisons

{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

'''PROBABILITY COMPARISONS'''

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Statistics]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]

Talk:774: Atheists

2020-10-29T13:42:49Z

108.162.241.14:

Atheists aren't annoying, they are just boring. Nobody likes a party pooper.

The sad truth is that there's nothing out there but the universe. Luckily, it's a magnificent one. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 01:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

:Speaking as a skeptic and agnostic, the certainty that there's nothing out there but the observable universe is a dunderheaded leap that requires far more faith and irrationalism than a theist. The only rational position regarding things inobservable is that one does not know. Hell, it doesn't require that gods exist for this to be patently obvious, the universe could simply be a simulation. That could be impossible to observe from inside, or only possible to infer from artifacts like data compression being used to conserve processor power and RAM, a-la Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 05:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
::Your criticism is built upon the word obersvable, which you introduced to the discussion yourself. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 11:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

:There's some real irony in someone declaring that atheists are boring while also affirming itself as an atheist. Maybe it's just reluctant to claim the title? Some atheists choose to be called "agnostic" for that reason, even when they fit the bill. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.200|199.27.128.200]] 08:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
::"it"? I don't know if I'm reading it wrong, but "it" is kind of dehumanizing. I suppose English might not be your first language, in which case: <-- that. Don't call people 'it' unless then specifically ask you to. [[User:Hppavilion1|Hppavilion1]] ([[User talk:Hppavilion1|talk]]) 03:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

:Just as i read the word 'magnificent' the conclusion part of 'eclipse' (from dark side of the moon) started. Great timing :) --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.35|108.162.216.35]] 02:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

:How can you be sure that there aren't any other universes? Even if the only things that exist are matter, energy, and information, there still could be other universes that we haven't seen, and those would be real. [[User:Mulan15262|Mulan15262]] ([[User talk:Mulan15262|talk]]) 14:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Mulan15262

:: Not even Explain XKCD is immune to being dragged in to this little argument, but at least its taking a less hostile approach I suppose.

::I actually have a friend who was a devout Fundamentalist Christian, and then switched over to becoming a dedicated Fundamentalist Atheist. I find arguments about religion with him equally annoying regardless of which side he is/was on so I guess they're on to something...
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.55|108.162.219.55]] 08:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

::my motto is just to let people believe whatever makes them happiest.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.14|108.162.241.14]] 13:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

2378: Fall Back

2020-10-29T01:15:17Z

108.162.241.14: Anxious American.

{{comic
| number = 2378
| date = October 29, 2020
| title = Fall Back
| image = fall_back.png
| titletext = Doing great here in the sixth and hopefully final year of the 2016 election.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an ANXIOUS AMERICAN. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}

2370: Prediction

2020-10-11T14:32:58Z

108.162.241.14: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2370
| date = October 9, 2020
| title = Prediction
| image = prediction.png
| titletext = You'd think it'd be easy to just bet money against these people, but you have to consider the probability of them paying up.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|There is definitely not a 50/50 chance this was created by a BOT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is about misunderstanding {{w|probability}}. Sometimes people will incorrectly assume that if one event is likelier than another to occur, then that event WILL occur, or that if one names two or more outcomes, they are equally likely to occur when in fact they might have different probabilities.

Saying that an event is more likely to happen than not to happen is not the same as saying that the event is definitely going to happen. At the same time, even if the event not happening is possible, it's not 50/50 odds that the event will happen. People have difficulties understanding statements like "event A has a 70% probability to happen" and internally understanding it to be one of the two misconceptions above.

Some don't like probability statements because they are not definite and therefore cannot be proven wrong. For example, if a probability statement says "event A has a 1% probability to happen" and event A actually happens, that does not prove the statement wrong, because the statement admits of the possibility of event A happening.

For example, FiveThirtyEight famously gave Trump a higher odds of winning the 2016 U.S. presidential election than most other models did just before the election, but still not more likely ([https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ 28.6%]) than his opponent. However, many readers at the time interpreted that as "Trump is definitely going to lose", and after he won that election, blasted FiveThirtyEight for getting its prediction "wrong". However, that interpretation is mistaken. 28.6% means Trump had a real chance at winning, between throwing a coin twice and both times landing on heads (1/4 or 25%) and throwing a normal 6-sided die and getting a 1 or 2 (1/3 or 33.333...%), both of which events are intuitively possible. Or, in tabletop gaming terms, Trump's likelihood of winning was slightly lower than that of passing a flat check with a DC of 15 (6/20 or 30%).

The correct interpretation of a probability statement like "event A has a 70% probability to happen" is that in the long run, of those events you give 70% probabilities to, about 70% of them end up happening. If, for example, 99% of those events ended up happening, the 70% probabilities you gave those events may likely be wrong (you should've given probabilities closer to 99%), even though you "called" almost all events correctly (in the sense that 70% means the events are more likely to happen than not to happen, and almost all of them happened). Looking back at your predictions and seeing if the results are what you should expect is called {{w|Calibration (statistics)|calibration}} ([https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/checking-our-work/ example]).

In the last panel, it is shown that [[Cueball]] anticipated this lack of understanding, so he plays pre-recorded audio of his prediction for the conversation.

The title text says that these people are gullible enough to the point that they would accept a disadvantageous bet. However, it also says that the probability that they might not actually go through with paying the bet if they lose brings into question whether to propose the bet is actually worth it. Randall has previously made allusions to betting on fallaciously claimed probabilities in comics such as [[1132: Frequentists vs. Bayesians]] and [[955: Neutrinos]].

The comic doesn't rule out the possibility that event A and event B aren't directly related.

At the time of writing, the 2020 United States presidential and congressional elections were less than a month away. This is a time when polls showing one or the other candidate leading are common, and may be misinterpreted to mean that the candidate is certain to win. Additionally, after the 2016 election saw Donald Trump, the trailing candidate in the polls, winning, many also interpreted this to mean that the polls were useless and/or wrong, or even go beyond this and take an adverse poll prediction as a perversely authoritative indication that the exact opposite result (which they would favour) is now a certainty. Cueball has previously shown an interest in U.S. election polling, for example in [[500: Election]].

==Transcript==
:[White Hat and Cueball standing next to each other. Cueball has his palm out.]
:Cueball: Event A is more likely than Event B.

:[White Hat touches chin thoughtfully]
:White Hat: So you're saying that Event A will happen.
:Cueball: No, Event B could also happen.

:[A frameless panel]
:White Hat: So you're saying it's 50/50.
:Cueball: No, it's definitely not 50/50.

:[Cueball produces a phone]
:White Hat: Sounds like you have no idea what will happen.
:Cueball: And yet I knew exactly how this conversation would go. Here, listen:
:<nowiki>*Click*</nowiki>
:Phone: ''Then you'll say, "So it's 50/50"''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Statistics]]

Talk:2365: Messaging Systems

2020-10-02T05:13:56Z

108.162.241.14: /* End-To-End Encryption alone only prevents casual surveillance */

I guess ordinary email should be in the same section as SMS as well. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.171|162.158.158.171]] 00:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The comic should mention MMS, which is well integrated into SMS, so that it's supported by not quite as much as SMS but still by almost everybody, and counts as vaguely modern in that you can attach images and have no length limit. ―[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 00:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

My DynaTAC doesn't get SMS. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.150|172.69.22.150]] 00:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, got a basic explanation up; The comic is missing a bunch of different messaging services I feel. Also, I knew that somebody would say that their phone doesn't support SMS, I guess that habit of hedging writing with mostly is paying off.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.143|172.69.63.143]] 01:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

"It [Whatsapp] is popular in multiple countries, namely Latin America and India." I have no idea what this means: should "namely" be "mainly"? But is the fixed version even true? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.225|162.158.158.225]] 11:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
: Both "namely" and "mainly" are valid and mean very similar things in this context. Saying "... mainly Latin America and India" suggests most of Whatsapp's popularity is in Latin America and India and Whatsapp has little popularity anywhere else. On the other hand, saying "... namely Latin America and India" suggests that Latin America and India are some of the countries where Whatsapp is particularly popular without implying that Whatsapp is significantly unpopular elsewhere. That said, it's a pretty subtle distinction that almost no one will actually care about except hardcore language geeks. With love from your friendly neighborhood Grammar Communist. <3 [[User:Gertuviti|Gertuviti]] ([[User talk:Gertuviti|talk]]) 12:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
:: In any case: Wouldn't it be easier to list countries where it's not popular? Because to what I know there are a few markets where it didn't get a foothold (''namely'' Northern America, Australia, China), but in most of the rest of the world it basically is ''the'' way of messaging since many years (others, like Signal, Telegram, Threema, are coming, but usually have a hard time fighting WhatsApp predominancy). SMS didn't disappear and is still used by some technical systems (like for sending TANs or alarms), but I can't remember when I last heard about someone sending an SMS privately (my current phone, in service since one year, for sure never received one). --[[User:YMS|YMS]] ([[User talk:YMS|talk]]) 14:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
::: FIFY by avoiding both terms, & by adding the missing "in." Your friendly & useful Grammar democratic republican.
:::: This Grammar socialist-conservative thinks "in multiple countries, especially India & in Latin America" has other issues. I appreciate the need for "countries, especially (...) in Latin America" to be integrated with "countries, especially India (...)", but the mix of the multiple and singular examples as equivalent list-subitems jars. The "Set of (Item, Set of (Items))" thing is a complex linguistic construct. Perhaps "in multiple regions, especially India and Latin America" works better (both qualify as regions, or contain more implicitly relevent sub-regions if you prefer that interpretation, without worrying about precise country-level boundries). This also switches the ampersand out (incongruous eyesore, an unnecessary ''abbr.'' that clashes with the "in; and, particularly if used as the reordered "in Latin America & India", would actually imply stronger linking than merely being two examples plucked from a clearly unexhausted larger list). But I leave this suggestion here only for consideration. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.52|141.101.98.52]] 16:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Discord is slowly moving towards supported by everyone because of Covid-19. [[User:Stardragon|Stardragon]] ([[User talk:Stardragon|talk]]) 12:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

"Discord being used by everyone" (ref. Explanation rather than above Talk comment), I have deliberately kept off Discord, so clearly not. The reason for Discord (as per Talk comment) applies more so to Zoom/Teams, though. Although I've kept off those too, where I can (using Zoom on a Raspberry Pi on a few occasions, which tends to overheat it). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.140|162.158.159.140]] 13:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
: Good for you; you're fighting the system! Note that the explanation has been updated from "everyone" to "many groups". [[User:OhFFS|OhFFS]] ([[User talk:OhFFS|talk]]) 18:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Separate comment: I'm not sure if this helps or hinders the comic's assertions, but friends and family continually tend to send Texts to my dumb-phone that contain emoji I keep telling them that it can't show (i.e. any of them). Only by context can I guess if the anonymous 'square' character is more thumbs-up/smiley-face or otherwise. Or if the three squares after the birthday greeting might include candles/cake. Making them no more clarified than the plain-text message they think they're clarifying. I suppose the single, sole 'emojibox' reply ''does'' work as a basic read-receipt notification, though. Regardless of if it's actually winky-face, poo, zombie, rainbow, cablecar, flag-of-Liberia or whatever they decided to send me... ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.140|162.158.159.140]] 13:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
:That's one reason why SMS isn't in the "Vaguely Modern" category. Although it can transmit and receive emojis, many devices that only support SMS can't display them. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't there a category for Venn Diagrams? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
:Uh, yes there is... — [[User:Sqrt-1|The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭]] [[User talk:Sqrt-1|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sqrt-1|stalk]] 11:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Aww, Telegram didn't even get mentioned, despite having 200 times as many users as Signal. :( [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 21:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I for one would support using Randall's local-mobile-TID-gateway protocol [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.157|173.245.52.157]] 22:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

: Whatsapp is also used as main service in most of the European Union, to the point even everybody with iPhones or access to iMessage is using it as main protocol, and most youngsters have a habit of using it for everything instead of Email (then wondering why pictures and videos got degraded). Maybe this should be mentioned.

The Forward article at the kosher-phone link has a biased and faintly derogatory tone. The Wikipedia entry [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone#Kosher_phone], while not perfect, would be a better choice. [[User:Wolfsbane2019|Wolfsbane2019]] ([[User talk:Wolfsbane2019|talk]]) 20:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

== Regarding Skype encryption: ==

My understanding is that Skype uses end-to-end encryption on messages from one Skype user to another, ''unless'' Microsoft has (surreptitiously) switched the user account to server-side encryption, or in cases where the other end is not a Skype contact (telephone calls, for example). The question of how to tell whether both clients are using client-side encryption seems most relevant to this explanation. (This question is not addressed by the linked source, nor any of the associated pages I found while checking it just now.) Anyone have a good phrasing to clarify this situation, in the explanation?
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 23:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

== End-To-End Encryption alone only prevents casual surveillance ==

It should be noted in the explanation of E2E encrypted systems, that E2E encryption ≠ unsurveillable, unless the devices at each end (at a minimum) are free of third-party monitoring at the keyboard (or mic), display buffer, unprotected ''or protected'' memory, operating system, & application levels. Ensuring this would require ongoing knowledge of ''all'' operative code & hardware functions, on both devices, which is not possible on devices using closed-source hardware, firmware, or software. (For a 4G cellular phone designed to avoid closed-source dependencies, read up on the challenges met developing the PinePhone.)

Users of devices running Microsoft or Apple operating systems (among others); or Intel or AMD or Broadcom or Qualcomm chips (among others); or closed-source keyboards, system utilities, or messaging apps; can only seek out statements from those companies as assurance that their end systems are not subject to surveillance.

In most cases, such assurances cannot be made, as these providers are bound by non-disclosure requirements as part of their compliance with regulatory & intelligence agencies. Such agencies (& even third-party contractors) have repeatedly been revealed to routinely obtain access to these systems (including iOS). In rare cases where access is not already made possible by one of the two users' devices, systems, apps, or services, then trojan attempts are made.

In turn, these mandated undisclosed access methods add to ''unintentional'' vulnerabilities, providing additional attack vectors to wholly unauthorized actors, including (so far) criminal organizations, terrorist groups, openly hostile nation states, supposedly peaceful nation states (allegedly), shady copyright-enforcement providers given free rein under revised (corporate authored) legislation, & highly motivated or resource-rich individuals.

So end-to-end encryption is essentially just a barrier to casual surveillance at the network infrastructure level; it doesn't close any of the other modes of access, which we know (hopefully, from seemingly endless disclosures over the course of decades) are leveraged at will, by everybody from US intelligence agencies to hirelings in aging office buildings who-knows-where. End-to-end encryption is step 3, after step 1, which is starting with hardware known to lack backdoors or leaks, & step 2, which is running only code that has been examined for backdoors or leaks ''on the whole system.''

Evading surveillance is primarily a matter of not getting noticed in the first place. Once one is under surveillance, it's ''extremely'' difficult to transact wireless communication with diverse peers securely.

There's no reasonable expectation of privacy from almost any of our devices, so end-to-end encryption at the app level seems like a necessary component bolted to a pile of broken parts.

Not sure how to express this without a tirade (obviously); Seems like describing E2E Encryption without context does a potentially dangerous disservice to readers seeking explanation here...

Anyone care to discuss how we can clarify the role of E2E Encryption in the most common private messaging usage scenarios?

[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 23:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

In the most common private-messaging scenarios, casual surveillance at the network infrastructure level is the only surveillance that people are actually worried about ''when deciding what protocol to use for communication''. 1) Any security at the device level can't be a concern of the choice of messaging service - if you've got a keylogger, it's going to log your keys in all messaging services, encrypted or not. 2) If you've got highly motivated and resource-rich individuals or hostile foreign governments trying to tail you specifically, you're presumably doing something that would necessitate learning about more secure communication methods in the first place. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.14|108.162.241.14]] 05:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)