explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1549: xkcd Phone 3

2015-07-12T20:20:13Z

108.162.242.84: The second xkcd phone comic had the phone being "Ribbed"

I assume that this is made, at least in part, in reference to the just-made OnePlus infodump and their upcoming OnePlus 2 smartphone. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.188|162.158.2.188]]

Is the heartbeat accelerator used to fool fitness wristbands? Or apps? Or ... ? [[User:SirKitKat|sirKitKat]] ([[User talk:SirKitKat|talk]]) 07:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"Ear screen" may refer to a different meaning of "screen" - a device that protects you from something, as in "sun screen". In this case, the "ear screen" would block the sound of the phone's speakers, making it useless (at least for telephony). 08:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)~~ [[User:thepike|thepike]]

:I thought it was a name change like those of beret guy, repurposing words to stay accurate without using the correct/standard term.[[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 09:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't running natively just mean that it runs apps natively instead of emulating them or something. Which would be a pointless marketing term OR it implys that the phone itself or the person inside runs.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.192|108.162.249.192]] 10:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
:I did some re-writing on that point (because the likes of the Java Virtual Machine-type solution is a half-way house that needs mentioning, between 'native' and 'emulated'), but it's a bit long. Also I briefly mentioned the Crusoe chip essentially a 'hardware virtual machine layer' (over and above the machine-code to micro-code one that doesn't bear mentioning due to the ubiquity), but not sure I described it well enough. At the time, the talk was that a Crusoe chip could end up (by sofware flag or magic 'autodetection') run x86/Intel-compatible ''or'' Motorola (Apple) ''or'' DEC Alpha instruction sets (and probably any other sets they could squeeze in, whether CISC or RISC, like Acorn's {{w|ARM architecture|ARM}}) without any software emulation at all. Of course, that was the time when programs didn't so heavily rely upon an OS's own API for pretty much ''all'' resources (at least on single-user machines), which is in effect an additional Virtual Machine layer, and the whole computing business has gone in a different direction, even Apple temporarily played with the PowerPC platform model.
:...Yeah, that's no shorter than my in-article edit, is it? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.252|141.101.98.252]] 13:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wireless discharge: I think the explanation is too complicate. Every cellphone (and every other device that uses batteries) does discharge without a wire, it is just normal. The joke (in my eyes) is here that no-one would advice with that. --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 11:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's an idea: a phone that discharges it's power wirelessly into another device.(unlikely that this is what it means though)[[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.166|108.162.249.166]] 12:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
* How about a phone that discharges it's battery into another human? I'd buy that (provided I could control when and whom.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.224|141.101.88.224]] 13:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
* knowing the previous xkcd phones: it isn't going to be controllable [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.166|108.162.249.166]] 11:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Could "Boneless" be a play on words against the jawbone devices?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.203|108.162.219.203]] 13:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Does the title text seem to imply to anyone else that the customer may have been abducted for testing? [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 17:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A runaway pacemaker ("heartbeat accelerator") probably wouldn't cause a heart attack. A heart attack is the interruption of blood flow to the heart muscle. A runaway pacemaker ''could'' cause a lethal tachycardia -- 2,000 beats per minute is [http://europace.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/6/592.full documented] and hearts don't do well at that rate... [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] ([[User talk:Andrew|talk]]) 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The first xkcd phone comic also mentioned that the phone can drown. It said something like, "Don't submerge phone; it will drown."[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.141|108.162.216.141]] 03:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to protest the idea in the explanation that a screen "all the way through" would leave no space for the actual workings of the phone. I owned an original Nexus 7, which I took apart after the kids dropped it in the bath. All of the controlling circuitry was in a thin layer *around* the screen surface, not below it. Below it was mostly battery, and presuming it takes AA batteries it wouldn't have a giant LiIon. It's not an absurd notion at all that a phone could have nothing behind its screen. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.59|108.162.216.59]] 11:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I would actually like a phone running on 2AA (Or better, AAA) batteries. Not a smartphone, just a basic phone. I wouldn't want the other features though... -- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.67|141.101.104.67]] 15:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
* Based on my experiences with wireless microphones, which I think probably consume batteries at a similar rate as dumbphones do (the reason I think this is because the main thing powered by the battery in both devices is the wireless transmitter), you'd get maaaaybe 5-6 hours of battery life from each pair of AA batteries. Less if they were AAA - for alkaline batteries, the smaller they are, the quicker they die.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.141|108.162.216.141]] 01:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The second xkcd phone comic had the phone being "Ribbed"... Perhaps that's what "boneless" is talking about? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.84|108.162.242.84]] 20:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1493: Meeting

2015-03-02T16:38:26Z

108.162.242.84: Corporations not immortal.

It's been registered since [http://who.is/whois/http://companyname.website November], just what the hell was Randall planning on doing with this site four months ago? [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 05:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
:He's said before that he buys domains and holds them until he finds a use. Maybe this was one of those? {{unsigned|Mikemk}}

I want to know what that "physically cannot die" thing is about. {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.179}}
:Let's see... mystical powers check. Immortality check. If he weren't so naive and clueless, I'd think Beret Guy is supposed to represent God. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 07:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
::The phrase that comes to mind is "Quantum Immortality", although that doesn't seem to produce what I want from a web-searth, so perhaps I've got the term wrong. Basically, at every point where a quantum-level decision leads (immediately or eventually) to death or life for an individual, we only follow the probability path (in a many-worlds type scenario) that leads towards life. The fully observed "living cat" in Schrödinger's experiment, each and every time you try the experiment, so to say. Forever, given that accidents can be avoided by taking a different route home, serious diseases can be avoided by not catching them, physical aging/illness can (probably!) be avoided by not accumulating various nasty biological copy-errors (not sure what happens with mental processes, even assuming the physical impediments to brain function (such as plaques) are already dealt with, but let's assume that there's a "best result" in this life-path, also). Call it "life save-scumming", perhaps. Given how White Hat seems to have a charmed life, it would certain explain how things things seem to always turn out for the better (and more interesting, in a nice way) for him. Though obviously there's also a "many worlds" White Hat company board that has been this 'lucky' so far but ''now'' finds that their offices get struck by a de-orbitting bit of space-debris, against all odds. (Not that we'd follow them. We'd be more likely to see the versions that had built/rented their offices fifty yards further down the street, thus avoiding that fate.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.181|141.101.98.181]] 11:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
: That which can eternal lie, can not die.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.98|108.162.254.98]] 16:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok I may be way off base here but could it be possible that he is referencing the show Helix? In the show there is a group of immortals who formed a corporation name Ilaria and it's not clear how they make their money. {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.85}}

Now that we have [[1032|three]] [[1293|comics]] on the subject ([[1021|arguably]] [[1117|more]]), should we have a Category:Beret Guy's Business? '''''[[User:LockmanCapulet|LockmanCapulet]][[User talk:LockmanCapulet| I plead the third!]]''''' 08:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
:Done :-). --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 16:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Could the immoralitly refer to the whole "corporations as a legal person" thing? [[User:CDave]]

I think 'beetle' might refer to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_New_Beetle VW Beetle] given that they're talking about cars. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.54|108.162.254.54]] 09:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
:I doubt it, because it was in the hall. Probably a literal beetle. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.217.119|108.162.217.119]] 16:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Could this be an intentional parody of Randall's own business model for xkcd? Since, beyond the store and his book he hardly operates as a standard business, but people just keep giving him money to do what he does anyway. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.21}}

Is the "cool red beetle" a ladybug? Would be consistent with Beret Guy not knowing many common nouns. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 15:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, corporations aren't really immortal, in much the same way a football team isn't. The team, of course, is constantly changing out its members, and in this sense can remain vigorous long beyond the lifespan of an ordinary human. But corporations are vulnerable to the fatal flaw of being utterly dependent on engaging the interest of quite a lot of people during their whole lifespan. Football needs players, investors, managers and coaches, children playing and learning the game in the decades leading up to league level play - not to mention millions of fans. If any of those groups lose interest, the whole enterprise evaporates, practically overnight. So the chief concern of corporations, even above profits, is to convince large groups of people to engage them, as buyers, workers, suppliers and so on. I am not sure how aware they are of this, nor am I sure I want them aware of it, but that's what it boils down to. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.84|108.162.242.84]] 16:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1492: Dress Color

2015-02-27T13:28:13Z

108.162.242.84:

To me, they both look blue/gold [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 06:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the illusion supposed to be? The colors of the dress look a bit darker with the light background, but not very much. Is that the illusion? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.82|141.101.80.82]] 07:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
: Agree. To me, it looks like it's definitely light blue (maybe "cornflower"?) with pale olive stripes. "Gold" would really be a stretch. It looks like that in all lighting conditions and in both backgrounds of the strip. Did I pass some kind of color-blindness test? Or fail? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.133|108.162.254.133]] 07:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
: This has nothing to do with color-blindness, but probably with certain arbitrary constants related to white-balance adjustment that differ brain-to-brain. Many people I know insist that even though the picture looks blue, it's a dress illuminated by a blue light, and based on this assumption their brain may essentially redden the whole picture to adjust for this light. The actual picture was taken in white light, not blue light. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.28|173.245.55.28]] 07:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

::It may also be related to white-balance of the MONITOR. I see original dress like black and blue and the one on left here as gold and light blue. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently for some people the left-hand-side's general blueishness is adjusted against by the visual system enough to make the dress look white and gold instead of blue and brown. I am not one of those people. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.28|173.245.55.28]] 07:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Description says left for both [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.219|141.101.98.219]] 08:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:Now changed. (Saw it myself before I saw your comment, and just lept straight in there. Hopefully I changed the right left so that it's right and not left the wrong left whilst producing the wrong right. Alright?) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 09:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC) (Also, "hello near-IP neighbour!"... The same digits, even. Creepy.)

Are they really the same colour? 'Cause to me on the blue side it looks blue and black- while on the white side it looks white and gold. Is this normal? {{unsigned|FlyingPiggy}}

The figure on the right definitely has a beard. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.182|108.162.249.182]] 09:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I checked with ColorZilla and the RGB values are identical. From my perspective, in the one on the left the dress appears pale blue with darker brown/gold stripes, and the one on the right appears a darker blue with lighter brown/gold stripes. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.63|141.101.98.63]] 10:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This is just a polychromatic version of that checker shadow illusion, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.38|108.162.231.38]] 10:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:That's what I thought too. But it looks the same (doesn't it?) and is the same (that, thankfully is non-subjective and verifiable with as little as MSPaint), so I'm at loss as to why this deserves a comic. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.136|141.101.104.136]] 10:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
: This is a common optical illusion (at least I've seen this many times) - most peoples eyes perform a white balance adjustment automatically which affects the perceived colours. If your eyes don't do this then you will do well in the paint colour matching business. http://www.moillusions.com/hue-optical-illusion/ I apologise for the jarring colours in the link.

The comic is a reference to the debate around the coloration of [http://amd.c.yimg.jp/amd/20150227-00000070-zdn_n-000-2-view.jpg this dress]. The band in the middle of the image shows some of the material of the dress. To some people, including me, the dress is obviously, unquestionably black and blue. But to others, including my wife, it's obviously, unquestionably, black and gold.
:And to others it's apparently a number of other combinations - I've seen claims of white/gold and blue/orange. However, surprisingly few people seem to have seen [http://www.romanoriginals.co.uk/invt/70931?colour=Royal-Blue this link] to the manufacturer's page for what appears to be the same dress; available in 4 colour combinations which according to the manufacturers' descriptions are ivory/black, scarlet/black, pink/black and royal-blue/black, with pictures available of all versions. As such I'm happy to accept the pictures doing the rounds are probably the blue/black variant (although most of the over-exposed versions I've seen appear light-blue/goldish-brown to me.

Our eyes are too efficient, which makes this illusion work. In dim light we dilate our eyes, so an enclosed room with one lamp seems bright, though it is a cave compared to the outdoors. If the bulb in our lamp is of a warm tone, our eyes adjust so we believe we see colours as though in daylight. I think that's what's happening in the dress illusion -- we are trying to allow for perceived lighting conditions in the photo -- so the actual illusion is in our guess as to what those light conditions actually are. And finally an artist quote: "I can paint you the skin of Venus with mud, provided you let me surround it as I will." - Eugene Delacroix [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.84|108.162.242.84]] 13:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1492: Dress Color

2015-02-27T13:20:43Z

108.162.242.84:

To me, they both look blue/gold [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 06:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the illusion supposed to be? The colors of the dress look a bit darker with the light background, but not very much. Is that the illusion? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.82|141.101.80.82]] 07:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
: Agree. To me, it looks like it's definitely light blue (maybe "cornflower"?) with pale olive stripes. "Gold" would really be a stretch. It looks like that in all lighting conditions and in both backgrounds of the strip. Did I pass some kind of color-blindness test? Or fail? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.133|108.162.254.133]] 07:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
: This has nothing to do with color-blindness, but probably with certain arbitrary constants related to white-balance adjustment that differ brain-to-brain. Many people I know insist that even though the picture looks blue, it's a dress illuminated by a blue light, and based on this assumption their brain may essentially redden the whole picture to adjust for this light. The actual picture was taken in white light, not blue light. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.28|173.245.55.28]] 07:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

::It may also be related to white-balance of the MONITOR. I see original dress like black and blue and the one on left here as gold and light blue. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently for some people the left-hand-side's general blueishness is adjusted against by the visual system enough to make the dress look white and gold instead of blue and brown. I am not one of those people. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.28|173.245.55.28]] 07:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Description says left for both [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.219|141.101.98.219]] 08:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:Now changed. (Saw it myself before I saw your comment, and just lept straight in there. Hopefully I changed the right left so that it's right and not left the wrong left whilst producing the wrong right. Alright?) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 09:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC) (Also, "hello near-IP neighbour!"... The same digits, even. Creepy.)

Are they really the same colour? 'Cause to me on the blue side it looks blue and black- while on the white side it looks white and gold. Is this normal? {{unsigned|FlyingPiggy}}

The figure on the right definitely has a beard. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.182|108.162.249.182]] 09:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I checked with ColorZilla and the RGB values are identical. From my perspective, in the one on the left the dress appears pale blue with darker brown/gold stripes, and the one on the right appears a darker blue with lighter brown/gold stripes. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.63|141.101.98.63]] 10:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This is just a polychromatic version of that checker shadow illusion, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.38|108.162.231.38]] 10:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:That's what I thought too. But it looks the same (doesn't it?) and is the same (that, thankfully is non-subjective and verifiable with as little as MSPaint), so I'm at loss as to why this deserves a comic. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.136|141.101.104.136]] 10:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
: This is a common optical illusion (at least I've seen this many times) - most peoples eyes perform a white balance adjustment automatically which affects the perceived colours. If your eyes don't do this then you will do well in the paint colour matching business. http://www.moillusions.com/hue-optical-illusion/ I apologise for the jarring colours in the link.

The comic is a reference to the debate around the coloration of [http://amd.c.yimg.jp/amd/20150227-00000070-zdn_n-000-2-view.jpg this dress]. The band in the middle of the image shows some of the material of the dress. To some people, including me, the dress is obviously, unquestionably black and blue. But to others, including my wife, it's obviously, unquestionably, black and gold.
:And to others it's apparently a number of other combinations - I've seen claims of white/gold and blue/orange. However, surprisingly few people seem to have seen [http://www.romanoriginals.co.uk/invt/70931?colour=Royal-Blue this link] to the manufacturer's page for what appears to be the same dress; available in 4 colour combinations which according to the manufacturers' descriptions are ivory/black, scarlet/black, pink/black and royal-blue/black, with pictures available of all versions. As such I'm happy to accept the pictures doing the rounds are probably the blue/black variant (although most of the over-exposed versions I've seen appear light-blue/goldish-brown to me.

Our eyes are too efficient, which makes this illusion work. In dim light we dilate our eyes, so an enclosed room with one lamp seems bright, though it is a cave compared to the outdoors. If the bulb in our lamp is of a warm tone, our eyes adjust so we believe we see colours as though in day
Ight. I think that's what's happening in the dress illusion -- we are trying to allow for perceived lighting conditions in the photo -- so the actual illusion is in our guess as to what those light conditions actually are. And finally an artist quote: "I can paint you the skin of Venus with mud, provided you let me surround it as I will." - Eugene Delacroix