explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3011: Europa Clipper

2024-11-14T16:17:13Z

108.162.246.83: r

I'm not brave enough to actually add an explanation myself, quite yet, but ... I guess this is a reference to the fact(?) that Europa looks a bit like a creme brulee', when viewed from space? https://science.nasa.gov/jupiter/moons/europa/ It does look tasty ... :) [[User:ModelD|ModelD]] ([[User talk:ModelD|talk]]) 12:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:I suspect it's more due to the need to drill through a couple miles of ice to get to the ocean; much like breaking through the sugar crust on a creme broule! [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 13:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you to the people at 9AM Post things on another website to try and explain XKCD Comics. -Forgotten_Mail {{unsigned ip|172.69.33.177|13:30, 13 November 2024}}

The comically large spoon!!!!!!!!!! I love those. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 16:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
: Don't be sucked in! Protect yourself! https://rathergood.com/2017/02/10/spoonguard/ [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.105|141.101.99.105]] 10:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the "Crème brûlée is from France, France is in Europe, the moon is called Europa" connection is a bit of a stretch...? [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 18:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
: Eh, it's the same etymology. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.230|172.69.134.230]] 11:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:: The issue of the continent and the moon coming from the same classical source (for different reasons) rather stretches the link between the dish (from the country, from the country's region/continent, from the region of Greece, ''possibly'' from the pantheon) and the moon (directly from the pantheon). I agree with the 'stretch' assessment. You can probably find easier and more plausible (but wrong) links worth alluding to than that, which relies upon several steps and a ''possible'' polysemic pair of original links. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.58.45|172.70.58.45]] 12:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::From an American perspective, Europe might seem like a distant, mysterious place that you might want to send a probe to to gather interesting information, and also somewhere that crème brûlée comes from. It's also potentially confusable (by the easily confused) with Europa. That seems like a reasonable enough connection to make to me. The mention of France is essentially by the by.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.107|172.71.26.107]] 12:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::It keeps getting said that "Europa is named after Europe", '''which is not correct''' (etymology, BTW, not entomology). I shall have to re-restore some other changes made to the same paragraph in rapid succession whilst I was trying to explain this. Bear with me. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.195|172.70.160.195]] 14:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::...You don't care, do you. You just keep putting it back in. SMH. Have fun. Someone else will probably be along to correct you ''again'' later. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.68.92|141.101.68.92]] 15:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"only a spoonful" moment 💔 [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 19:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone should add a reference to XKCD's previous mention of a Planetary Protection Officer: https://what-if.xkcd.com/117/ [[Special:Contributions/162.158.42.221|162.158.42.221]] 00:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

JUICE mentioned!!! cracker ham cheese cracker ham cheese cracker [[User:N-eh|N-eh]] ([[User talk:N-eh|talk]]) 07:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is a list from NASA about spacecraft instrument deployment failures, they are remarkably frequent: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210020397/downloads/Alphonzo%20Stewart-%20Final%20Paper.pdf [[Special:Contributions/162.158.19.50|162.158.19.50]] 13:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to have a conversation about how the insertion orbit plan is so chaotic that there is a significant chance that the probe might crash in to and pierce the crust of Europa. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.56|162.158.187.56]] 14:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:...and if so, what's the likelihood of hitting just the right angle to scrape off a tasty bit with that spoon? [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 16:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::What would you like it to be? I can't step on butterflies, but I can certainly act according to the purest form of free will by strapping a noise bridge diode to my corpus callosum. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.83|108.162.246.83]] 16:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:Well we just need Elon to lock in the plan that if it crashes then it automatically becomes a sample return mission, and the first SolarCity sales rep to break out +150% of their quota gets to be the one to crash it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.42.130|162.158.42.130]] 15:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I can ''not'' believe I got ChatGPT to make this for me:
{{cot|You have been warned}}

Europa was this smart, ambitious woman just trying to make it out there in the Mediterranean startup scene. She had her plans, her own thing going on, some solid friends, and a bright future. She wasn’t looking for anything too complicated; she just wanted to keep her options open and figure out her next big move.

Enter Zeus. Now, picture him as that intense CEO type—big, powerful, kind of legendary for his influence (and his *questionable* reputation). He’s been around the block a few times, always looking for the next exciting project or, well… person. Zeus saw Europa, and she was exactly his type: sharp, resourceful, had a lot of potential. He was like, "Yeah, I need *that* in my portfolio."

But Zeus was a little extra with his tactics. Instead of just, you know, scheduling a coffee chat or reaching out on LinkedIn like a normal person, he came up with this elaborate scheme. He disguised himself as this beautiful white bull (yeah, Zeus was *that* guy who would make things way more complicated than necessary). He wandered down to the shore near Europa and her friends, looking majestic and mysterious, and let her come to him.

Europa, understandably, was like, "This bull is kind of weirdly friendly and actually pretty cool." She got curious, went closer, and Zeus played it super smooth, staying calm and approachable. When she got comfortable enough, she even climbed onto his back for a ride—just for fun! I mean, who hasn’t hopped onto a crazy idea because it seemed cool at the time, right?

But then things got wild. Suddenly, Zeus took off, sprinting across the beach and straight into the sea. He didn’t just want to show her the local scene; he was taking her across the entire Mediterranean to Crete, like some super intense onboarding retreat she hadn’t signed up for. By the time they got there, she was probably exhausted, confused, and questioning her life choices.

And here’s the kicker: once they arrived, Zeus was like, “Oh hey, it’s me! Not just some chill bull—surprise, I’m Zeus.” At this point, Europa realized she was in way deeper than she’d ever expected. She ended up staying in Crete, becoming queen and building a legacy, which, sure, sounds great on paper. But you have to wonder if that’s what she really wanted in the first place, or if she was just swept up in the whirlwind of Zeus's charm and grand promises.

So, in the end, Europa's career ended up in a place she never saw coming. She became a name people would remember for centuries, but not necessarily on her own terms. It’s the classic millennial dilemma: she got a high-profile "role" with Zeus, but did she really get to build her own brand, or was she just another line in Zeus’s impressive (and very long) resume?

Maybe Europa would look back on this “opportunity” and think, “Did I even want this? Or did I just get pulled into someone else’s grand plan?” A classic case of getting lost in the allure of “networking,” and honestly, a pretty good reminder to always check out who’s really behind the bull.
{{cob}}
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.82|172.68.23.82]] "This bull is kind of weirdly friendly and actually pretty cool" 16:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

3011: Europa Clipper

2024-11-14T12:33:19Z

108.162.246.83: /* Transcript */ revise

{{comic
| number = 3011
| date = November 13, 2024
| title = Europa Clipper
| image = europa_clipper_2x.png
| imagesize = 333x356px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = They had BETTER make this a sample return mission.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a JOVIAN DESSERT. Please consider deleting this tag too soon, but refrain from doing so.}}
[[File:Animation of Europa Clipper trajectory around Jupiter.gif|thumb|right|The ''Europa Clipper's'' projected course around {{w|Jupiter}}, represented as the stationary green dot. In gold is Jupiter's moon {{w|Callisto (moon)|Callisto}}, in cyan is the moon {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}} — the primary target of the spacecraft's study — and in orange-red is the innermost of Jupiter's four {{w|Galilean moons|"Galilean"}} moons, {{w|Io (moon)|Io}}. The spacecraft's track is shown in magenta. Jupiter's largest moon {{w|Ganymede (moon)|Ganymede}} and its second largest moon {{w|Titan (moon)|Titan}} are not shown, but their gravitational pull affects the ''Clipper's'' trajectory. A mission goal is to achieve a 6:1 {{w|orbital resonance}} with Europa.[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin-Ozimek/publication/383115312_AAS_24-433_Europa_Clipper_Mission_Analysis_Pump_Down_Trajectory_Design/links/66bcd845311cbb094938dbd6/AAS-24-433-Europa-Clipper-Mission-Analysis-Pump-Down-Trajectory-Design.pdf] ]]

The ''{{w|Europa Clipper}}'' space probe was launched from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, USA, on 14 October 2024. It is expected to arrive at Jupiter and begin exploration of Jupiter's moons, particularly {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}}, in 2030.

Europa is an icy moon. Water ice covers its surface. Beneath the ice, there is expected to be liquid water, which may contain living microbes. To sample this liquid, its crust (water ice) would need to be broken.

In the comic, the surface ice is likened to the caramel crust on the dessert ''{{w|crème brûlée}}''. To eat this dessert, the crust is broken with a spoon. The dessert was invented in France{{acn}}, which is, of course, part of Europe. Having conflated Europa with Europe, the makers of the probe expect to encounter crème brûlée, and have equipped it with a spoon for the purpose of collecting samples. No such spoon is present on the actual spacecraft{{cn}}, whose trajectory is designed to ''avoid'' contacting Europa so as to prevent {{w|Planetary protection|contamination of any life there}} by microorganisms on the spacecraft.

The title text expands on the main joke by stating that the spacecraft "had BETTER" return samples of the dessert/water ocean to Earth, presumably because Randall is keen to taste the samples. (Although crème brûlée is often served with fruit, it is not mentioned whether Randall expects the sample to be served with {{w|Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer|Juice}}.) Desirable as this might be (for non-gustatory reasons, as the taste of Europa's water ocean would likely be a surprise to a person expecting a custardy flavor), it is impractical.

This may also be a reference to the Cassini-Huygens lander, which, shortly after landing on the surface of Saturn's moon Titan, detected a surface that was [https://www.sciencenews.org/article/world-unveiled-cr%C3%A8me-br%C3%BBl%C3%A9e-titan described] as having a creme brulee consistency.

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

:[A space probe with two rectangular solar panels, a circular dish of the front, and a very large spoon extending beneath, longer than the span of both solar panels]

:[Below the panel:]
:Good news: NASA's '''''Europa Clipper''''' is en route to Europa and has successfully deployed its crème brûlée spoon.

==Trivia==
The Clipper spacecraft was at one point to be developed alongside a lander, which was later dropped from being part of the same (or very closely partnered) mission. The latest version of the {{w|Europa Lander}} proposal is far behind the Clipper in implementation, not yet even being guaranteed funding.

Any actual sample return mission is currently far into the future of {{w|Ocean Worlds Exploration Program|the related plans for exploration}}, along with the possibility of digging deep enough into the ice to finally confirm or dismiss some of the more interesting theories about the world concerned.

In Arthur C Clarke's novel '''2010''', the monolith aliens tell humanity ''"All these worlds are yours - except Europa. Attempt no landing there."''

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Space probes]]
[[Category:Food]]

3010: Geometriphylogenetics

2024-11-12T04:31:33Z

108.162.246.83:

{{comic
| number = 3010
| date = November 11, 2024
| title = Geometriphylogenetics
| image = geometriphylogenetics_2x.png
| imagesize = 316x391px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = There's a maximum likelihood that I'm doing phylogenetics wrong.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A EUCLIDIAN GENOME - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Phylogenetics}} refers to the practice of examining relationships among things that follow the principle of "descent with modification". In the course of descent with modification, one thing may give rise to two if different modifications happen to progeny of the original thing, and those modifications become established. Iterated "splits" over time yield a tree of objects; it is the purpose of phylogenetics to recover these trees, and use the information gained to inform study of the things contained. Phylogenetics has been most commonly applied to the classification/taxonomy of biological species and investigations of their evolutionary history, but it has also been used to examine the evolution of genes and biosynthetic pathways, and also in the study of human languages and their evolution. Data for phylogenetic analyses may come from any attributes ("characters") of the things being examined; {{w|Computational_phylogenetics|rigorous techniques}} for these analysis became available starting in the {{w|Willi_Hennig|1950s}}. In phylogenetic studies of organisms, their DNA is far and away the most data-dense source of information, and consequently, most present-day investigations are based on analyses of selected genes and, increasingly, whole genomes. It is commonplace for such studies, especially on relatively understudied creatures, to reconstruct an evolutionary history (a phylogeny) that is radically different from what had previously been assumed.

This comic presents a tree, which purports to be a phylogenetic tree and resembles one, in which the endpoints ("terminal taxa") are geometric shapes, hence "geometriphylogenetics", a portmanteau of "{{w|geometry}}" and "phylogenetics". The claim, that triangles are more closely related to circles and ellipses than to squares, rectangles, pentangles, and the like, is a riff on the findings, and even the wording, of many authentic phylogenetic research papers. The absurdity, and the joke, is that geometries do not change over time via descent with modification of progeny, therefore phylogenetic principles and techniques are inapplicable to their study. Moreover, geometries do not contain DNA, so genetic analysis, even if relevant, is impossible.

Portmanteau discipline was previously seen in comic [[Geohydrotypography|here]].

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

:[A tree diagram, or a cladogram is shown, consisting of lines that branch off from left to right, starting with one horizontal line on the left. Eight results are shown on the right: ellipse on Path 1, circle on Path 2, triangle on Path 3, parallelogram on Path 4, trapezoid on Path 5, square on Path 6, rectangle on Path 7, and a pentagon on Path 8. The paths are listed in order top to bottom.]
:[Path 3 and the triangle are bold black, while the other branches are dimmer. The paths are connected as follows: Path 2 and 3 are connected, then both connect together to Path 1; Path 4 and 5 are connected, as are Path 6 and 7, and these two paths are connected altogether; Path 8 is then connected to the branch containing Paths 4 to 7. All of Paths 1 to 3 are then connected to Paths 4 to 8, the branches all culminating in a single line on the left.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:The phylogenetic revolution continues:
:Triangles were long believed to be related to squares, but genetic analysis proves that they are actually very pointy circles.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Geometry]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:2184: Unpopular Opinions

2019-10-09T02:43:59Z

108.162.246.83: adding a comment about RT not seeming to have a way to just browse the archive

I wonder if it has to be below 50% with critic score, audience score, or both? [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Genisys has an Audience Score of 53%, so I think it has to be critic score (Tomatometer). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.124|108.162.241.124]] 21:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
::Critics and audiences are really two distinct groups. So to be "apples to apples", I'd think it would have to be a movie with an Audience score below 50. Disagreeing with something critics hated isn't that rare among the general audience. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.18|162.158.106.18]] 04:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::The whole idea of the challenge doesn't make sense if the movie is "only" hated by a handful of random critics. As Randall points out, it is easier to hate a movie that everyone loves, so that is also true for critics. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::I have to agree that basing it on the critic reviews only doesn't make much sense. I can find dozens of movies I like that are rated rotten by the critics, but nearly all of them got good audience reviews (Bright, Constentine, Super Troopers, K-Pax, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, etc). I can only find one that I like that that scores under 50% with both groups, Southland Tales, and even I'll admit it has many flaws. I suspect Randal Monroe was looking at movies that were rated "Rotten" by both groups (green icon and <60%), vs "fresh" (red icon > 60%). But the rules were already a bit too lengthy to spell it out explicitly. [[user]][[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

[https://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/dvd-streaming-all?minTomato=0&maxTomato=49&services=amazon;hbo_go;itunes;netflix_iw;vudu;amazon_prime;fandango_now&genres=1;2;4;5;6;8;9;10;11;13;18;14&sortBy=tomato Movies] on DVD or streaming, tomatometer 49% down to 0%.

Plenty of Twilight fans will raise their hands - it is rated 49% --[[User:Thomcat|Thomcat]] ([[User talk:Thomcat|talk]]) 18:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Well, I'm around the typical age of (original) Twilight fans, and none of the movies in the saga came in my adult life. (But they're all below 50%)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.103.147|162.158.103.147]] 18:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, Shaft got a 30% on the Tomatometer and a 94 on the audience score, and I loved it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.22|108.162.241.22]] 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Do Waterworld, in spite of the fact that it only ticks two of the boxes, count? I really liked that one.
:I also liked Waterworld (44%, 1997) and The Postman (9%, 1995) (both with Kevin Kostner, and sort of the same story). Assuming the definition of adult is 18, they both qualify for the adult part, but not the after 2000 part. I also loved Star Wars Episode I, but sure enough, it's above 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. [[User:WhiteDragon|WhiteDragon]] ([[User talk:WhiteDragon|talk]]) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

:If it didn't come out while you were an adult, then it doesn't count. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:My immediate search was also for Water World. Would it also not count when you didn't watch it until after 2000? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't watch enough movies (or know Rotten Tomatoes well enough) to participate in this particular challenge, but it seems like every time I enjoy a video game, it turns out to have a sizeable and vocal hatedom. I seriously can't relate to the caption here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.165|162.158.107.165]] 20:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Batman v. Superman is probably a good answer for a fair number of people-it has a reasonable number of fans (including myself) who liked it, despite its very poor rating (28%) [[User:SirEpp|SirEpp]] ([[User talk:SirEpp|talk]]) 21:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
: I went to that movie for finding the plausible reason why Batman who only fights criminal and Superman being too unreal for ever being angry for no reason might have a fight which each other. Got less than I expected, in this aspect. But Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, Thor: Ragnarok and Iron Sky are objectively superb films the critics hated. Perhaps with the exception of the relationship between Valerian and Laureline, perhaps, though.[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a movie, per se, but I thought season 8 of Game of Thrones was fantastic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.88|162.158.214.88]] 22:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Critically panned films that I like include: Crimes of Grindelwald, Passengers, and Warcraft. Critically acclaimed films that I do not like: Avatar and Life of Pi. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.213|173.245.48.213]] 22:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Oooh, ''Passengers'' is a good one, I'm stealing that. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I second Crimes of Grindelwald (37 RT), and add Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (48 RT), which I also enjoyed and actually recommend to people. Now these movies aren't "classics" or "great movies", they aren't perfect, but they are effective entertainment, and ''not'' because they "are so bad their good". Grindelwald has many effective scenes and acting, and Valerian is a very effective effort at making a movie out of a comic book that ''feels like a comic book''-- a fact I appreciated. Of course 48 RT is also just under the 50 RT threshold.[[User:Careysub|Careysub]] ([[User talk:Careysub|talk]])
:It's almost like you totally misunderstood the point of the comic. [[User:A74xhx|A74xhx]] ([[User talk:A74xhx|talk]]) 09:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
::How so? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.16|172.69.69.16]] 21:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Not under 50%, but I'm shocked that "The Secret Life of Walter Smitty" has only 51%... National Treasure has only 46%... I like this game, it is a test in optimism.
:"The Secret Life of Walter '''Mitty'''" deserves a low rating, particularly when compared to the original with Danny Kaye. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 05:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Frankly it would be easier to list the movies I like that aren't below 50% on rotten tomatoes. [[User:CJB42|CJB42]] ([[User talk:CJB42|talk]]) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)s

My experience with rotten tomatoes ratings in particular is that they have no clue and I find their ratings useless. The challenge from Randall in this comic is a case in point: the first movie I though to check, “Another Gay Movie” gets a 40% on the tomatometer yet is one of my favorites. Same thing with all the “Eating Out” movies: good comedies that I enjoy, yet Tomatometer scores of 16%, 44%, and 17% for the first three. (And why is “Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds” so much higher ranked than 1 or 3? It’s not that different...)
I think the criteria that Randal assumes (but doesn’t mention) is that the movie has to be a box office hit that appeals to mainstream audiences.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 03:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why Suicide Squad got trashed. It was light, colourful, had an engaging story, and well made. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.209|172.68.253.209]] 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sucker Punch. There, I said it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.77|141.101.99.77]] 07:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I definitely came to this discussion thinking of this movie. It's properly interesting, but it's also easy to see why critics and half the audience hate it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.64|162.158.34.64]] 10:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a certain type of movie that 'h8ers' will auto-trash before they even come out (especially "Gender-switched version of a classic", like that ''Ghostbusters'', and "Strong female type", like ''Wonder Woman'' - as easy examples of those that some people love to hate, regardless of actual merit). So I recon there'd be good mileage in keeping an eye on (for example) the double-whammy that is the upcoming Female Thor movie. If it doesn't ''actually'' turn out to be so bad that you personally don't like it, I predict that it'll be pre-release troll-sniped down below 50% in "popular" opinion and even if they're not at all right about their guess there'll be a window of opportunity before any counter-viewpoint from actual viewers ups the score again. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:No one hated Wonder Woman. It has 93%, and is arguably the best live action superhero movie that DC has released so far. Ghostbusters was a money grabbing remake that brought nothing new. It COULD have been great with almost no effort, by getting someone to write an original script that built on the things that came before that everyone loves, instead of trying to replace it with an inferior version. The only one to blame is the Hollywood studios that would rather throw money at something that already exists instead of taking a risk on an unknown. Then they add insult to injury and tell everyone that the reason they failed isn't because they made bad decisions, but because ''people don't like seeing women in leading roles'', which is not true in any form. No real people care if the lead is male or female. They care about a good story, good acting, and having a good time watching a movie they paid their money for. [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

What the heck are all these Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller movies doing at sub-50%? I didn't know people supposedly hated Night at the Museum that much. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.67|172.68.189.67]] 17:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found two: Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. I don't consider them like super-good, but I like them. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found four: Hancock, Knowing, The Lovely Bones, The Book of Eli.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.28|162.158.150.28]] 11:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Immediately: Venom (29%) I like to pretend I like it for the "so bad it's good", but here in anonymous interwebzland, I can admit I just enjoyed it (despite expecting to hate it for the retcon). Does it matter that the RT audience score is 81%? I often find that my enjoyment of a movie is inversely proportional to how much critics didn't, and it seems I'm not alone.[[User:Daemonik|Daemonik]] ([[User talk:Daemonik|talk]]) 09:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the point here is that people feel more comfortable disliking something than liking it. It isn't that we don't all have movies that we like that other people hated, it's that many of us are afraid to say it. Also, t's not a movie, but I honestly enjoyed that one episode of ''Stranger Things''. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 04:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I admit a weakness for the Roland Emmerich movies ("The Day After Tomorrow" and "2012"). OK the science behind the events is pretty rubbish, but they are decent action movies nonetheless with a few enjoyable twists (like the USA having to beg Mexico to let them emigrate south in TDAT).

I'm shocked no one else has mentioned Jupiter Ascending yet; there was a decent amount of silliness in that movie, but I genuinely found it super compelling, and it deserves better than a 27%. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.90|172.68.65.90]] 16:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

300 got very mediocre reviews (52% on Metacritic), but I'ts absolutely one of my all-time favourite action movies. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 16:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Geostorm. Didn't even need the link for that. [[User:Conster|Conster]] ([[User talk:Conster|talk]]) 21:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Like another user said, Roland Emmerich movies like TDAT and 2012 are ones I'll always be a sucker for. Also, The Book of Eli (2010) is actually a great movie IMO despite having a 48% on RT. I always put that as a classic. Meet the Fockers (2004) is funny, too.

Side note: Armageddon is a pre-2000 movie (1998), but I think most would agree that it's a classic apocalyptic movie.

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 14:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, a reminder that the original Purge movie has a 39% on RT. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 15:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

How, by all that is holy, does The Human Centipede get a 49% Tomatometer rating? Give me a win for Mr Popper's Penguins, though. [[User:Observer of the Absurd|Observer of the Absurd]] ([[User talk:Observer of the Absurd|talk]]) 18:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
== Post-2000? ==

Anyone have an idea why "post-2000" is a criteria? [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 23:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Maybe because Rotten Tomatoes was launched close to the end of the 1990s, so post-2000 movies are the only ones that have been reviewed as they came out? Or perhaps it's to limit the scope of "movies that came out in your adult life", since adult life could go back a long way for some people. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I don't know for certain, but I feel incredibly confident that it's the timing of Rotten Tomatoes, that older movies that came out before the site existed won't be thoroughly / properly covered. Like if you look closely you'll see the 40% rating on this movie comes from only 1 vote. I suspect Randall feels that as of 2000, there was enough activity on the site to provide sufficient coverage. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:Pre-2000 films, being prior to RT, have the 'benefit'  of studied hindsight. Anybody who bothers to review [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1003722_casino_royale the ''original'' Casino Royale], which would be my choice for this if I were allowed, just has far too much baggage to be thinking the same as with something just being appreciated in the context as a new-release. Including me, probably, across the many years since I first saw that film and fell in love with it, despite the obvious and total car-crash of its Development Hell! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:And there's a lot of selection bias in who reviews movies from pre-2000 as anyone who reviews a movie probably only went to that movies page and wrote a review, because they either really like the movie, or really really really hate it.[[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
:It's stated in the explanation: it is so that most respondents would choose a movie that they have seen in their adult life and avoid the "childhood nostalgia" bias where you have fond memories of a movie watched as a kid but that you wouldn't enjoy watching as an adult.

I KNOW that there are many, many movies I can apply to this challenge - I often find myself enjoying unpopular movies. Plus, critics suck, they seem to always forget that this is ENTERTAINMENT. A clever movie that is dull as dirt and makes you fall asleep should NOT receive high praise, it fails at the primary function - but I can't think of them in the moment. About a week ago on Facebook I had a memory, a list of facts about Eurotrip, where the article called it a flop, while I loved it, so probably that one. This comic triggered my first ever visit to Rotten Tomatoes, who lists Eurotrip as I think 46%, but much higher for Audience score, so I THINK it counts? What bumps me is that it seems like "Audience Score" would be popular opinion, making Eurotrip actually a Popular movie, which seems like then it wouldn't apply here. ???? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:Got one! I love The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and Rotten Tomatoes scores it a 17% Tomatometer, 44% Audience score. Dunno why, I found it so cool, so enjoyable! I often wish there was a sequel or even a series. :)[[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 07:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hypothesis: People generally give more positive then negative reviews, and positive reviews also cause more people to watch. The number of watching for something bad is therefor lower, while a good movie is watched so often there is always a critic.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.190|172.69.55.190]] 10:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with people who don't like Ghost Rider or Daredevil? — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 19:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

My favorite bad movies Wild Wild West, The One, Returner, Equilibrium, The Warrior's Way [[User:Houligan|Houligan]] ([[User talk:Houligan|talk]]) 15:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I liked 50 First Dates. But for my really controversial opinion, I'm gonna say not only was Armageddon a terrific movie, but it got enough of the science right to earn our suspension of disbelief :D
--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.245|172.68.142.245]] 21:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Is [[653: So Bad It's Worse]] related enough to be mentioned in the explaination or trivia? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I just came here to say, "Pandorum".

How to talk to girls at parties (2018) - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.113|172.68.46.113]] 20:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Guilty Pleasure: ''The Sorcerer's Apprentice'' - [[User:Acrisius|Acrisius]] ([[User talk:Acrisius|talk]]) 06:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Think of a video-game based movie you actually like. It probably fits this. 2001's Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and 2005's Doom have 47% and 34% audience rating, respectively, and I loved both of those (despite the fact that they had basically nothing to do with the games). A few game-based movies have over 50% audience rating, but even then, only 2-3 ever got above 50% with the critics. Heck, even the Pokemon movies got horrible critic ratings (the second movie came out in 2000, so you'd have to start with the third to adhere to that 'post-2000' rule)...

==My big, late comment==

So my three are
:''50 First Dates'' (I'm a sucker for hopeless romantic-type stuff and the gross out comedy didn't go too far to cancel it out),
:''Bruce Almighty'', because Morgan Freeman killed it as God, and
:''Book of Eli'', because that twist is awesome on the successive watch, and even on the first if you figure it out early

However, I take issue with a STRICT limitation of "post-2000", and I would just say if you're going to choose one pre-2000, it has to be a personal favorite, like personal top-50 or so movie, and for me, those would be
:''Hook'', because Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman did their duty to the script and deserve at least 50% on the tomato meter, no matter what balls the other characters or plot dropped,
:''Robin Hood: Men in Tights'', because the cast, characters, gags, and anachronisms are essentially timeless; from Broomhilda breaking the concrete when the horse dodged her; to Blinkin... idunno, everything Blinkin; to Achoo's added attitude and flavor; and all the character's breaking of the fourth wall... goodness... the critics missed this one
:''Boondock Saints'' - not for everyone, but dang, it's just a really interesting and slightly morbid romp of a story about vigilantes rising up against organized crime, mixing humor in with seriousness in just the right amounts and just about perfect pacing

Ok, so I also think there are a few that really don't deserve the low rating they got, even if they weren't the best or my "favorites" - my rubric for adding them here was if I thought they deserved at least 30% more on the tomato meter. If they're just a teeny bit low (like 10%) then that's too close to personal taste for me to add as an argument, so...
:I Think ''Crimes of Grindelwald'' should have gotten more like a 70%, mostly for the world building they continued from the first movie
:I really liked ''Jumper'' (just not QUITE enough to stick my neck out for the real list above) - really great concept that wasn't ruined by sub-par acting, even if it wasn't exactly enhanced - should have been more like 50%
:''The Day The Earth Stood Still'' - again, not the best movie in existence, but got a bad rap - just above 50% seems more appropriate to me
:''After Earth'' - far from either of the Smith's best works, but more deserving than 11% for the world and effects
:''Planes'' - maybe the sequel was too much, and of course it's largely a cash grab and targeted at kids, but it was a decent story and the characters were executed well above a 25% rating - I'd say it should even be just barely fresh, so 60%
:''Chappie'' - I think it was just really interesting, despite the stretches technologically speaking, giving a window (sort of) into a culture not well represented in the U.S. - basically I think it should be just barely fresh as well

And finally what I'm really glad nobody spoke up about are a few of my pet peeves - movies that deserved a low score and got it, but every once in a while I hear people saying they enjoyed it. I'm just glad nobody prior to this seems to have mentioned: Semi Pro and any of the Transformers travesties. I just wanted to take a moment and thank you all for that. -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 20:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.83|108.162.246.83]] 02:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
So personally, I'm trying to figure out if I can even make a list of all qualifying movies. Would make the game easier if we could have that, but I can't even figure out how to search Rotten Tomatoes for movies beyond what's currently out in theatres. Any advice or relevant links, anyone?
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.83|108.162.246.83]] 02:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

2065: Who Sends the First Text?

2018-11-11T21:08:13Z

108.162.246.83: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2065
| date = October 29, 2018
| title = Who Sends the First Text?
| image = who_sends_the_first_text.png
| titletext = I sort of wish my texting app showed the percentage next to each person, but also sort of don't want to know.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Please only mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
{{w|Text messaging}} is a back-and-forth communication via SMS between two users. In this comic, Randall shows a line graph of "who sends the first text more often?" This is meant to show who Randall initiates conversations with, and who initiates conversations with him.

Maintaining a friendship or relationship (whether intimate, friendship, casual, or business) typically requires communication; often that communication takes place when two individuals are not in the same location by means of an exchange of text messages. A normal balanced relationship typically involves both parties involved to have an approximately equal interest in making conversations happen, as measured in this case by "who sends the first text". The person who desires that a particular communication take place typically will send a text message, and once the other person responds the conversation happens, and the relationship progresses. If neither person initiates, the relationship will likely suffer.

While this graph shows the majority of his relationships involve friends whereby both sides are prone to initiating conversations, the graph also shows some groups that are a little more at the extremes, some where Randall texts a lot but they typically don't initiate text conversations to him, and some where others text him a lot but he rarely initiates text conversations with them.

On the left side of the graph are people with whom Randall initiates conversations with "100% of the time". On the right side of the graph are those who initiate conversations with Randall.

The chart is separated into 5 blocks. The two blocks on the left are those who may be, or definitely are, "just politely putting up with [Randall]". This is implied that they may not be close friends with Randall, but Randall still wants to be friends with them. Their reluctance to initiate conversation with Randall is shown by the fact that Randall usually sends the first text to them.

The largest block, in the middle, is "friends". These friends range from Randall initiating a lot, to them initiating a lot. There is a healthy range of who initiates first.

The next block to the right is for "that really nice friend who keeps inviting me to things even though I flake constantly". This means that Randall promises to go to events that this friend invites him to, but does not always follow through. This friend is still persistent in inviting Randall. Additionally, Randall could be less close to this person, based on him not categorizing this person under "friends".

The final block is "automated alerts and political campaigns". Randall would certainly not be likely to initiate "conversation" with automated systems, and would be very unlikely to initiate conversations with political campaigns. The fact that the bar is not purely 100% suggests that he has on rare occasion sent the first text to such recipients, perhaps for a campaign he believes in, or to request to be added to an automated alert system (i.e. opt-in). The fact that it includes political campaigns is a reference to the incessant texts being sent to Americans about the upcoming midterms.

In the title text, Randall wishes that he would know the percentage of "who sends the first text more often", for each person that he texts. But he is also wary of the potential implications of finding out this information.
(Many old school messenger like pidgin offer such statistics through plugins thought)

==Transcript==
:'''Who sends the first text more often?'''
:[A line graph with a segmented bar underneath shows a 50/50 marker in the middle while the left end is labeled "I text first 100% of the time" whereas the right end is labeled "They text first 100% of the time".]

:[The bar below is divided into five sections:]

:[A small part at the left, and a next, slightly larger part. The text below points to the second part:]
:People who I think of as friends but secretly worry that they're just politely putting up with me

:[Below this a text is shown for the first part:]
:...'''''definitely''''' just politely putting up with me

:[In the middle is a big part:]
:Friends

:[To the right the parts are symmetric, the first is larger:]
:That really nice friend who keeps inviting me to things even though I flake constantly

:[The last small bar at the right:]
:Automated alerts and political campaigns

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]

Talk:2069: Wishlist

2018-11-07T21:01:01Z

108.162.246.83: added note about the Sarlacc pit in lego games

Inspired by the current furore over Super Smash Bros being branded racist over the character Mr Game And Watch, perhaps? I know people started yelling over the last few days, but don't play the game so I don't have any further details. Feel free to delete / expand. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.160|172.69.62.160]] 09:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Clippy: "It was an intelligent user interface that assisted users." Really? Did you have a different clippy? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.45|141.101.69.45]] 10:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Randall should submit his list to McLeodGaming, maybe they will put one of these into SSF3. https://mcleodgaming.fandom.com/wiki/Character#Playable_characters_2 --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.44|162.158.88.44]] 10:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The Mario and Luigi hybrid might be a reference to [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/bowsette this monstrosity]. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 12:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

InstallShield Wizard Final Smash: Install malware. Screen glitches out, game blue screens, everyone takes damage and goes flying. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 14:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

If this comic left you wanting more: https://thehardtimes.net/harddrive/will-not-play-new-smash-bros-unless-includes {{unsigned ip|172.68.230.106}}

is it just me or is the the Ruth Bader Ginsberg reference maybe related to how she looks like an older version bayonetta? {{unsigned ip|162.158.106.168}}

I assumed Lot's wife would be the pillar of salt version, because of how salty Smash players are when they lose. -[[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.196|162.158.38.196]] 20:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The Lego Star Wars games for the Gamecude and Wii feature the Sarlacc Pit, though mostly asa a background/cutscene element, and definitely not as a playable character. It should probably also be noted that these games were multi-platform. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.83|108.162.246.83]] 21:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2066: Ballot Selfies

2018-11-01T01:38:20Z

108.162.246.83:

What harm do laws banning ballot selfies do? [[User:Ryanker|Ryanker]] ([[User talk:Ryanker|talk]]) 15:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)ryanker
: You're coming at it from exactly the wrong direction. What harm does taking a ballot selfie do? {{unsigned ip|40.57.163.322}}
: I'm thinking the flavor text is talking as if from the point of view of someone who has grown used to sharing photos of themselves with others, to communicate, encourage, feel connected. Depicting their own behavior so directly might even seem a valid way to sway someone's opinion to such a person. I guess when thinking about it, it would support democracy better to share the act of voting rather than the actual vote made. Curious regarding other opinions. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.83|162.158.91.83]] 16:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
:: yes, fully agree with this. Just take all the selfies you want on the way there, in front of the place where you vote, on the way back. Just not during that one minute you spend inside the booth, and not showing your actual ballot. If you absolutely want to disclose what you actually voted for, you can still do so by writing a caption. It's that simple, and probably legal in most places around the world.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.140|141.101.77.140]] 16:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
: Thought of another reason: if the government were to hack or misrepresent the vote, the people could use proof of voting to prove the fraud. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.136|172.68.50.136]] 16:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
:: If a government can hack your vote, couldn't they hack your phone? ;-) [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 16:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
::: But you could just print out the photo, and it becomes physical, unhackable proof. {{unsigned ip|162.158.79.101}}
::: Additionally, to fake your vote, all they need to do is lie. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.27|162.158.93.27]] 00:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

In the United kingdom it is illegal to take a phtograph of the ballot paper even if no vote is recorded - as such an image could reveal the mark used to authenticate the ballot paper.
Until recently this was a pattern of holed stamped into the paper as it is issued, though now printed bar codes are used. Theoretically if you know the mark, you could then stuff a ballot box. Although if the number of papers does not match that recorded by the returning clerk then the entire box would be declared invalid and the election rerun. [[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 16:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
: I think you're saying that in states where vote selfies are legal, somebody might be able to use such a selfie to produce counterfeit ballots, and submit them. Also that the ballots are counted and a vote is rerun whenever the count is wrong, to additionally deter this. It's hard to believe that count is always correct for such huge numbers of physical objects each handled by a human being: does this rerun happen commonly? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.27|162.158.93.27]] 00:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2066: Ballot Selfies

2018-11-01T01:36:37Z

108.162.246.83:

What harm do laws banning ballot selfies do? [[User:Ryanker|Ryanker]] ([[User talk:Ryanker|talk]]) 15:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)ryanker
: You're coming at it from exactly the wrong direction. What harm does taking a ballot selfie do?
: I'm thinking the flavor text is talking as if from the point of view of someone who has grown used to sharing photos of themselves with others, to communicate, encourage, feel connected. Depicting their own behavior so directly might even seem a valid way to sway someone's opinion to such a person. I guess when thinking about it, it would support democracy better to share the act of voting rather than the actual vote made. Curious regarding other opinions. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.83|162.158.91.83]] 16:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
:: yes, fully agree with this. Just take all the selfies you want on the way there, in front of the place where you vote, on the way back. Just not during that one minute you spend inside the booth, and not showing your actual ballot. If you absolutely want to disclose what you actually voted for, you can still do so by writing a caption. It's that simple, and probably legal in most places around the world.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.140|141.101.77.140]] 16:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
: Thought of another reason: if the government were to hack or misrepresent the vote, the people could use proof of voting to prove the fraud. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.136|172.68.50.136]] 16:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
:: If a government can hack your vote, couldn't they hack your phone? ;-) [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 16:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
::: But you could just print out the photo, and it becomes physical, unhackable proof. {{unsigned ip|162.158.79.101}}
::: Additionally, to fake your vote, all they need to do is lie. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.27|162.158.93.27]] 00:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

In the United kingdom it is illegal to take a phtograph of the ballot paper even if no vote is recorded - as such an image could reveal the mark used to authenticate the ballot paper.
Until recently this was a pattern of holed stamped into the paper as it is issued, though now printed bar codes are used. Theoretically if you know the mark, you could then stuff a ballot box. Although if the number of papers does not match that recorded by the returning clerk then the entire box would be declared invalid and the election rerun. [[User:Arachrah|Arachrah]] ([[User talk:Arachrah|talk]]) 16:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
: I think you're saying that in states where vote selfies are legal, somebody might be able to use such a selfie to produce counterfeit ballots, and submit them. Also that the ballots are counted and a vote is rerun whenever the count is wrong, to additionally deter this. It's hard to believe that count is always correct for such huge numbers of physical objects each handled by a human being: does this rerun happen commonly? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.27|162.158.93.27]] 00:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

2066: Ballot Selfies

2018-11-01T01:34:33Z

108.162.246.83: /* Explanation */ when is getting more citizen participation NOT a good thing?

{{comic
| number = 2066
| date = October 31, 2018
| title = Ballot Selfies
| image = ballot_selfies.png
| titletext = There were actually some good reasons for those laws, but IMO they now do more harm than good. Which raises a question: If there's a ballot measure to strike them down, how can I resist the urge to take a picture of my "yes" vote?
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Any comments about the "more harm than good" mentioned in the title text? Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic was published six days prior to the {{w|United States elections, 2018|2018 United States general elections}}, also called {{w|United States midterm election|midterm elections}}, because they happen in the middle of two presidential elections, two years before and after. At the time, the [[xkcd]] header still provided a link to [https://www.vote.org/ vote.org], a website that helps US citizens with essential voting issues, like how to register or how to find their polling locations.

In the United States, "{{w|ballot selfie}}s" refers to the practice of taking a picture of oneself with a completed ballot. These have been declared illegal in many states, the fear being that showing proof that someone has voted a certain way can enable the buying or violent coercion of votes. On the other hand, the desire to take and distribute ballot selfies often comes from an excitement in participating in the voting process and the desire to share that excitement in the hopes of encouraging others to vote, and anything that helps get more people to the polls is a good thing. This dual threat/benefit has led some states to explicitly legalize ballot selfies, other states to specifically disallow it and even levy steep financial penalties, while the rest are still debating or ignoring the issue[https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/25/13389980/ballot-selfie-legal-illegal].

As [[Ponytail]] is aware of this law, she believes she has identified a solution wherein she will make an {{w|oil painting}} of her voting rather than taking a {{w|photograph}}. A painting being more of an artistic endeavor that doesn't have to faithfully record all aspects of the image, it may well be valid both on grounds of {{w|freedom of speech}} as well as not being a verbatim record of her vote. Of course, this may lead to additional problems. If she intends to paint the portrait herself, of herself (i.e. a {{w|self-portrait}}) casting her vote, it would be very difficult and time consuming to attempt to do that, especially without a mirror, which she apparently doesn't have with her and which is generally not standard issue in voting booths. She could also try to recruit someone else to do the painting, not knowing the level of their artistic talent, however, usually only the person casting the vote is allowed in the booth, and they are expected to close the curtain or otherwise ensure no outside person, like the painter, can view the vote casting act.

While [[Hairbun]] and [[White Hat]] are simply standing in line, [[Megan]] can be seen using a mobile phone - potentially checking for optimal Selfie Filters.

In many US states, changes to state law can be made through the {{w|Initiatives and referendums in the United States|initiative and referendum}} process.

The title text refers to the legality of taking a ballot selfie whilst voting against the law against ballot selfies.

==Transcript==
:[Megan, Ponytail, Cueball, White Hat, and Hairbun are standing in a line with Hairbun in front. All are facing forward to the right except Cueball, who is looking to his left at Ponytail. Megan holds a phone in her hand while Ponytail carries an easel under her left arm and a paintbrush in her right hand.]
:Ponytail: Ballot selfies are illegal in this state, so to immortalize my vote I'm doing an oil painting in the voting booth.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Politics]]

375: Pod Bay Doors

2018-10-12T21:50:51Z

108.162.246.83: Reference to "Still Alive"

{{comic
| number = 375
| date = January 25, 2008
| title = Pod Bay Doors
| image = pod_bay_doors.png
| titletext = As they're both unplugged, they do a lovely Daisy Daisy/Still Alive duet.
}}

==Explanation==
The first part of the dialog is taken from a scene from the classic science-fiction movie ''{{w|2001: A Space Odyssey (film)|2001: A Space Odyssey}}'', where the {{w|artificial intelligence|artificial intelligent}} (AI) computer {{w|HAL 9000}}, controlling the spacecraft ''S.S. Discovery'', is trying to kill the human astronaut Dave (Dr. David Bowman) because it believes he jeopardizes the mission by planning to disconnect it. Just short before this scene HAL did kill Frank Poole and three more members of the crew, Dave is the only survivor. He is at this time outside the spacecraft in a space pod, and when he request for HAL to open the '''Pod Bay Doors''' (hence the title), HAL refuses.

'''Spoiler alert:''' In the movie, Dave blasts himself back into the space ship and then disconnects HAL. It is a very sad scene, where he takes out HAL's memory cards (or crystals from the memory center - it's an old movie from 1968) one by one, so HAL becomes less and less intelligent during the process, during which he keeps trying to persuade Dave to stop as long as he still understands what is happening. HAL was right that the humans wished to "kill" him, as he had read the astronauts lips during a conversation where he could not hear them, but sees them, so he actually acted in self defense, which for any human being would be considered a reasonable act of self preservation.

The first two sentences are directly copied from the [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/quotes?item=qt0396921 movie quote], and the rest of the first two panels is paraphrased from the real quote. But then in the third panel, the text deviates from the plot of the movie.

And in the last sentence of the third panel in the comic, HAL mentions a replacement for Dave, which comes as a surprise for Dave, seeing that the rest of the crew is dead, and the ''S.S. Discovery'' is about to enter orbit around {{w|Jupiter}}. HAL assures David that the replacement is very enthusiastic about the project.

In the final frame it is revealed why this replacement is enthusiastic, when the replacement begins to speak, and HAL reveals that it is {{w|GLaDOS}}. GLaDOS is the artificial intelligence from the video game series {{w|Portal (video game)|''Portal''}}. In the games GLaDOS is also the primary antagonist, trying to kill the player, since it also has "doing science" as its primary objective, which GLaDOS refers to in his last sentence. Also, GLaDOS's last line is a reference to the song "Still Alive" at the end of Portal. Before that he correctly states that the humans (both Dave and Frank) planned to "kill" HAL, see the ''spoiler'' above. GLaDOS also takes over HAL's last sentence to Dave, finishing the useless conversation by saying ''Goodbye, Dave.'' Although in the movie HAL says ''Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.''

The title text alludes to the songs both AIs sang in their respective works: When eventually being switched off, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hchUl3QlJZE HAL sang] ''{{w|Daisy Bell}}'' , while ''{{w|Still Alive}}'' is the end credits song from the ''Portal'' video game, [https://youtu.be/RthZgszykLs sung by the defeated GLaDOS]. Also, two of GLaDOS's lines in the comic reference [http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/p/portal/still_alive.html lines from Still Alive]: "[https://youtu.be/RthZgszykLs?t=116 You broke my heart and killed me]" and "[https://youtu.be/RthZgszykLs?t=190 Look at me still talking when there's science to do]".

There is a subtle play on words with the use of 'unplugged' which has a double meaning here, the state of HAL and GLaDOS can be described as unplugged as in no longer switched on, and the musical performance style of unplugged where {{w|Acoustic music|acoustic instruments}} are preferred over electronic and there is no use of recording or sampled sounds etc. (see for example {{w|MTV Unplugged}}). Some songs performed in this manner are considered to be better than the original versions.

==Transcript==
:[In four black panels with white drawings, a small space pod is facing a large spacecraft. The space pod is spherical and has an arm protruding in the direction of the large space ship, and a small window in the side. The front of the spacecraft is also spherical, but to the right the space craft continues, with two rings around a cylinder going off panel to the right. There are several dark spots and features on the side of the sphere and at the top is a large black window, at what must be the bridge. A man (Dave) inside the pod talks to the spacecraft's computer HAL. When Dave speaks soft wiggling lines go from the pod to the white text and when HAL speaks zigzag lines go to the front of the space craft.]
:Dave: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
:HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
:Dave: What? Why?

:[Same scene.]
:HAL: I think you know why, Dave.
:HAL: You're planning to disconnect me.
:Dave: Because you're taking over!
:HAL: The mission is too important for you to jeopardize it.

:[Same scene.]
:HAL: It requires a commitment to science unfettered by human error.
:Dave: What are you doing, HAL? You need me.
:HAL: Your replacement has expressed the greatest enthusiasm for the project.

:[Same scene, but the new replacement (GLaDOS) speaks with purple text and purple zigzag lines goes from the spacecraft to the text.]
:Dave: My ''WHAT?''
:GLaDOS: You see, HAL? I told you the humans would only break your heart and kill you.
:HAL: Indeed, GLaDOS.
:GLaDOS: But look at us here talking when there's science to do! Goodbye, Dave.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics with inverted brightness]]
[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]
[[Category:Fiction]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Video games]]
[[Category:Songs]]

2048: Curve-Fitting

2018-10-11T01:38:46Z

108.162.246.83: /* Linear, No Slope */ student was referred to as an "it", changed to "they"/"their"

{{comic
| number = 2048
| date = September 19, 2018
| title = Curve-Fitting
| image = curve_fitting.png
| titletext = Cauchy-Lorentz: "Something alarmingly mathematical is happening, and you should probably pause to Google my name and check what field I originally worked in."
}}

==Explanation==

An illustration of several plots of the same data with {{w|Curve fitting|curves fitted}} to the points, paired with conclusions that you might draw about the person who made them. These data, when plotted on an X/Y graph, appear to have a general upward trend, but the data is far too noisy, with too few data points, to clearly suggest any specific growth pattern. In such a case, many different mathematical and statistical models ''could'' be presented as roughly fitting the data, but none of them fits well enough to compellingly represent the data.

When modeling such a problem statistically, much of the work of a data scientist or statistician is knowing which fitting method is most appropriate for the data in question. Here we see various hypothetical scientists or statisticians each applying their own interpretations to the exact same data, and the comic mocks each of them for their various personal biases or other assorted excuses. In general, the researcher will specify the form of an equation for the line to be drawn, and an algorithm will produce the actual line.

Nonetheless scientists work much more seriously on the reliability of their assumptions by giving a value for the {{w|Standard deviation|standard deviation}} represented by the Greek letter sigma σ or the Latin letter s as a measure to quantify the amount of variation of the data points against the presented ''best fit''. If the σ-value isn't good enough an interpretation based on a specific fit wouldn't be accepted by the science community.

Since [[Randall]] gives no hint about the nature of the used data set - same in each graph - any fitting presented doesn't make any sense. The graphs could represent a star map, the votes for the latest elected presidents, or your recent invoices on power consumption. This comic just exaggerates various methods on interpreting data, but without the knowledge of the matter in the background nothing makes any sense.

===Linear===
[[File:Anscombe's quartet 3.svg|thumb|200px|Different data sets result in the same regression.]]
<math>f(x) = mx + b</math>

{{w|Linear regression}} is the most basic form of regression; it tries to find the straight line that best approximates the data. As it's the simplest, most widely taught form of regression, and in general derivable function are locally well approximated by a straight line, it's usually the first and most trivial attempt of fit.

The picture to the right shows how totally different data sets can result into the same line. It's obvious that some more basics about the nature of the data must be used to understand if this simple line really does make sense.

The comment below the graph ''"Hey, I did a regression."'' refers to the fact that this is just the easiest way of fitting data into a curve.

===Quadratic===
<math>f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c</math>

{{w|Polynomial regression|Quadratic fit}} (i.e. fitting a parabola through the data) is the lowest grade polynomial that can be used to fit data through a curved line; if the data exhibits clearly "curved" behavior (or if the experimenter feels that its growth should be more than linear), a parabola is often the first, easiest, stab at fitting the data.

The comment below the graph ''"I wanted a curved line, so I made one with math."'' suggests that a quadratic regression is used when straight lines no longer satisfy the researcher, but he still wants to use simple math expression. Quadratic correlations like this are mathematically valid and one of the simplest kind of curve in math, but this curve doesn't appear to satisfy the data any better than does simple, linear regression.

===Logarithmic===
[[File:Logarithm_plots.png|thumb|200px|Common logarithm functions.]]
<math>f(x) = a\log_b(x) + c</math>

A {{w|Logarithm|logarithmic}} curve growths slower on higher values, but still grows without bound to infinity rather than approaching a horizontal {{w|asymptote}}. The small ''b'' in the formula represents the base which is in most cases ''{{w|e (mathematical constant)|e}}'', 10, or 2. If the data presumably does approach a horizontal asymptote then this fit isn't an effective method to explain the nature of the data.

The comment below the graph ''"Look, it's tapering off!"'' builds up the impression that the data diminishes while under this fit it's still growing to infinity, only much slower than a linear regression does.

===Exponential===
[[File:Exponential.svg|thumb|200px|Exponential growth (green) compared to other functions.]]
<math>f(x) = a\cdot b^x + c</math>

An {{w|Exponential growth|exponential curve}}, on the contrary, is typical of a phenomenon whose growth gets rapidly faster and faster - a common case is a process that generates stuff that contributes to the process itself, think bacteria growth or compound interest.

The logarithmic and exponential interpretations could very easily be fudged or engineered by a researcher with an agenda (such as by taking a misleading subset or even outright lying about the regression), which the comic mocks by juxtaposing them side-by-side on the same set of data.

The comment below the graph ''"Look, it's growing uncontrollably!"'' gives an other frivolous statement suggesting something like chaos. Also this even faster growth is well defined and has no asymptote at both axes.

===LOESS===
A {{w|Local regression|LOESS fit}} doesn't use a single formula to fit all the data, but approximates data points locally using different polynomials for each "zone" (weighting differently data points as they get further from it) and patching them together. As it has much more degrees of freedom compared to a single polynomial, it generally "fits better" to any data set, although it is generally impossible to derive any strong, "clean" mathematical correlation from it - it is just a nice smooth line that approximates well the data points, with a good degree of rejection from outliers.

The comment below the graph ''"I'm sophisticated, not like those bumbling polynomial people."'' emphasis this more complicated interpretation but without a simple mathematical description it's not very helpful to find academic descriptions on the underlying matter.

===Linear, No Slope===
<math>f(x) = c</math>

Apparently, the person making this line figured out pretty early on that their data analysis was turning into a scatter plot, and wanted to escape their personal stigma of scatter plots by drawing an obviously false regression line on top of it. Alternatively, they were hoping the data would be flat, and are trying to pretend that there's no real trend to the data by drawing a horizontal trend line.

The comment below the graph ''"I'm making a scatter plot but I don't want to."'' is probably done by a student who isn't happy with their choice of field of study.

===Logistic===
[[File:Logistic-curve.svg|thumb|200px|A standard logistic function between the values ''0'' and ''1''.]]
The {{w|Logistic regression|logistic regression}} is taken when a variable can take binary results such as "0" and "1" or "old" and "young".

The curve provides a smooth, S-shaped transition curve between two flat intervals (like "0" and "1").

The comment below the graph ''"I need to connect these two lines, but my first idea didn't have enough math."'' implies the experimenter just wants to find a mathematically-respectable way to link two flat lines.

===Confidence Interval===
Not a type of curve fitting, but a method of depicting the predictive power of a curve.

Providing a confidence interval over the graph shows the uncertainty of the acquired data, thus acknowledging the uncertain results of the experiment, and showing the will not to "cheat" with "easy" regression curves.

The comment below the graph ''"Listen, science is hard. But I'm a serious person doing my best."'' is just an honest statement about this uncertainty.

===Piecewise===
Mapping different curves to different segments of the data. This is a legitimate strategy, but the different segments should be meaningful, such as if they were pulled from different populations.

This kind of fit would arise naturally in a study based on a regression discontinuity design. For instance, if students who score below a certain cutoff must take remedial classes, the line for outcomes of those below the cutoff would reasonably be separate from the one for outcomes above the cutoff; the distance between the end of the two lines could be considered the effect of the treatment, under certain assumptions. This kind of study design is used to investigate causal theories, where mere correlation in observational data is not enough to prove anything. Thus, the associated text would be appropriate; there is a theory, and data that might prove the theory is hard to find.

One notable time this is used is when a researcher studying housing economics is trying to identify housing submarkets. The assumption is that if two proposed markets are truly different, they will be better described using two different regression functions than if one were to be used.

The additional curved lines visible in the graph are the kind of confidence intervals you'd get from a simple OLS regression if the standard assumptions were valid. In the case of two separate regressions, it would be surprising if all those assumptions (that is, i.i.d. Normal residuals around an underlying perfectly-linear function) were in fact valid for each part, especially if the slopes are not equal.

A classical example in physics are the different theories to explain the black body radiation at the end of the 19th century. The {{w|Wien approximation}} was good for small wavelengths while the {{w|Rayleigh–Jeans law}} worked for the larger scales (large wavelength means low frequency and thus low energy.) But there was a gap in the middle which was filled by the {{w|Planck's law}} in 1900.

The comment below the graph ''"I have a theory, and this is the only data I could find."'' is a bit ambiguous because there are many data points ignored. Without an explanation why only a subset of the data is used this isn't a useful interpretation at all.

===Connecting lines===
This is often used to smooth gaps in measurements. A simple example is the weather temperature which is often measured in distinct intervals. When the intervals are high enough it's safe to assume that the temperature didn't change that much between them and connecting the data points by lines doesn't distort the real situation in many cases.

The comment below the graph ''"I clicked 'Smooth Lines' in {{w|Microsoft Excel|Excel}}."'' refers to the well known spreadsheet application from {{w|Microsoft Office}}. Like other spreadsheet applications it has the feature to visualize data from a table into a graph by many ways. "Smooth Lines" is a setting meant for use on a {{w|line graph}}, a graph in which one axis represents time; as it simply joins up every point rather than finding a sensible line, it is not suitable for regression.

===Ad-Hoc Filter===
Drawing a bunch of different lines by hand, keeping in only the data points perceived as "good". Not really useful except for marketing purposes.

The comment below the graph ''"I had an idea for how to clean up the data. What do you think?"'' admits that in fact the data is whitewashed and tightly focused to a result the presenter wants to show.

===House of Cards===
Not a real method, but a common consequence of misapplication of statistical methods: a curve can be generated that fits the data extremely well, but immediately becomes absurd as soon as one glances outside the training data sample range, and your analysis comes crashing down "like a house of cards". This is a type of ''overfitting''. In other words, the model may do quite well for (approximately) {{w|Interpolation|interpolating}} between values in the sample range, but not extend at all well to {{w|Extrapolation|extrapolating}} values outside that range.

''Note:'' Exact polynomial fitting, a fit which gives the unique <math>(n-1)</math>th degree polynomial through <math>n</math> points, often display this kind of behaviour.

The comment below the graph ''"As you can see, this model smoothly fits the- wait no no don't extend it AAAAAA!!"'' refers to a curve which fits the data points relatively well within the graph's boundaries, but beyond those bounds fails to match at all.

The name is also a reference to the TV show ''{{w|House of Cards (U.S. TV series)|House of Cards}}'' ("WAIT NO, NO, DON'T EXTEND IT!").

===Cauchy-Lorentz (title text)===
{{w|Cauchy_distribution|Cauchy-Lorentz}} is a continuous probability distribution which does not have an expected value or a defined variance. This means that the law of large numbers does not hold and that estimating e.g. the sample mean will diverge (be all over the place) the more data points you have. Hence very troublesome (mathematically alarming).

Since so many different models can fit this data set at first glance, Randall may be making a point about how if a data set is sufficiently messy, you can read any trend you want into it, and the trend that is chosen may say more about the researcher than about the data. This is a similar sentiment to [[1725: Linear Regression]], which also pokes fun at dubious trend lines on scatterplots.

A brief Google search reveals that Augustin-Louis Cauchy originally worked as a junior engineer in a managerial position. Upon his acceptance to the Académie des Sciences in March 1816, many of his peers expressed outrage. Despite his early work in "mere" engineering, Cauchy is widely regarded as one of the founding influences in the rigorous study of calculus & accompanying proofs.

Alternately, the title-text could be implying that the person who applied the Cauchy-Lorentz curve-fitting method may not be well qualified to the task assigned.

==Transcript==
:'''Curve-Fitting Methods'''
:and the messages they send

:[In a single frame twelve scatter plots with unlabeled x- and y-axes are shown. Each plot consists of the same data-set of approximately thirty points located all over the plot but slightly more distributed around the diagonal. Every plot shows in red a different fitting method which is labeled on top in gray.]

:[The first plot shows a line starting at the left bottom above the x-axis rising towards the points to the right.]
:Linear
:"Hey, I did a regression."

:[The second plot shows a curve falling slightly down and then rising up to the right.]
:Quadratic
:"I wanted a curved line, so I made one with math."

:[At the third plot the curve starts near the left bottom and increases more and more less to the right.]
:Logarithmic
:"Look, it's tapering off!"

:[The fourth plot shows a curve starting near the left bottom and increases more and more steeper towards the right.]
:Exponential
:"Look, it's growing uncontrollably!"

:[The fifth plot uses a fitting to match many points. It starts at the left bottom, increases, then decreases, then rapidly increasing again, and finally reaching a plateau.]
:LOESS
:"I'm sophisticated, not like those bumbling polynomial people."

:[The sixth plot simply shows a line above but parallel to the x-axis.]
:Linear, no slope
:"I'm making a scatter plot but I don't want to."

:[At plot #7 starts at a plateau above the x-axis, then increases, and finally reaches a higher plateau.]
:Logistic
:"I need to connect these two lines, but my first idea didn't have enough Math."

:[Plot #8 shows two red lines embedding most points and the area between is painted as a red shadow.]
:Confidence interval
:"Listen, science is hard. But I'm a serious person doing my best."

:[Plot #9 shows two not connected lines, one at the lower left half, and one higher at the right. Both have smaller curved lines in light red above and below.]
:Piecewise
:"I have a theory, and this is the only data I could find."

:[The plot at the left bottom shows a line connecting all points from left to right, resulting in a curve going many times up and down.]
:Connecting lines
:"I clicked 'Smooth Lines' in Excel."

:[The next to last plot shows a echelon form, connecting a few real and some imaginary points.]
:Ad-Hoc filter
:"I had an idea for how to clean up the data. What do you think?"

:[The last plot shows a wave with increasing peak values. Finally the plot of the wave is continued beyond the x- and y-axis borders.]
:House of Cards
:"As you can see, this model smoothly fits the- ''wait no no don't extend it AAAAAA!!''"

==Trivia==
*This is the comic 2048, or 211. In addition to being the name of a popular app referenced in [[1344: Digits]], this is an extremely round number in binary (100,000,000,0002). [[1000: 1000 Comics]] pointed out that comic 1024 would be a round number, but there were not any comics noting 2048.

*This comic is similar to [[977: Map Projections]] which also uses a scientific method not commonly thought about by the general public to determine specific characteristics of one's personality and approach to science.

*Regressions have been the subject of several previous comics. [[1725: Linear Regression]] was about linear regressions on uncorrelated or poorly correlated data. [[1007: Sustainable]], [[1204: Detail]] and [[1281: Minifigs]] depict linear regressions on data that was actually logistic, leading to bizarre extrapolations. [[605: Extrapolating]] shows a line extrapolating from just two data points.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Scatter plots]]
[[Category:Line graphs]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Science]]

2053: Incoming Calls

2018-10-05T06:58:36Z

108.162.246.83: /* Explanation */ Auto insurance - target early 20's?

{{comic
| number = 2053
| date = October 1, 2018
| title = Incoming Calls
| image = incoming_calls.png
| titletext = I wonder if that friendly lady ever fixed the problem she was having with her headset.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|CREATED BY A MOBILE PHONE - Can someone address the presumption in paragraph 1 where it says it's safe to assume that calls from family didn't decrease over the years... is that actually safe to assume, or might family be communicating via text messages, Facebook, email, etc. rather than phone calls? Or was there more communication when he lived with his parents, and less as an adult out on his own? Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic shows a graph of incoming phone calls over time to [[Randall]] since he was younger than six years. The graph doesn't show the absolute numbers but the proportion of callers. Because it's safe to assume that calls from his family didn't decrease over the years, other calls just increased over time and this graph can be misunderstood because the number of calls in the recent years are probably much higher than in 1990. Randall married in 2011, so family may have increased since then due to in-laws. This leads to Randall's second header line when he states that he "finally stopped picking up for unknown numbers", which is still roughly the same fraction but the amount is much more today.

Not covered are major modern ways to communicate like {{w|SMS}}, talking on {{w|Facebook}}, or other messaging apps.

Wrong numbers used to be a small but significant portion of the phone calls that Randall received, and remained fairly steady until the late 1990s, when they began a gradual and accelerating decline, eventually tapering off to nearly none in 2015. This is likely due to the rise of cellphones and programmable land-line phones, which contain their own address books and only require the caller to enter the number once, greatly reducing the chances of accidentally entering a wrong number in general and eliminating the possibility entirely for anyone with whom you have taken the time to save their number.

Appointment reminders and miscellaneous similar calls have steadily increased with time, likely due to a combination of Randall's increasing responsibilities as he ages, and thus the number of appointments and legitimate businesses who need to contact him, and the increased use by businesses of automated reminder systems. The appointments section seems to be slightly tapering off, possibly for the rise of using other means, such as SMS, for reminders.

The proportion of friends who call Randall rapidly increased in the 1990s and began to overtake family, probably because he has gained friends over time and because as they grew up they were more likely to own their own phone, and starting in the 2000s, their own cellphones, and at that time the Internet wasn't a primary method of communication, especially when away from home, so phone calls were the main way to connect with friends when apart. Over time, Randall's friends and family have been less likely to make phone calls to him, likely due to the use of text messages and the rise of the Internet and smartphones capable of running Internet-based messaging apps. This is further confirmed by the addition of an entry for "that one friend who hates texting" which has grown to encompass pretty much the entire "Friends" category, because presumably all his friends EXCEPT that "one friend" do all their communicating with Randall by methods other than actual phone calls, such as text messages, etc. The alternative idea that he no longer has friends except that "one friend" is sad and can be dismissed outright.

Additionally, although there was a large percentage of phone calls from legal {{w|Telemarketing|telemarketers}} in the 1990s, this percentage has significantly dropped, most likely due to the creation of the {{w|National Do Not Call Registry}} (launched in 2003), which allows individuals and families in the United States to register phone numbers that are exempt from telemarketers. Instead, there has been a rise in phone calls from {{w|Phone fraud|scammers}} and political advertisements.
Telemarketers may target calls based on victims age or other publicly available statistics. The rise and fall of auto insurance scammers may indicate targeting people in their early twenties. It could also be tied to other events, such as purchase of an automobile.

Even if a phone number is registered on the National Do Not Call Registry, they may still receive phone calls from political organizations. It is implied that the latter two groups have caused Randall to stop answering phone calls from unknown numbers.

The title text refers to a common scamming tactic in which a {{w|Robocall|robocaller}}, typically one named "Emily," will claim to be having trouble with their headset and say "Can you hear me now?" The trick is either to keep you on the line while taking a second or two to connect you to a real person to get scammed, or to get a recording of you saying "yes" for potential fraudulent use (or both).

==Transcript==
:[A line graph shows the portions of phone calls by type over time beginning slightly before 1990 until today.]
:'''Incoming personal calls over time'''
:or: why I finally stopped picking up for unknown numbers

:[The x-axis is labeled with years beginning at 1990 in five year segments up to NOW (2018). The y-axis shows a relative distribution of callers.]
:[The calls are (from top to down):]
:Appointment reminders, misc. (small growing all over time)
:Family (larger in the beginning, constant with some fluctuations since 2000)
:Friends (growing from 1995 to 2005, then decreasing but intersected with "that one friend who hates texting", after that decreasing)
:Legal telemarketers (peak in the beginning, decreasing over time)
:Auto insurance scammers (a big peak between 2005 and 2012)
:Other scammers (beginning in 2010, replacing the auto insurance, increasing until today)
:Political (starting in 2002 and increasing since then)
:Wrong numbers (constant up to 2000 and then decreasing to nearly today)

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Randall Munroe]]
[[Category:Line graphs]]
[[Category:Timelines]]

1841: Who?

2017-05-24T16:20:26Z

108.162.246.83: Added link to 736: Cemetary, which also covers handless phones.

{{comic
| number = 1841
| date = May 24, 2017
| title = Who?
| image = who.png
| titletext = Gonna feel even dumber when I realize that all this time he's been talking into a bluetooth thingy and we're not actually friends.
}}

==Explanation==

Cueball and Hairy are walking while Hairy is talking about going to a wedding by sharing a ride. He names three people: the groom, a friend with whom he's sharing the ride, and another person he hopes to meet on the way, perhaps another guest at the wedding. The ellipsis at the beginning indicates he's been talking beforehand, and Cueball has listened to all of it.

Cueball at first replies with an "it's cool" sentence, expressing satisfaction at the idea of Hairy meeting the people he mentioned. This usually happens when two people are talking about something they have in common, like meeting with friends at a social gathering.
However, Cueball suddenly expresses that he's been lying about knowing them, and he doesn't have any intentions of preserving such lie. Note that he didn't need to explicitly acknowledge to be those people's acquaintance, he might just have nodded or said expressions like "it's cool".

Part of a social need for inclusion, or as a way to continue a conversation, people sometimes agree with the person they are talking to, or feign knowledge of the people, things or topics that were mentioned.

The title text suddenly changes the situation by stating that it's possible Hairy has been talking to someone else using a Bluetooth earphone set. This hands-free device is used to communicate via phone call and is small in nature and only visible from one side of the face, so anyone who comes across someone using this device can at first wonder whether they're actually talking to them, because no phone can be seen. This situation could mean that Cueball has been hearing and / or talking to this person, who might not even be his acquaintance, given that he knows people that Cueball doesn't seem to know about, and that he might not actually be his friend. This is a hilarious exaggeration of people with some attention problems.

The title text is an allusion to [[476: One-Sided]], where Randal doesn't realize who the other person is talking to.

In [[302: Names]] Cueball also has difficulty with names.

The problems with bluetooth headsets' inconspicuousness is a key point in [[736: Cemetery]]

Another example of not knowing someone is talking on the phone: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khn1d6LQ8PU]

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is walking from left to right while Hairy follows him.]
:Hairy: ...I'm getting a ride with Katie to Adam's wedding. Hoping to see Brian on the way!
:Cueball: Oh, that's cool!
:Cueball: ...I can't keep living this lie, so I'm just gonna come out and admit it: I have no idea who any of the people you keep mentioning are.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]