explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3007: Probabilistic Uncertainty

2024-11-07T02:22:28Z

108.162.245.226: reply

Emotional spirals are useless. I've been coping by pretending we're in scenario 1, it keeps me sane. If I'm wrong, I'll jump off that bridge when we come to it. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:And I have a friend whose strategy is baking. It's both therapeutic and delicious. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:I see I don't know US geography well: which bridge you can jump from to leave it? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Most of them. Some of them may be 'caged in' for safety/anti-suicide/anti-DropThingsInThoseBelow purposes (or a {{w|covered bridge}}). Relatively few of the others will be ones that you would have no qualms about vaulting the railing, but (as well as it clearly being a witticism by Barmar) I think you could easily ''find'' a bridge that you could jump off. And the resulting falling part isn't at all the difficult bit. Landing safely (or, in extremis for those desperate enough, in a guaranteed immediately fatal manner) is more the challenge. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.206|172.70.86.206]] 14:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but think that at preparing for the negative outcome regardless of which outcome is more likely (unless that outcome is *very* unlikely) is a healthy thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.141|172.71.147.141]] 20:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
: "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" is my usual approach to things. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This comic appeared the day before the 2024 United States Presidential Election. At publication time, polls were strongly suggesting about a 50/50 odds that either major candidate would win. Recent news items included advice from mental-health professionals on how to deal with election-related anxiety. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.195|172.71.167.195]] 20:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Definitely related. This should be in the text, not in the comments, frankly. The yanks are going nuts about the election right now. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.124.243|172.71.124.243]] 20:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Did the advice suggested narcotics? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

My personal policy is to expect and prepare for the worst. That way I can be surprised when it doesn't happen, and not surprised when it does, rather than the other way around. I don't "do" emotions, so it's basically just planning and mumbling colloquialisms involving the digestive system... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.134.64|172.71.134.64]] 21:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:As someone who used to think this way, this is obstructively cynical, and downright ''sad''. I mean, in theory you should be pleasantly surprised by the good, and prepared for the bad, but in practice you just dismiss anything good and focus exclusively on the bad. As someone with experience in this type of thinking, it isn't healthy. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.85|172.71.22.85]] 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:: As someone who also practices this, applied properly and cautiously it's fine; expect trump to win and plan out for what you'll do if he wins (which for me mainly involves providing emotional support for American friends) and be suprised if Harris does. It's not that hard to avoid negative thinking if you focus on the positives, the solution, the mitigation of effects instead of the bad stuff. And if you get a positive result - throw all that away and bask in the positive result. [[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.56|172.64.236.56]] 11:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that it's mostly Democrats that are anxious, where Trump winning is the bad case. Not being an American I don't have much perspective. Are many Republicans likely to also be anxious, and if so, why? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.60.170|172.69.60.170]] 21:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Not sure about "anxious", for Trump-supporting Rs (as opposed to Trump-opposing ones, who are both anxious and tremendously conflicted), but there's certainly a buzz of some emotion. That, if ''their'' expectations/hopes/desires are dashed, seem more likely to turn into more direct push-back than Ds would in their case. i.e. if Trump truly wins, there'll be turmoil as the legitimate government forcefully pushes against large subsets of the people, if Harris truly wins then small but determined fractions of the people will push back against the legitimate government. (If it's any way ambiguous, for long enough, which 'truth' indicates a win, it could easily be people vs. people for at least as long as the confusion lasts, with very little reason to believe that it'll be Harris supporters throwing the first stone, probably making Florida 2000 look like a "neat transition"). But this is just what it looks like at this moment. Within a day we ''might'' get to see whose words get eaten, or it could be at least a month of building tensions (due to the US system of elections, deliberately legislated to be so much more inefcicient than it needs to be, compared to various other Western nations). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:From what I've seen the ones in public-facing forums seem pretty indifferent. They do talk a lot about election fraud though. {{unsigned ip|172.70.34.117|22:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)}}

I like that the comic leaves "good" and "bad" open to interpretation.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.83|172.70.211.83]] 22:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:He doesn't want to start fights in the comments/discussion pages/replies! Good to see him appealing to no specific demographic in this one. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 22:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::Considering that the "Harris for President" banner is still active, I'm not sure I agree with that. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.4|172.68.22.4]] 22:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::yeah, for that reason i think it's more just so the comic can have further longevity, as this way it can be applied to any number of things with two outcomes, not just the current election [[Special:Contributions/141.101.109.193|141.101.109.193]] 00:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Well, so far so good ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Re [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3007:_Probabilistic_Uncertainty&oldid=355799 Further, with regards to N/A - the odds of "precisely" 50/50 are probabilistically zero]: Bear in mind that with the Electoral College system and the fact that only 7 US states are "likely in play," we are talking only hundreds or thousands of realistic possibilities. The odds of a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College are far more than 0. One possibility of a tie that is "on the radar" is if the Republicans take Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and the 2nd Congressional District of Nebraska (which is very likely to go Democratic) and the Democrats take Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. If you consider just the 7 "in play" states but Arizona "flips" from Republican to Democratic, there are 3 combinations that yield a 269-269 tie. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.249|172.70.210.249]] 01:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
: If there's a 269-269 tie, that's basically going to be a Trump win due to how the contingent election process works. (For that matter the far more plausible 270-268 to Harris, which happens if she wins Nevada but not Pennsylvania, is likely going to result in Trump getting the presidency as well, but let's ignore that.) However, many analysts, when faced with numbers like Nate Silver's 50.015%, are going to round it to 50% or 50.0% in the public-facing reports, resulting in apparent exact 50/50 odds even if mathematically they actually favor one side slightly. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.130.3|172.71.130.3]] 10:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::There's little point in being so precise, since the fraction is far less than the margin of error in the polling. Anything between 49% and 51% is essentially a toss-up. If the 51% is in your favor you can feel hopeful, but hardly confident. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Re '''We contacted several researchers who are experts in emotional spirals to ask them, but none of them were in a state to speak with us''': Is it a stretch to think that the emotional-spiral experts were all "in Puerto Rico" (which is not a state), emotionally speaking? In the last week a supporter of one of the candidates insulted Puerto Rico and by extension, people of Puerto Rico and Puerto Rican descent, causing an emotional uproar all over the inter-tubes. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.210|162.158.90.210]] 01:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Created an account just to say this; don't get mad at me but in my opinion, both candidates are equally bad, which has led to a weird sense of calmness in me due to my belief that we'll be equally screwed no matter what, just in different ways. Tbh in my opinion both candidates are in between what their supporters think of them and what their opponents think of them. Please be civil if you reply, no ad hominem please. [[User:BurnV06|BurnV06]] ([[User talk:BurnV06|talk]]) 05:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:No, one of them is clearly worse than the other. How do you feel about LGBTQ+ rights? Abortion? Medicare? Teaching kids that racism and homophobia in schools is bad? Well, if Project 2025 is anything to go by, one side ''clearly'' is the unpreferable unless you're a white, Christian, rich, and male. This is not a "both sides" issue. One is clearly the worse option. And frankly, I wish centrists knew this. I can agree to disagree on some issues but I just cannot elect someone who wants to punish people for the egregious crime of, ''gasp'', not conforming to societal standard of gender and romance.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.85|172.71.22.85]] 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::... And Project 2025 is absolutely nothing to go by. It's what a (private) conservative think tank (privately) wants to see implemented. Trump had no involvement in its contents or publication. The Heritage Foundation has been publishing things like it since 1981; it only attracted attention THIS year because politically-motivated people are trying to scare you, and were running out of ideas. It should not surprise you to learn that people who you already disagree with, have ideas that you also disagree with, and might publish compilations of those ideas you disagree with on a regular basis. Freaking out over Project 2025 is like if conservatives started freaking out over a set of published policy recommendations by the Center for American Progress. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.96|172.68.3.96]] 16:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC) MeZimm
::Fair enough, but the point still stands that this is explicitly ''not''a both sides issue. Even taking Project 2025 out of account, one side is clearly worse.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.71.44|172.68.71.44]] 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:"Equally bad" is highly subjective, Burn. More people would consider "a total disaster" vs "at least they're not a total disaster!" as a closer truth (whether their own personally-configured disastermeter comes in a Red or Blue casing), and consider balancing dead in the center of the fence to be the most inexplicable position to take. (Not to mention those like above, and also their antithesis opinions, who have a very definite good/bad opinion 9n the pair.)
:Not that I'd support being mad at you, as the problem with politics today is ''too much'' extreme polarization (we need more moderate voices, rather than wedging open an ever wider void between both limits of opinion). But there's just no realistic middle-ground to gather support around, and what middle-ground there is might also be moving one way or another (depending upon who you ask), so I'm afraid that the strictly neutral "as bad as each other" types are just guaranteed to be setting themselves up to be disappointed. In the 'best' case scenario, disappointed that things aint turning out to be as bad as feared, but I'm not sure that's reassuringly likely enough to comfort you. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:Well said, and I think it's important to mention that the reason there isn't any moderates is that the moderates ''just don't care anymore''. At least online, complete political apathy is a position I've seen a lot of people take ("Why are they constantly slamming politics into my face, I just don't care"). Unfortunately, these kinds of people are also the moderates, people who aren't particularly one side or the other. This leads to a political landscape where you have 2 extremes, and a bunch of people in the middle who couldn't care less because of said extremes. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.31.24|172.71.31.24]] 15:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Being tired of politics is one thing (blame the years-long election season for that) but it's objectively incorrect to characterise both sides as "extreme". The democrats ''are'' the moderates. In most of the Western world outside of North America the Democrats would even be considered right-wing.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.193|172.70.46.193]] 04:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:Not to be a “Discord mod” here, but the entire idea of the 50-50 portion of the comic alluding to the election today is just a theory. Y’all are reading in wayyyyyyy too deep. The comic isn’t even directly saying if one candidate is better (although the Header text is supporting Harris). The discussion is supposed to be for discussing the comic and how to improve it, not clash over ideological differences. Maybe instead of arguing about who’s the better candidate, we can finish up the comic explanation, which is extremely bare bones? TL;DR: break it up, people. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 18:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's funny that so many Democrats are genuinely terrified of the results and spend their days anxiously refreshing 538, whereas Republicans are filled with optimism and already know that the democrats have run the weakest candidate since Dukakis. Ah well, maybe in four years you'll actually get to vote for who leads your ticket instead of having them be appointed by the party elites directly without a vote. ;) {{unsigned ip|172.71.22.120|07:35, 5 November 2024}}
:Given the indirect democracy system the US has, there's a number of problems with who gets to be President. And if Harris is weaker than H. Clinton, but it's still on a knife-edge of popular/EC voting, does that mean that Trump's win was therefore less legitimate? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Do I really have to remind you that election results are not the same thing as poll results? In 2016, [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a 28.6% chance vs Clinton's 71.4% chance.] Most polls were even more egregiously in favor of Clinton. Yet Trump won. Now in 2024, you say "it's still on a knife-edge of popular/EC voting" - somehow pretending the PREDICTIONS of right now are in any way comparable to the ACTUAL RESULTS of 2016. Yet polls get "shy Tories" and pranksters and all kinds of complicating factors (even assuming the pollsters are being honest - which is not something you should EVER "simply assume"). Polls are a little bit better than astrology in terms of actual predictive power. So comparing "polls now" to "actual election then" is completely wrongheaded. You have to compare predictions to predictions. And the predictions of 2016 were "the odds are MASSIVELY in Clinton's favor" - yet now they are running a WEAKER candidate and rate her has having even LESS probability of winning than Clinton did. Don't worry, though, I'm sure they figured out some way to solve all the problems with their 2016 process, and are now 100% trustworthy again! /s [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.127|172.68.3.127]] 19:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC) MeZimm
:::Whatever direction we're going with the rest of the arguments, don't lead us down the route of misanalysing (say) 28.6% vs. 71.4% as meaning anything other than that's the predicted chance (by a necessarily incomplete process) of the process coming out one way or another (even by just one vote that swings just one EC contribution). It doesn't mean that the popular vote will split by that proportion or the EC votes will split that way, it is just an assessment of how much the (each slightly biased) coins will fall either majority heads or majority tails. But we only see the one end result (itself a fudge of a fudge of many possibly imperfect opinions) and try to read the entrails all while hearing "but the predictions were 29/71, and it was much closer than that, so obviously those stats guys were wrong".
:::Do try not to fall for such statistical fallacies. The polling will be refined for all the things that it can be refined for (accounting for the kinds of people who do vote but don't answer to pollsters, or don't vote even though they say they will, etc) and should come with error bars which can be very telling but rarely get mentioned in 'executive summaries' that get selectively quoted by the headlines of organisations with less integrity and more of their own message to try to promulgate.
:::But looking across many polls, you can see even the 'headline figure' end predictions, shorn of the most obviously optomistic/pesimistic extremes, smeared from several percentage points one way to a similar the other. If the result is within one, two or three swingstates'-worth of ECs, it'll still vindicate most of the polling opinions. Though doesn't mean you can guarantee the reverse. Anyway, not long now until the process stops being fed by votes and starts being fully chewed on by those who produce the 'answer' to this year's big question. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.185|172.70.162.185]] 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:To follow upon this, maybe Randall should stop endorsing political figures? He always picks the reddit candidate and sets himself up for disappointment. At least we might get a new Electoral Precedent comic out of this.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.152|108.162.238.152]] 14:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::Politics is not some spectator sport. It's not a victory to endorse a winning candidate if that candidate doesn't stand for something you actually believe in. Randall did not set himself up for disappointment. The political climate in the US set him up for disappointment, regardless of whether he chose to endorse Harris or not.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.119|172.70.46.119]] 15:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reminded of some of my coding theory class, where the absolute worst bit error rate is 50%. Less than 50% and you can repeat the data to detect and correct the errors to some vastly low probability of an incorrect result, and more than 50% and you can invert the signal which flips it to less than 50%, then do the same. At exactly 50% you're essentially getting random noise, and there's nothing you can do about that (but allow allows a one-time pad encryption to be unbreakable if done correctly). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.214.13|172.71.214.13]] 18:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

There's been talk about pollsters potentially herding because of just how tight the race allegedly is across all of the swing states (which should be more inclined D/R relative to each other, not all exactly even). I think Nate Silver made a tweet about the odds that the odds are so close. Could that be related to this comic, indirectly? {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.61|20:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)}}

What's with the section talking about strategies to manage expectations? It reads like it came straight out of ChatGPT. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.155|172.71.102.155]] 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:It probably is, considering I asked ChatGPT to analyze the comic yesterday to see if it could catch the joke about emotional spiral experts and got a very similar response. Shall we remove it? —megan [[user talk:megan|talk]] [[special:contribs/megan|contribs]] 04:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::The wikilinks show that wherever it came from originally, an editor reviewed and marked it up, so I would lean towards keep. It's not bad advice, although I'm not a psychologist or therapist. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.136|172.68.23.136]] 04:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:::It's perhaps not ''bad'' advice, but it's mostly ''irrelevant'' advice. It's not in any way linked to the comic. To keep this information more relevant, I think it should be clearly linked to what Randall proposes as the appropriate way to think about it. In addition, the ChatGPT-like phrasing means it spends a lot of words on saying very little of substance. I'm not against keeping an explanation of the various strategies of coping with uncertainty, but I am against doing it in ''this'' format.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.213|172.71.182.213]] 10:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Irrelevant? It's a direct answer to the nine question marks in the bottom row, a specific response to the one question raised as the whole point of the comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.226|108.162.245.226]] 02:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps as expected, this has gone outdated pretty quickly. [https://manifold.markets/ManifoldPolitics/will-trump-win-the-2024-election Manifold] and [https://polymarket.com/event/presidential-election-winner-2024 Polymarket] are now both trading above 90% for Trump as of this comment. —megan [[user talk:megan|talk]] [[special:contribs/megan|contribs]] 04:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It's gone completly outdated. It was a bigger trump win than expected, and it's not even in the 50/50 category. [[User:SomeRandomNerd|SomeRandomNerd]] ([[User talk:SomeRandomNerd|talk]]) 08:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
: As someone noted above, this is not how odds work. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.61|172.70.162.61]] 09:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

2375: Worst Ladder

2021-01-29T17:15:47Z

108.162.245.226: /* Trivia */ clarified that the paragraph is refering to google searches

{{comic
| number = 2375
| date = October 21, 2020
| title = Worst Ladder
| image = worst_ladder.png
| titletext = [Six months later] "Well, our 'worst ladder' subscription series was a surprisingly lucrative success, but was completely canceled out by the losses from the disastrous Home Depot merchandising tie-in."
}}

==Explanation==

An always present concern of media industries is consumers shifting tastes or indeed abandoning a medium altogether (such as print newspapers or in-person theaters). This strip depicts one such scenario prompting a meeting to discuss the problem. The other attendees suspect the consumers are simply shifting to an online platform, but Megan reveals they are instead shifting towards image search results.

Of course, during the age of the internet, there are many sources of free entertainment. {{w|YouTube}} and {{w|TikTok}} provide examples of these services, as practically anyone can choose from a tremendous variety of content. Therefore, this abundance of free content hurts services that require money to see their content, particularly when this content does not have any factors that make it inherently more appealing than the free services. The {{w|Quibi}} paid service shut down, just 6 months after it opened, on the same day that this comic appeared.

The joke here is that instead of YouTube or TikTok, possible customers are going to the Google Image search page for [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22worst+ladder%22&source=lnms&tbm=isch "worst ladder"]. Even the meeting participants are entranced by it, so the meeting devolves into everyone showing their favorites to each other.

Searching for images is an unorthodox source of entertainment, frequently only seen when searching for memes (this, in fact, is how {{w|Know Your Meme}} gauges interest in a meme). Depending on your relationship with Google's personalization algorithms, image results may change up between different people or different views, or remain roughly stagnant from day to day (contrasted with other services that contain new posts nearly every second), and the quality of any Google Images page will decline with scrolling. Therefore, an image search results page is not a sustainable source of entertainment{{Citation needed}}, and may be unlikely to compete with the service in this comic.

Search results currently tend to vary widely from person to person, as Google uses the user's search history, IP address, and location to try to find the most relevant result for each person, even if they are not logged in. This provides social opportunities around searching, sometimes exploited by social media posts (which may be how Megan originally found out).

The title text explains that the company actually decided to use the idea, and created a subscription service for these images. The idea was a success and was indeed very lucrative. They then tried selling actual "worst ladders", or "worst ladders"-themed merchandise at a hardware store, thinking that people who enjoy looking at others' mistakes would also enjoy making that mistake themselves, but this tie-in ended up costing them as much money as they made from the subscriptions (if the word "disastrous" is meant literally, there may have been injuries and liability lawsuits involved).

==Transcript==

:[Ponytail, Cueball, Hairy and Hairbun are sitting around a boardroom table. Megan is giving a presentation and pointing to a chart behind her.]
:Megan: Our entertainment division is failing. We can't compete with free content.

:[A frameless panel. Only Megan is shown, with her pointer to her side.]
:Off-panel voice: Where are they going? YouTube? TikTok?
:Megan: No.

:[Zoomed in on Megan.]
:Megan: The Google Images search results for '''''worst ladder'''''.
:Off-panel voice: Huh?
:Off-panel voice: Let me see ...

:[Ponytail and Cueball are looking at one laptop, and Hairy and Hairbun are looking at a second. Megan has her arms out in front of her, frustrated.]
:Ponytail: Yikes, look at this one! The stepladder is balanced on --
:Hairy: Wow, they ''tied'' a ladder to --
:Hairbun: Ooh, check out the --
:Megan: ''No!''

==Trivia==
Searching Google for "worst ladder" at the time the comic was posted allows observing ladders that are comically unsafe or poorly designed (see [https://drive.google.com/file/d/10xQ63VpvSBmz9e1rmKyUbHDKa5jIYPLK/view?usp=sharing sample results from shortly after the comic was posted]). It is worth noting that, while normally it does not undergo much change, the "worst ladder" page will likely now contain a barrage of results related to this xkcd comic, as happened with [[369: Dangers]]. This influence is similar to the {{w|Slashdot effect}}. For reference, at the time of posting (0:00 UTC), the comic was the 30th Google image result. From about 0:20 to 1:15 UTC, it was the 18th result; by 1:30 UTC, it had become the third result. Searching Google for [https://www.google.com/search?q=worst+ladder+-xkcd&tbm=isch "worst ladder -xkcd"] yields better results, but some xkcd is still there.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

Talk:1848: Glacial Erratic

2017-06-17T02:16:02Z

108.162.245.226:

Can 'Fuck glaciers' be a comment on the US withdrawing from the Paris Agreement?
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.106|162.158.222.106]] 06:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
:Agreed!{{unsigned ip|108.162.245.76}}

Nooooooo, just some of US. The rest of us are trying to figure out how to withdraw from the US...Maybe a peaceful annexation by Canada for northern tier states
--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.40|108.162.216.40]] 14:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I think Megan just hates the glacier for littering, not for abandoning a child. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.155|141.101.104.155]] 08:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
:Agree and removed the abandoning explanation. It makes no sense, as it is not a child of the glacier. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Lane Louis Lane] was still alive and conducting when Superman: The Movie came out in 1978. That should probably be fixed.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.250|108.162.216.250]] 12:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The fault-sealing scene is before Lois "dies" and thus before Superman turns back time. In the scene, he flies in the fault, pushing up the land to fill the crevice created by the splitting of the land.[[User:Hax|Hax]] ([[User talk:Hax|talk]]) 00:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
:Yes! Seconded.

Assuming rock is 2000 kg per cubic meter and the one drawn is one meter high, then that boulder weighs 1000 kg, and we can see it moves, which goes to show that stick people are VERY strong! [[User:Rotan|Rotan]] ([[User talk:Rotan|talk]]) 09:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
:Like stick people, the rock is two-dimensional. Since mass only increases with the square of the linear dimension in 2D, the rock might still be movable by a single person. That said, the force generated by what must clearly be one-dimensional muscles is harder to predict. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.22|162.158.214.22]] 12:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
::"Give me a place to stand and with a lever (or stick figure, whatever) I will move the whole world!" - Randall Munroe, ca. 2017 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.118|162.158.92.118]] 07:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
In addition to Paris agreement, glaciars are also quite topical because a crack in the Larsen C ice shelf is weeks away from breaking off a huge piece of Antarctica. See: Patel, Jugal K. ''A Crack in an Antarctic Ice Shelf Is 8 Miles From Creating an Iceberg the Size of Delaware''. The New York Times. [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/climate/antarctica-rift-update.html nyti.ms/2s5jZ5V]. June 9, 2017. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 05:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Who cares if this is the first comic since xyz including swear words? If such a thing is considered trivia then it would be equally important to note that this is first comic since abc having 5 pictures. I removed that part. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
: I guess there was someone at work not knowing what sarcsasm is. Removed it again... [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 06:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
::I totally support your action. But the hell what is sarcsasm??? ;-) --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 14:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
::: MMD xD [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 14:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
::::Am I dumb? Or just an other typo: {{w|MMD}}? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 14:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
::::: Made My Day. Strange that this is not in the wiki (urban dictionary has it). At least for myself it's the most common meaning of that abbreviation, so I assumed.... Well... you know how flawed some assumptions are... Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you :) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 06:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
::::::Funny, you "made my day". But even on urban dictionary the Japanese [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=MMD "MikuMikuDance"] is on top.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 11:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1846: Drone Problems

2017-06-05T22:09:15Z

108.162.245.226:

I wrote a short little explanation that needs a lot more. Maybe I'll add more after school.
[[User:LordFlashmeow|LordFlashmeow]] ([[User talk:LordFlashmeow|talk]]) 15:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)LordFlashmeow

There's a much simpler, if less elegant, solution in buying a Mossberg 500. [[User:OldCorps|OldCorps]] ([[User talk:OldCorps|talk]]) 16:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

As I read it, the drones were flying around her, in the first place, because people can't control them properly. I find the comic even funnier, reading this way.
(New here. Is the below signature the right way to sign?)
<saim>{{unsigned|Saim}}

Wasn't there another comic where black hat builds something similar that shoots birds or squirrels or something? I can't find it now —[[User:Artyer|Artyer]] <big>([[User Talk:Artyer|talk]]<big>'''|'''</big>[[Special:Contributions/Artyer|ctb]])</big> 19:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought this was a parallel to North Korean ICBMs and US anti-missle technology...

1820: Security Advice

2017-04-05T20:13:54Z

108.162.245.226: /* Security Tip Explanations */

{{comic
| number = 1820
| date = April 5, 2017
| title = Security Advice
| image = security_advice.png
| titletext = Never give your password or bank account number to anyone who doesn't have a blue check mark next to their name.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Incomplete. TBD:Complete tip explanations Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The comic depicts a conversation between [[Cueball]] and [[Ponytail]], discussing the fact that giving people security advice in the past has failed to improve their internet security, and in some cases even made things worse. One such example is telling people to create complicated passwords containing numbers and symbols, which not only made the passwords harder to remember (leading people to create huge security risks by [https://arstechnica.com/security/2015/04/hacked-french-network-exposed-its-own-passwords-during-tv-interview/ leaving post-it notes with their passwords on their computer monitor]), but did not actually make those passwords harder to crack (see [[936: Password Strength]]).

As a result, Cueball suggests using {{w|reverse psychology}} and give out bad advice instead, in hopes of achieving a positive effect. The last panel contains a list these security tips, which are parodies of actual security tips.

===Security Tip Explanations===
{| class="wikitable"
!Security Tip
!Explanation
|-
|Print out this list and keep in in your bank safe deposit box (header)
|This is a standard recommendation for documents that must be kept secure because they are irreplaceable and/or contain sensitive information. However this list itself is easily replaceable and the contents will be well-known, so storing it in a safe place is totally unnecessary. Putting it in a safe deposit box would even be counterproductive since the list can only serve its purpose as a ready reminder if it's easily accessible to everyone.
|-
|Don't click links to websites
|The usual tip is "Don't click on ''suspicious'' website links" or "Don't click any links in suspicious emails". The comic's variation instead tells users not to click on any links to any websites, which essentially stops them from using the world wide web altogether.
|-
|Use prime numbers in your password
|It is usually recommended that one uses numbers in one's password, to increase its entropy, making it harder to {{w|Brute-force attack|brute force}}. In contrast the comic suggests using {{w|prime numbers}} in one's password. Large prime numbers are an essential part of modern cryptography and security systems, when used in algorithms that are computed by machines. They don't have any effect when used by humans in passwords, except for maybe making it harder to remember. In addition, if people were to regularly use prime numbers in their passwords, it would actually make passwords ''easier'' to guess, as it would substantially reduce the number of possible passwords people may choose from.
|-
|Change your password manager monthly
|It is often recommended to change passwords on a regular basis and to use a {{w|password manager}}. Password managers are programs which can help users create, store, and change their passwords easily and securely. Changing password managers monthly would involve copying all stored passwords from one manager to another, which would be quite impractical and has no security benefit.
|-
|Hold your breath while crossing the border
|At some border crossings, government agents may search computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices. The usual advice for such situations ranges from asserting your rights to resetting all devices and deleting all data prior to crossing a border. Holding one's breath can potentially prevent inhaling germs or poisons in some situations, though useless in the context of computer security. These two topics mixed in the same advice won't achieve anything, but if you hold your breath for too long you could pass out when crossing, or look stressed/suspicious and invite even more scrutiny. This could also be a reference to the superstition of holding one's breath when passing a graveyard.
|-
|Install a secure font
|A real tip might be "Install a secure browser" especially when many people used {{w|Internet Explorer 6}}. Using a different font on a computer would not help one's internet security. Reference to Turing-complete kerning specification language in OpenType fonts. May also refer to [https://www.proofpoint.com/us/threat-insight/post/EITest-Nabbing-Chrome-Users-Chrome-Font-Social-Engineering-Scheme Google Chrome "Install missing font" malware].
|-
|Use a 2-factor smoke detector
|{{w|Multi-factor authentication|Two factor authentication}} describes the practice of using two different identification factors (such as a password and a code from a secure token) to authenticate the user. A two factor smoke detector presumably uses two or more factors to identify ''smoke'' (such as {{w|Smoke_detector#Ionization|ionization}} and {{w|Smoke_detector#Photoelectric|photoelectric}}). Such devices [https://web.archive.org/web/20120416013553/http://www.systemsensor.com/lifesafety/2011/05/sophisticated-strategic-fire-and-life-safety-in-mission-critical-applications/| actually exist], but, while improving the users general safety, they do nothing to improve their internet security.
|-
|Change your maiden name regularly
|The usual tip is to change your passwords regularly. Some password recovery procedures ask for a security question, like "what is your maiden name" (which is the family name that you were born with). Sometimes, maiden name of a parent of yours is asked instead of one of yours. Since it acts as a second password, it should also be changed regularly. Changing it, however, would be very difficult or even impossible, even more so on a regular basis. Also, maiden names and other trivia typically asked by security questions are not secret, so they are inherently not secure.
A real tip for dealing with security questions would be to enter false data.
|-
|Put strange USB drives in a bag of rice overnight
|The usual security tip is "Don't plug strange USB drives into your computer," because sometimes attackers put viruses that infect your system when plugged in. This tip states that you should "put USB drives in a bag of rice overnight" which is a common technique for drying out water damaged devices, due to rice's absorbent qualities. This would not clean the drive of viruses, and unless the drive was wet (perhaps because you found it outside due to it being called "strange") it would not do anything. In [[1598: Salvage]], another attempt is made to salvage something unconventional with rice.
|-
|Use special characters like & and %
|You can use special characters to increase the entropy/strength of your password, though as describe in [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/936:_Password_Strength xkcd 936], that often leads to passwords that are hard to remember but not particularly strong. The password context is missing here, and in everyday situations the characters & and % are not special. These two characters are often disallowed in passwords because of their relevance to [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL SQL] (a common database query language). A badly written security system using SQL could have severe bugs (and vulnerabilities) if these characters were used in a password.
|-
|Only read content published through Tor.com
|[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network) Tor] is a software solution to provide anonymity on the web for its users. The website [https://tor.com Tor.com] is the website of fantasy and sci-fi book publisher Tor, which has no relation to the Tor-network.
|-
|Use a burner's phone
|A play on using a burner phone (a cheap/disposable cell phone like those purchased at 7-11, often used for drug deals or other activity one might not want traced), and using the cell phone of a burner, i.e. a person who goes to the the Burning Man festival.
|-
|Get an SSL certificate and store it in a safe place
|SSL/TLS is a protocol for securing connections on the internet. To check if someone is who he claims to be you can check the individuals certificate. Such a certificate has to be public, storing it in a safe place makes the certificate useless. You have to store the private key that matches the certificate in a safe place, else someone could steal the identity.
|-
|If a border guard asks to examine your laptop, you have a legal right to challenge them to a chess game for your soul.
|This tip is likely a reference to Ingmar Bergman's film {{w|The Seventh Seal#Synopsis| The Seventh Seal}}.
|-
|Never give your password or bank account number to anyone who doesn't have a blue check mark next to their name. (Title Text)
|The usual security tip here is ''"only trust twitter accounts claiming to be legitimate if they have a blue check mark next to their name"'', which means that the account is verified as legitimate. This tip suggests only giving your ''password'' to verified accounts, although you shouldn't give your password to ''any'' account. It also refers to problems especially visible in the US banking system, where there is very little security for direct account drafts, and because of that it is advised there to keep the account number as secret as possible. In contrast, in Europe giving your account number to someone is one of the most common ways to get paid.

A related tip might be ""Never give your password or bank details to a website that doesn't have a padlock icon next to the URL"". In some browsers, if you access a secure website, there will be a padlock icon in the browser indicating you've connected to a secure website using the secure https protocol. So this tip treats the verified account icon the same way you might treat a secure website icon.
|}

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

:Ponytail: We've been trying for decades to give people good security advice.
:Ponytail: But in retrospect, lots of the tips actually made things worse.

:Cueball: Maybe we should try to give ''bad'' advice?
:Ponytail: I guess it's worth a shot.

:Security tips
:(Print out this list and keep it in your bank safe deposit box.)
* Don't click links to websites
* Use prime numbers in your password
* Change your password manager monthly
* Hold your breath while crossing the border
* Install a secure font
* User a 2-factor smoke detector
* Change your maiden name regularly
* Put strange USB drives in a bag of rice overnight
* Use special characters like & and %
* Only read content published through Tor.com
* Use a burner's phone
* Get an SSL certificate and store it in a safe place
* If a border guard asks to examine your laptop, you have a legal right to challenge them to a chess game for your soul.

{{comic discussion}}

1813: Vomiting Emoji

2017-03-22T18:30:46Z

108.162.245.226: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1813
| date = March 20, 2017
| title = Vomiting Emoji
| image = vomiting_emoji.png
| titletext = My favorite might be U+1F609 U+1F93F WINKING FACE VOMITING.
}}
==Explanation==
{{incomplete| Please change this comment when editing this page. Neeeds someone who knows more about Unicode and Emojis. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic relates to the recent [http://unicode.org/emoji/charts-beta/emoji-released.html Unicode v5.0 proposal] for a [http://unicode.org/emoji/charts-beta/full-emoji-list.html#1f92e vomiting emoji]. [[Megan]] suggests that rather than having a single emoji of a vomiting character, it should be possible to combine the vomiting action with any existing emoji. To achieve this, she proposes the new modifier U+1F93F. Six example emojis are given, being progressively more nonsensical, starting with a vomiting cowboy and ending with a vomiting hand. Of course this can lead to a wide array of nonsensical combinations, such as a vomiting winking face mentioned in the title text.

: ''Note: Some of the emojis below may not display correctly if your browser or operating system doesn't implement the latest Unicode standard.''

Unicode is the computing industry standard for representing text. More recent additions have included emoji characters, such as grinning face (😁) or a clap symbol (👏). Each Unicode character is assigned a numerical code, usually written in {{w|hexadecimal}} notation. For example, the grinning face emoji is assigned the code U+1F601, and the clap symbol is assigned U+1F44F. Unicode also supports "combining modifiers" which allow, among other uses, placing accents on characters that do not have an accented version elsewhere, adding decorations to other emojis, or changing the colors of flags or skin tones. For example, the letter "n" together with a combining tilde (U+303) modifier results in "ñ", and the man emoji 👨 together with the medium-dark skin tone modifier (U+1F3FE) results in 👨🏾. Among the same lines, if Megan's proposal is adopted, it would theoretically be possible to combine a vomiting modifier with any emoji to produce a vomiting version of that emoji.

The examples given in the comic are:
* '''Vomiting Cowboy''' (🤠): This seems reasonable and not much worse off than the regular one.
* '''Vomiting Statue of Liberty''' (🗽): Given the turbulent political climate in present-day America, this emoji might see a lot of use by opinionated folks.
* '''Vomiting Dove''' (🕊): As the dove is usually seen as a symbol of peace, a vomiting one could be construed as an omen for war or used to depict strong objection to ongoing conflicts. It may also reference a tendency for birds to drop unpleasant things on people below. It is worth noting that pigeons are a subspecies of doves so a dove emoji might as well represent a flying pigeon.
* '''Vomiting Moon''' (🌛): This might seem just a little odd as the moon is made of rock<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Physical_characteristics Wikipedia] on physical characteristics of the moon</ref> and cannot vomit. {{Citation needed}} In cartoons or fairy tales, moons are often anthropomorphized, though are still never depicted as vomiting.
* '''Vomiting rocket ship''': (🚀) This might be a reference to the "{{w|Vomit Comet}}" aircraft that astronauts train on. Also, space travel can be associated with vomiting. However, since the cabins of rocket ships should be airtight when in flight, vomit coming out of a flying rocket indicates a serious problem.
* '''Vomiting Hand''' (✋): This one is just bizarre. Maybe it could be used in the context of some horror flick?
* '''Winking Face Vomiting''' (😉, title text): This suggests that the context in which a wink is used is combined with vomiting to humorous effect.

Assigning Unicode characters to emojis has been controversial historically due to the fact that Unicode was created as a standard for text. Emojis, which are essentially drawings of people or objects, aren't typically perceived as parts of text, and so leads some to object co-opting the standard for non-text things. Using combining modifiers to further expand emojis are also seen as an abuse of the original purpose of modifier characters. Jokes that make fun of Unicode, involving emojis that shouldn't exist or inappropriate combinations thereof, are fairly common on the Internet.

In [[1726: Unicode]], Randall mentioned the proposed "brontosaurus" emoji in Unicode.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball, looking at his smartphone, approaches Megan who is sitting at a desk working on her laptop.]
:Cueball: The proposed emoji for Unicode 10.0 look good.
:Megan: Hmm. [vomiting emoji] "U+1F92E FACE WITH OPEN MOUTH VOMITING"

:[Cueball is holding his device lower and no longer looking at it.]
:Cueball: Eww.
:Megan: Really, "vomiting" should be a combining modifier, so you can use it to make a vomiting version of any emoji.
:Cueball: Umm.
:Megan: I'm gonna write up a proposal.

:U+1F93F VOMITING MODIFIER
:[cowboy emoji vomiting] U+1F920 U+1F93F VOMITING COWBOY
:[Statue of Liberty emoji vomiting] U+1F5FD U+1F93F VOMITING STATUE OF LIBERTY
:[dove emoji vomiting, with an olive branch near its head] U+1F54A U+1F93F VOMITING DOVE
:[first quarter moon with face emoji vomiting] U+1F31B U+1F93F VOMITING MOON
:[rocket ship emoji with vomit coming from its window] U+1F680 U+1F93F VOMITING ROCKET SHIP
:[hand emoji with a hole in it, vomit is coming from that hole] U+270B U+1F93F VOMITING HAND

==References==
<references></references>

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Emoji]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

Talk:1800: Chess Notation

2017-02-18T22:13:57Z

108.162.245.226:

So... This is just a really excellent pun? "Drawn" conversation?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.22|162.158.75.22]] 15:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
:The pun gets better when you think about drawn '''and''' stalemated conversations, both of which will be scored 0.5 - 0.5. A stalemate occurs when no legal moves are possible, but the opponent isn't in check.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.82|162.158.150.82]] 16:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I have 2 questions does Randall know about this wiki and if there is an "incomplete" comic and I complete the explanation or other issue can I delete the incomplete notification thingy or does an admin have to do that?[[User:XFez|XFez]] ([[User talk:XFez|talk]]) 17:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
:Anyone can remove the incomplete tag. Likewise, anyone can add it back again if they feel the explanation can be improved. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.225|162.158.62.225]] 18:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
::My answer at the last comic:
::Hi [[User:XFez|XFez]], sorry for the late reply but this was hard to find. I don't know if Randall knows..., but maybe he does. But he does NOT support this wiki in any way -- like he does not here: [http://forums.xkcd.com http://forums.xkcd.com] (while everything is now on https that board isn't ;) ). So there is no final explanation and he says 100 points! To your second question: You are allowed to remove the "incomplete tag". But the given criteria is not enough, often that simple text covers not all. Please check also the discussion page. So, when you are not sure just change the criteria text and mention it at the discussion page. And for older comics you probably should talk to someone else here because nobody checks every comic every day.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
:::Randall knows of this page for sure. How often he goes here for a laugh is hard to say, but I would guess he would never comment on anything. But who knows if he checks here to see if has made a mistake. Sometimes errors are corrected after they get mentioned here. Often very early in Randall's time zone. Who knows if he sees this here. He has given a 100 % proof that he knows about this page in his official transcript. He actually made a direct link to Explain xkcd for a better transcript than his own. Alas there was not transcript until this year, where I made it: See this [[Payloads#Trivia|trivia]] under [[Payloads]], that I added earlier in 2017. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the mouseover text saying that it was a blunder to tell white hat that he is scoring it because that will cause white hat to actively compete, instead of simply losing because he didn't know there was a game? [a guest and fan]{{unsigned ip|141.101.107.12}}

Why is the figure on the left not wearing a beret? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.208|162.158.78.208]] 21:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Under the "Chess games and conversations" section, "differences" subsection, it says that "people's statements sometimes last an eternity or even longer". Eternity = infinite time, duration without beginning or end. It's impossible for a person to make a statement lasting longer than his or her lifespan, and realistically for someone to continue speaking for more than an hour or so is extremely rare (someone giving a speech or presentation, for example, which isn't the type of "conversation" we're dealing with). Is the word "eternity" being used in a hyperbolic sense? If so, I'm not sure I understand exactly what this sentence is trying to say.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.11|172.68.46.11]] 04:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

How did the conversation end in a draw? Was it by agreement? Was it actually "drawn" as mentioned below?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.185|162.158.79.185]] 20:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
:"Fine." "Fine." Agreement. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.202|108.162.210.202]] 23:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The move to score conversations itself was probably a blunder, but it seems that, since the sentence is copied verbatim, that the move to declare your scoring of conversations to somebody else is a blunder. Because that's weird and nobody wants to hear about it. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.72|173.245.50.72]] 18:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello all. Just pointing out that stalemate it's not one of the most common ways to draw a chess game. It's quite rare in fact. Agreement, threefold repetition, perpetual check (and maybe even insufficent material) are statisticaly more usual. Keep up the great job, Albi.--[[Special:Contributions/188.114.102.52|188.114.102.52]] 09:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The last part of the first section, Chess notation (and annotation), says that Cueball would score a conversation "1-0" whether he won it or lost it (depending upon who started the conversation). That is totally ambiguous; he would need more annotation to show whether he started the conversation and won it or the opposite. If I were scoring it - but I'm not a chess player - I would just score it as if I were always white, and it would be clear whether I won or not. What's the point of scoring the conversation if you can't read the score later on? He didn't say he was ''recording'' and scoring his conversations, he just said he was scoring them.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.226|108.162.237.226]] 21:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

HOLY CRAP HOW MUCH OF THIS PAGE IS ''ACTUALLY NECESSARY'' TO EXPLAIN THE JOKE --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.226|108.162.245.226]] 22:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

1781: Artifacts

2017-01-04T19:51:46Z

108.162.245.226: Isn't attacking someone's grammar (in lieu of attacking the argument) one of those logical fallacy things? Attacking grammar isn't the point here.

{{comic
| number = 1781
| date = January 4, 2017
| title = Artifacts
| image = artifacts.png
| titletext = I didn't even realize you could HAVE a data set made up entirely of outliers.
}}

==Explanation==
The comic shows [[Cueball]] presenting data that was probably gathered in research. Cueball seems to have made some kind of mistake in either the statistics or the measurement of the undefined subject of his research, thus his data results in many outliers. The word artifact is a wordplay with two meanings. It is either an {{w|Artifact_(archaeology)|artifact such as the Holy Grail}} (as in ''Indiana Jones'') or a fault in your experiment, where you (usually accidentally) influence the measurement with your equipment or unanticipated environmental factors. These are also called {{w|Artifact_(error)|artifacts}}.
An example of an artifact is the measurement of the force between two charged metal spheres (Coulomb force), where the potential of unearthed nearby objects influences the measurement, thus causing an artifact. Artifacts have occurred before in xkcd, as in [[1453: fMRI]], where getting into the MRI machine induced unintended effects, such as thoughts of claustrophobia.

The title text refers to the entire data set being "outliers." In statistics, an outlier is an observation point that is distant from other observations. Based on the definition it is impossible for ALL data points to be outliers, but that is what Cueball is being accused of having.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball presenting a line graph]
:Cueball: The data clearly proves that-
:Offscreen voice: Are you Indiana Jones? Because you've got a lot of artifacts there, and I'm pretty sure you didn't handle them right.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:1781: Artifacts

2017-01-04T19:48:20Z

108.162.245.226:

Wouldnt data entirely made of outliners just be ..regular measurements that just yields different results?[[User:West|#GoWest-West]] ([[User talk:West|talk]]) 13:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The graph that Cueball is showing looks like the graph from the EM drive paper. Maybe Randall is poking fun at the EM drive with this comic? [[User:Cgplover|Cgplover]] ([[User talk:Cgplover|talk]]) 14:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It does look like the Full Resonance tuner sweep graph [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.238|108.162.237.238]] 15:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Why the emphasis on HAVE in the alttext instead of, say, ENTIRELY?
: I see no issue with this. The speaker is clearly focusing on the probability of the situation. If anything, I'd say that this emphasis is intended to underline the competence, or lack thereof, of the researcher, which is in line with the mocking tone previously given. Not emphasizing HAVE would more indicate the speaker is accepting of the results, but is still surprised by them. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.10|162.158.2.10]] 15:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there also a suggestion that Indiana Jones didn't properly handle artifacts he dealt with?
: Depends... Does dropping the Holy Grail down a crevice count as "not properly"? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.10|162.158.2.10]] 15:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
::I also think that that could be a reference to him holding an artifact while running from that giant boulder. Could be. IDK. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 15:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I have the feeling that I've seen this comic before. Is there another comic where Cueball gives a presentation and is then dissed by his audience? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.223|162.158.89.223]] 15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
:I think you are referring to the one where he is talking about emoticons and parentheses (for example, :)), then gets kicked out of the convention center. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 16:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

To me, the point of the comic is the mistake in the first sentence. "Data" is plural and so the correct wording would have been "the data clearly prove that...". The last sentence points out the error -- there are lots of items on the poster and he didn't handle them correctly -- as a plural -- in the initial statement. The capitalization of HAVE also seems to be a clue that "plural" is the theme ("it has" versus "they have"). [[User:Ibid|Ibid]] ([[User talk:Ibid|talk]]) 16:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure that argument has been addressed in a previous comic, or at least something similar. Linguistic drift changes the way words are used, and as long as the listener understands the speaker, there isn't really a reason to correct it. Also, it's more of a collective term than plural, which in American English use singular parts of speech. Plus, I'm of the camp that believes that loanwords should be treated as part of the language they are joining, rather than the one they are from. English is complicated enough with its Germanic, Greek, Latin, and ''specifically'' French components all contradicting each other on how they should be spelled and pronounced. --[[User:KingStarscream|KingStarscream]] ([[User talk:KingStarscream|talk]]) 16:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
:As far as the ''point'' of the comic being about him using the word incorrectly, that doesn't seem likely considering that the heckler talks about the data chart in the alt text as well. Using a word incorrectly wouldn't be considered an artifact, though the supposition about how it should be used can be in a way. As for the capitalization, it's for emphasis and sarcasm. --[[User:KingStarscream|KingStarscream]] ([[User talk:KingStarscream|talk]]) 17:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
:I don't think it's even ''relevant'' to quip on grammar in this explanation. Besides that, "data" here refers to the singular object of "collection of data", and as such I would think "the data ''proves''" is most correct. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.226|108.162.245.226]] 19:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)