explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1465: xkcd Phone 2

2014-12-30T04:57:25Z

108.162.250.216:

{{comic
| number = 1465
| date = December 26, 2014
| title = xkcd Phone 2
| image = xkcd_phone_2.png
| titletext = Washable, though only once.
}}

==Explanation==
This is a followup to [[1363: xkcd Phone]], which debuted the original xkcd phone. Like xkcd Phone "1", this comic parodies modern smartphone advertising with a promotional image for a fictional phone. Like the previous xkcd phone, the advertisement features a useless tagline (very few people can use two phones at the same time) and touts a variety of features which are either pointless, misleading, or physically impossible. Clockwise, from the top left, they are:

*'''MaxHD: Over 350 pixels per screen''': 350 pixels is not very impressive, as each would be about 0.5×0.5 cm in size, making the resolution hopelessly blocky. Even if it implies 350 pixels along the edge, this is still less than standard definition TV (PAL gives 576 lines of horizontal resolution). Likely a reference to HD+, FullHD, QuadHD and other marketing expressions for screen resolutions, by which common users are often confused. In [[732: HDTV]] Randall has observed that HD is not an especially high resolution when compared with smartphone or computer monitors. This one is even worse by far, but MaxHD sounds similar to FullHD, so it could fool some users into thinking that this is equal or better.
: ''Note:'' A high pixel density display is more than 200 pixels per '''''inch''''', not per '''''screen'''''. An example would be the Retina Display in Apple hardware which varies from 218 pixels per inch to 401 pixels per inch depending on the device.
*'''Always-on Speaker''': An always-on microphone is a genuine feature, allowing voice activated intelligent personal assistant software such as Google's "Google Now" or Apple's "Siri" to respond without having to be turned on. An always-on speaker would be less useful especially if it implies the phone is always making noise.
*'''Blood Pressure reliever''': This appears to be where a real phone would have its front facing camera. This could imply that it's a sharp part that you can cut yourself on, thus ''relieving'' your blood pressure, or else implying that the other features of the phone are so frustrating that a feature was required to relieve the users' blood pressure. This is likely a play on modern smartphones with built-in heart rate/blood pressure sensors.
*'''Auto-Rotating Case:''' Phones often feature an "auto-rotating screen", meaning that the display switches between portrait and landscape mode depending on its orientation with respect to gravity. But the case is a physical part of the phone, so making a case that did '''not''' "auto-rotate" with the phone would be the real challenge.
*'''Ribbed:''' A reference to ribbed {{w|condom}}s, which are often advertised as superior to standard ones because the texture can be more physically stimulating to the genitalia. Some other objects can be advertised with the word ribbed as well, but mostly in the context where it allows a firmer grip on the device when wet. Since phones are usually not meant to be used wet, this is a fairly useless feature.
*'''Waterproof (inside only)''': Waterproofing is done to the outside to prevent water from getting in. Exactly what "inside only" means is unclear (the case may be porous, or it may prevent water from ''escaping'') but it's clear that the designers have missed the point.
*'''Googleable''': Another non-feature. Advertising as "-able" is a way for marketing to add features, without really adding features. This may be (for example) a recyclable paper bag, when paper is normally recyclable. Any term may be "googled", so being "googleable" is not an actual feature. Alternatively, while "googleable" meaning "being able to be googled" is a non-feature, the related concept of "being able to google" is a legitimate feature that a phone may advertise, as in having a google search app built in.
*'''Cheek toucher''': The screen will touch your cheek when making a hand-held phone call. Obviously a redundant/pointless feature to advertise.
*'''Cries if lost:''' Arguably a useful function, as it would help the owner find the cellphone in case it was lost. This is offset by how annoying it would sound if it happened to cry with a human voice. May refer to people's habit of calling their own cellphones to help find it. It also resembles the first xkcd phone's functions of 'Screaming when falling' and 'Saying hi when lit'.
*'''Bug drawer:''' This is most likely the cover for other ports, though it looks like a small drawer, capable of only holding bug-sized items. Possibly a joke on software bugs, which would, being virtual rather than physical, easily fit inside this area. May also be a reference to "Phone may attract/trap insects; this is normal" from the original ''xkcd Phone'' comic.
*'''Coin slot:''' In most phones, this would be the charging port. Payphones have coin slots, not smartphones. It is unclear what use such a feature would have, or if it implies that the phone either cannot be recharged through this slot as usual or if cash payment is somehow required to charge the phone.
*'''Scroll lock:''' A computer key on most keyboards which is practically never used. This feature seems to be placed where a usual cellphone's "home" button is, which would make it very frustrating. (Despite [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/978 a previous xkcd strip], the Scroll Lock button was '''''not''''' invented by {{w|Steven Chu}}.)
*'''OS by Stackoverflow®:''' [http://stackoverflow.com/ Stack Overflow] is a very useful and popular question/answer forum for programmers, and many recent software products probably have benefited from advice given there, so Randall may be giving credit where credit really is due. Or it may be a reference to the rampant problem of code reuse, where programmers use the pre-written code on Stack Overflow rather than writing their own, regardless of the fact that the code on Stack Overflow may contain bugs, not be applicable to the programmer's situation, or otherwise cause problems for their specific program. Alternatively, it could be saying that the OS was written by the people on Stack Overflow who go there ''with'' programming issues, implying that the OS was written from code that was posted as not working.
*'''3D Materials:''' All real materials are three-dimensional, so this feature is not special.
*'''Dog Noticer''': Can be interpreted as either alerting the user to nearby dogs, or alerting nearby dogs of the user. The former is very situational, and the latter is probably a negative.
*'''FitBit® Fitness Evaluator''': {{w|Fitbit}} make wristbands that measure heart rate, count user steps, and act as an aid to planning an exercise program. This comic is published on Boxing Day (26th December) 2014 and is relevant as Fitbits are a popular Holiday Gift at this time. However, the name "Fitness Evaluator" suggests that the product merely gives an evaluation on the user's fitness, which may mean that in practice it only criticizes the user's weight, diet etc. Another interpretation is that this monitors the fitness ''of'' the user's FitBit, that is, the state of the armband the person is wearing.
*'''Volume and density control:''' A pun between {{w|volume (disambiguation)|volume}} as in speaker loudness, and {{w|volume}} as in a physical property inversely related to {{w|density}}. Interpreting it as the latter, apparently this feature would allow the user to change the size of the phone (which would indeed be a very useful feature, or a [[1422: My Phone is Dying|very]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole worrying]) one, thus changing the volume and the density (depending on whether or not its mass somehow changed). Note that some computer mice indeed have a feature where the user can put weights inside the case to customise the weight and thus actually affect its density that way.

Like the previous xkcd phone comic, the title text continues the list of features:
*'''Washable, though only once.''': Nothing prevents the phone from physically being washed, however after the first time doing this the phone will obviously cease to function. A play on phrases "washing machine safe" or "dishwasher safe" in real advertisements.

==Transcript==
:[An image of a smartphone, with many labels pointing to it. Clockwise from the top left they read:]
:MaxHD: Over 350 pixels per screen
:Always-on speaker
:Blood pressure reliever
:Auto-rotating case
:Ribbed
:Waterproof (interior only)
:Googleable
:Cheek toucher
:Cries if lost
:Bug drawer
:Coin slot
:Scroll lock
:OS by Stackoverflow®
:3D materials
:Dog noticer
:FitBit® fitness evaluator
:Volume and density control

:[Below the phone:]
:Introducing
:'''The xkcd phone 2'''
:A phone for your other hand®

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Smartphones]]

Talk:1392: Dominant Players

2014-07-10T22:18:17Z

108.162.250.216:

This may be related to the recent MOBA segregation controversy: http://www.pcgamer.com/uk/2014/07/02/hearthstone-tournament/ {{unsigned ip|108.162.229.25}}

What is the significance of the line colors? {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.78}}
:I think the red lines are those players that were undisputed #1 for a significant period. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 08:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
: But Petrosian has no colored line, although he was world champion. Maybe he did not have the highest ELO rating despite being WC?[[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 09:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:Ya, this line colouring thing is bugging me. :P [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:The lack of explanation of the red lines bugs me too. Makes me think this comic was rushed, or never finished. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.216|108.162.250.216]] 22:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Dashed lines are apparently for the period before ELO ratings existed, taking 1965 as a start point (midway between the point in time when ELO rating was adopted by USCF and FIDE, respectively. There seems to be an exception for Alekhine -or is that a very long dash? [[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 09:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Naughty Randall, always label your axes! [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 08:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The comment in the women's rankings about Kira Zvorykina is a little odd. One would hope she continued playing in tournaments into the 20th century, given that the first 81 years of her life were in the 20th century. {{unsigned ip|108.162.250.220}}

While at the time, the V-1 was called a "Flying Bomb", wikipedia indeed calls it an early pulse-jet ancestor of the modern cruise missile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb . I built a model of one in an 8th grade rocketry club, replacing the pulse jet with an Estes D-6-0. Mine took off, but sure enough, yes, the stubby wings stalled easily, the flight path was a weird s curve as the wings stalled out twice while under thrust.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 09:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Link to the game against Deep Blue, anybody? Also, shouldn't the title text be at least mentioned? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.71|199.27.128.71]] 09:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Kasparov-Deep Blue Games: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1014770 {{unsigned ip|141.101.64.131}}

The explanation says in the first sentence that for chess there's an overall rating and a woman's rating in the comic. All I see is a men's rating and a woman's rating, no overall rating, however. {{unsigned ip|108.162.254.24}}
: As Judith Polgar is present in the first chart, it appears to be an overall, not specifically a men's chart.[[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 11:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:: My impression is that the above is the Men's Chart but with Judit added (hence the note), because (although unsure because of the curse of unlabelled axes) some of the other top-ranking-women-but-not-top-ranking-overall would still earn a position on the above 'graph'.
:: (Also, something in me wanted a reference to Chess-Boxing, but it appears that was not the aim.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.233|141.101.99.233]] 13:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone knows why Viswanathan Anand is not included (or am I blind?) Marty / [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.43|141.101.104.43]]
I had the exact same question. It appears that this is a West and Russian centric view of the world [[User:Indianrediff|Indianrediff]] ([[User talk:Indianrediff|talk]]) 13:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:No. Koneru Humpy is mentioned. He's a big Carlson fan and I think he doesn't like Anand. One of his old comics suggested that. Probably never realised Anand met and beat Carlson back in 2008. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.78|108.162.222.78]] 16:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:Out of pure curiosity, could anyone please upload an image/link of how Anand's curve might look, if it was added to the graph? I'm not a huge chess fan, but I am interested in seeing the extent of Randall's possible bias in this regard. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.62.62|173.245.62.62]] 05:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

For me it feels weirder to see Stefanova there, but not Topalov. Then again, for some reason Bulgarian media keep a low profile of her. {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.107}}
It's Julius Erving not Irving. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.151|173.245.54.151]] 13:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The choice of basketball and chess is something to think about. This mostly is about chess, and basketball represents the physical sports. It immediately stands out that chess players have much longer careers than basketball players. [[User:Jim E|Jim E]] ([[User talk:Jim E|talk]]) 15:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

:Something else I think someone needs to look at is the line of best fit. For basketball it's basically horizontal, but for chess it tends to curve upwards. I'd add it myself, but I feel like there's more than just that and I'm missing something. [[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 16:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any mention of this interpretation, so it might be just me, but I immediately read the juxtaposition of basketball to chess as a contrast of how skill at the top level of basketball is essentially stagnant, whereas the best chess players have been outstripping their predecessors for decades. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.157}}

The y-axis is unlabelled, that's annoying --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.93.222|141.101.93.222]] 19:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A couple points;
1) I would interpret the Basketball vs. Chess dichotomy as a slam against basketball, with the (largely) serious comments about chess vs. pointing out movies on BB. There are a jillion things he could have chosen to comment on - why highlight the embarassing career moves of BB players?
(2) The rating system for BB has an (essentially) static upper limit, whereas these chess rating systems have larger upper bounds as the player pool grows, so comparisons of upper bounds are unfair. That may be part of the point, or a dishonest comparison. Not sure of Randall's motivations. (not that I like BB anyways...)
(3) No comparison to women's BB is made - so this further inclines me to think that there are two separate agendas here: (i) physical BB vs. mental chess and (ii) women's rights in chess. An honest comparison would include women's BB as well.
(4) The vertical axis on the graphs do not start at zero, so the scaling could be correct... just somewhat deceiving by violating fundmental rules of creating graphs (no labels, inconsistent scales and they have non-zero bases).
(5) Red lines are *generally* the top person at some point in their career for more than 5(?) years (David Robinson seems like the tell)

All in all, rather disappointed in the seemingly conflicting political agendas and poorly represented graphs.
[[User:Chorb|Chorb]] ([[User talk:Chorb|talk]]) 21:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1392: Dominant Players

2014-07-10T22:17:25Z

108.162.250.216:

This may be related to the recent MOBA segregation controversy: http://www.pcgamer.com/uk/2014/07/02/hearthstone-tournament/ {{unsigned ip|108.162.229.25}}

What is the significance of the line colors? {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.78}}
:I think the red lines are those players that were undisputed #1 for a significant period. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 08:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
: But Petrosian has no colored line, although he was world champion. Maybe he did not have the highest ELO rating despite being WC?[[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 09:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:Ya, this line colouring thing is bugging me. :P [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:The lack of explanation of the red lines bugs me too. Makes me think this comic was rushed, or never finished.

Dashed lines are apparently for the period before ELO ratings existed, taking 1965 as a start point (midway between the point in time when ELO rating was adopted by USCF and FIDE, respectively. There seems to be an exception for Alekhine -or is that a very long dash? [[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 09:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Naughty Randall, always label your axes! [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 08:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The comment in the women's rankings about Kira Zvorykina is a little odd. One would hope she continued playing in tournaments into the 20th century, given that the first 81 years of her life were in the 20th century. {{unsigned ip|108.162.250.220}}

While at the time, the V-1 was called a "Flying Bomb", wikipedia indeed calls it an early pulse-jet ancestor of the modern cruise missile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb . I built a model of one in an 8th grade rocketry club, replacing the pulse jet with an Estes D-6-0. Mine took off, but sure enough, yes, the stubby wings stalled easily, the flight path was a weird s curve as the wings stalled out twice while under thrust.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 09:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Link to the game against Deep Blue, anybody? Also, shouldn't the title text be at least mentioned? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.71|199.27.128.71]] 09:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Kasparov-Deep Blue Games: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1014770 {{unsigned ip|141.101.64.131}}

The explanation says in the first sentence that for chess there's an overall rating and a woman's rating in the comic. All I see is a men's rating and a woman's rating, no overall rating, however. {{unsigned ip|108.162.254.24}}
: As Judith Polgar is present in the first chart, it appears to be an overall, not specifically a men's chart.[[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 11:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:: My impression is that the above is the Men's Chart but with Judit added (hence the note), because (although unsure because of the curse of unlabelled axes) some of the other top-ranking-women-but-not-top-ranking-overall would still earn a position on the above 'graph'.
:: (Also, something in me wanted a reference to Chess-Boxing, but it appears that was not the aim.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.233|141.101.99.233]] 13:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone knows why Viswanathan Anand is not included (or am I blind?) Marty / [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.43|141.101.104.43]]
I had the exact same question. It appears that this is a West and Russian centric view of the world [[User:Indianrediff|Indianrediff]] ([[User talk:Indianrediff|talk]]) 13:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:No. Koneru Humpy is mentioned. He's a big Carlson fan and I think he doesn't like Anand. One of his old comics suggested that. Probably never realised Anand met and beat Carlson back in 2008. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.78|108.162.222.78]] 16:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:Out of pure curiosity, could anyone please upload an image/link of how Anand's curve might look, if it was added to the graph? I'm not a huge chess fan, but I am interested in seeing the extent of Randall's possible bias in this regard. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.62.62|173.245.62.62]] 05:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

For me it feels weirder to see Stefanova there, but not Topalov. Then again, for some reason Bulgarian media keep a low profile of her. {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.107}}
It's Julius Erving not Irving. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.151|173.245.54.151]] 13:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The choice of basketball and chess is something to think about. This mostly is about chess, and basketball represents the physical sports. It immediately stands out that chess players have much longer careers than basketball players. [[User:Jim E|Jim E]] ([[User talk:Jim E|talk]]) 15:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

:Something else I think someone needs to look at is the line of best fit. For basketball it's basically horizontal, but for chess it tends to curve upwards. I'd add it myself, but I feel like there's more than just that and I'm missing something. [[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 16:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any mention of this interpretation, so it might be just me, but I immediately read the juxtaposition of basketball to chess as a contrast of how skill at the top level of basketball is essentially stagnant, whereas the best chess players have been outstripping their predecessors for decades. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.157}}

The y-axis is unlabelled, that's annoying --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.93.222|141.101.93.222]] 19:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A couple points;
1) I would interpret the Basketball vs. Chess dichotomy as a slam against basketball, with the (largely) serious comments about chess vs. pointing out movies on BB. There are a jillion things he could have chosen to comment on - why highlight the embarassing career moves of BB players?
(2) The rating system for BB has an (essentially) static upper limit, whereas these chess rating systems have larger upper bounds as the player pool grows, so comparisons of upper bounds are unfair. That may be part of the point, or a dishonest comparison. Not sure of Randall's motivations. (not that I like BB anyways...)
(3) No comparison to women's BB is made - so this further inclines me to think that there are two separate agendas here: (i) physical BB vs. mental chess and (ii) women's rights in chess. An honest comparison would include women's BB as well.
(4) The vertical axis on the graphs do not start at zero, so the scaling could be correct... just somewhat deceiving by violating fundmental rules of creating graphs (no labels, inconsistent scales and they have non-zero bases).
(5) Red lines are *generally* the top person at some point in their career for more than 5(?) years (David Robinson seems like the tell)

All in all, rather disappointed in the seemingly conflicting political agendas and poorly represented graphs.
[[User:Chorb|Chorb]] ([[User talk:Chorb|talk]]) 21:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)