explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1275: int(pi)

2013-10-09T21:42:59Z

12.202.74.87: grammar/typo fix

{{comic
| number = 1275
| date = October 9, 2013
| title = int(pi)
| image = int pi.png
| titletext = If replacing all the '3's doesn't fix your code, remove the 4s, too, with 'ceiling(pi) / floor(pi) * pi * r^floor(pi)'. Mmm, floor pie.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic tells a simple, deadpan joke: that the number "{{w|3 (number)|3}}" is cursed because it is used more than one time and thus should not be used explicitly in programming. Instead there should be a constant defined like "THREE=3" so THREE should be used at the equation. For a number "3" this is senseless but for many numbers, often used in a program, it is helpful. Changing a constant like "DISTANCE=200" to "DISTANCE=300" would effect all later uses of this constant by just a single edit.

In lack of this constant [[Randall]] does a workaround, recommending that programmers instead use <code>int(pi)</code>, which means the {{w|integer}} part of {{w|pi}}, without the {{w|fractional part}}. Pi, an {{w|irrational number}}, has a value starting <code>3.14159...</code>, making <code>int(pi)</code> equal to 3.

In the title text, Randall takes the joke a step further, suggesting the usage of {{w|floor and ceiling functions}}: <code>ceiling(pi)</code> would be pi rounded ''up'' to the next integer, which is {{w|4 (number)|4}}; and <code>floor(pi)</code> is pi rounded ''down'' to the next integer, which is 3. (Note that <code>int(n)</code> and <code>floor(n)</code> have the same value when <code>n</code> is greater or equal to zero. For values less than zero, <code>int(n)</code> is equal to <code>ceiling(n)</code>. And the function <code>round(n)</code> will either be equal to <code>floor(n)</code> or <code>ceiling(n)</code>.)

The joke here plays off of the fact that the intricacies of programming are endlessly confusing, and that [[292|novice programmers are often told to simply not do certain things without any explanation]]. This includes, in particular, a general proscription against "{{w|Magic number (programming)#Unnamed numerical constants|magic numbers}}" in the code. A new coder often has no way of knowing when a number can be legitimately written literally, and when it should be introduced as a named constant, or even as a constant expression, such as <code>2^16-1</code> rather than <code>65535</code>. Randall takes this to an extreme here by suggesting that certain numbers could be inherently problematic, but the general idea is perfectly believable.

The formula in the comic is for the {{w|Sphere#Enclosed_volume|volume of a sphere}}: 4/3*pi*r^3.

Mmm... Floor pie. is a reference to Homer Simpson [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnjzmdxTXGQ]

See also {{w|Cargo cult programming}}.

==Transcript==
:volume(r) = (4/int(pi))*pi*r^int(pi)
:Programming Tip: The number "3" is cursed. Avoid it.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Math]]

1274: Open Letter

2013-10-07T14:04:00Z

12.202.74.87: fixed link to Wikipedia "Knights Templar (Freemasonry)" article

{{comic
| number = 1274
| date = October 7, 2013
| title = Open Letter
| image = open_letter.png
| titletext = Are you ok? Do you need help?
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}
This comic is a reference to the {{w|United States federal government shutdown of 2013|US government shutdown in 2013}}, that has been ongoing for a week and is still current as of the time of this comic. Under some circumstances, the United States Federal Government {{w|Government shutdown in the United States|can temporarily shut down}} pending budget legislation being passed by the United States Congress. These shutdowns are typically due to political disagreements between the President, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Due to the shutdown, numerous govenment services and facilities are shut down, often resulting in many logistical issues for the public.

Over the years, various conspiracy theories have been proposed claiming that the United States Government is not controlled by publicly-elected officials, but rather by one or more organizations that secretly control the actions of the government (sometimes termed a {{w|Shadow government (conspiracy)|"shadow government"}}). In this strip, [[Randall]] writes a letter to the shadow government, telling them that the situation (having the country's govenment shut down) is embarrassing and asking them to fix the problem.

This comic may also be subtly arguing against the plausibility of the aforementioned conspiracy theories if one assumes that a shadow-controlled government would be more likely to operate with a singular purpose and therefore be less susceptible to paralyzing political disagreements. That is to say, if an outside organization were controlling the US government, then it would demonstrate more competence than the US government is currently exhibiting. Randall previously alluded to this in the title text to [[1081|comic 1081]]: "Really, the comforting side in most conspiracy theory arguments is the one claiming that anyone who's in power has any plan at all." This is one of several comics in which Randall expresses dismay at how many intelligent people can fall for absurd conspiracy theories; see comics [[258]] and [[690]], among others.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Addressee !! Brief Description
|-
| {{w|Freemasonry|The Freemasons }}|| Fraternity claiming the legacy of medieval stonemasons. Organised in local groups, the so called ''Lodges''.
|-
| {{w|Illuminati}} || Secret society formed in Bavaria to further the ideas of {{w|enlightenment}}. Although officially banned in 1785, many conspiracy theorists believe the organisation might have survived and is still secretly exerting influence.
|-
| {{w|Church of Scientology|Scientology}} || A church founded by science-fiction writer {{w|L. Ron Hubbard}}. Often criticised for alleged {{w|brainwashing}} of its members and accused of hiding commercial interests behind religious claims.
|-
| {{w|Federal Emergency Management Agency|FEMA}} || Agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security, that has been granted extensive authorisations in cases of emergency and is therefore believed to act as an entity independent of governmental control.
|-
| {{w|New World Order (conspiracy theory)|The New World Order}} || Not a secret organisation itself, but rather the concept of establishing a totalitarian system controlled by any elitist group in this list.
|-
| {{w|Federal Reserve System|The Federal Reserve}} || Central state bank system of the United States, therefore to some degree able to control the monetary circulation of the {{w|US Dollar}}.
|-
| {{w|Citigroup}} || One of the four biggest American financial service corporations. Considered by the {{w|Financial Stability Board}} to be a {{w|Too big to fail|"systemically important financial institution"}}.
|-
| {{w|Halliburton}} || International corporation offering technical services, especially in the field of oil and gas production. Also a major supplier for the {{w|US military}}. Halliburton was in the headlines for unethical business practise and connections to the former US Vice President {{w|Dick Cheney}}.
|-
| {{w|Google}} || Corporation offering Internet services, most notably the Google search engine. Known for collecting massive amounts of data about its users in order to sell personalised advertisement. The idea of secret plans of Google has been mentioned in comic [[792]].
|-
| {{w|Holy See|The Vatican}} || Central government of the {{w|Catholic Church}} and residence of the {{w|pope}}. Historically important not only as a religious authority, but also as a {{w|Papal States|secular political power}}.
|-
| {{w|Bilderberg_Group|Bilderburg (correctly: ''Bilderberg'')}} || Annual conference of important politicians, bankers, directors of major corporations and other {{w|List of Bilderberg participants|people of influence}}, therefore considered the quintessential elitist meeting.
|-
| {{w|Walmart}} || American retail corporation, best known for the eponymous chain of warehouse stores. As of January 2013, Walmart is the world's largest public corporation by revenue.
|-
| {{w|Rothschild_family|The Rothschilds}} || Family of Jewish financiers that was later elevated into European nobility. Believed to exercise influence through considerable wealth.
|-
| {{w|Knights Templar}} || Originally a medieval Christian military order of considerable influence, the Knights Templar were inspiration for many successive (secret) organisations that are sometimes believed to undermine governmental authorities. There is also an {{w|Knights Templar (Freemasonry)|eponymous order}} affiliated with Freemasonry.
|-
| {{w|High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program#Conspiracy theories|HAARP}} || Ionospheric research project of the US military. Believed by some conspiracy theorists to conceal attempts to control the weather and trigger catastrophes.
|-
| {{w|United Nations|The UN}} || Large intergovernmental organization; most countries in the world are members. It has little direct power unless its member states choose to cooperate (except for its invisible {{w|black helicopter}} squadrons).
|-
| {{w|Skull and Bones|Skull & Bones}} || A secret society at the {{w|Yale University}} that has many influential American politicians amongst its members, including former President {{w|George W. Bush}}.
|-
| {{w|Bohemian Grove}} || Campground of the private {{w|Bohemian Club}} in San Francisco, known for hosting an annual encampment of club members and selected guests who are among the most powerful men in the world.
|-
| {{w|Political activities of the Koch brothers|The Koch Brothers}} || The owners of the second-largest private company in the United States and advocates of {{w|free market}} ideals. Known for contributions to libertarian and conservative political campaigns.
|-
| {{w|George Soros}} || Business magnate and investor, who is well-known for supporting liberal political causes.
|-
| {{w|Sovereign Military Order of Malta|The Knights of Malta}} ||
|-
| {{w|Council on Foreign Relations|The CFR}} ||
|-
| {{w|ExxonMobil|Exxon Mobil}} ||
|-
| {{w|Zionism|The Zionists}} || Political movement favouring the creation of a Jewish homeland, a goal achieved with the creation of the state of {{w|Israel}}. In a conspiracy-theory context, it references the belief that wealthy and powerful Jews (such as the above-referenced Rothschilds) control political and social institutions, as presented e.g. in the (fake) {{w|Protocols of Zion}}.
|-
| {{w|Vril#Vril society|The Vril Society}} ||
|-
| {{w|Reptilians|The Lizard People}} || Secret snake-men, similar to the aliens from {{w|V (TV series)}}. This is probably a reference to the conspiracy theories of {{w|David Icke}}, which include the idea that an ancient race of god-like, shapeshifting Lizards have interbred with humans, and that these half-bloods now secretly control the world.
|-
| and everyone else who secretly controls the {{w|Federal government of the United States|US Government}} ||
|}

The "Sincerely, A Concerned Citizen" signature is a reference to Half-Life 2, in which Dr. Breen reads a letter criticizing the Combine (alien) control of the government signed "A Concerned Citizen."

==Transcript==
:[The picture shows a letter.]
:October 7th 2013
:To: The Freemasons, the Illuminati, Scientology, FEMA, the New World Order, the Federal Reserve, Citigroup, Halliburton, Google, the Vatican, Bilderburg, Walmart, the Rothschilds, the Knights Templar, HAARP, the UN, Skull & Bones, Bohemian Grove, the Koch Brothers, George Soros, the Trilateral Commision, the Knights of Malta, the CFR, Exxon Mobil, the Zionists, the Vril Society, the Lizard People, and everyone else who secretly controls the US government
:Can you please get your shit together?
:This is embarrassing.
:Sincerely,
:A Concerned Citizen

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Politics]]

191: Lojban

2013-10-02T19:31:49Z

12.202.74.87: removed ending preposition

{{comic
| number = 191
| date = December 1, 2006
| title = Lojban
| image = lojban.png
| titletext = zo'o ta jitfa .i .e'o xu do pendo mi
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Lojban}} is an constructed language designed to be logical, unambiguous, and culturally neutral. The authors originally designed it as an experiment, but a few people have picked it up and tried to learn it. However, anyone actually willing to learn Lojban is someone [[Black Hat]] would rather avoid. The basic premise here is that Lojbanists are nerds, as the Lojban community is well aware.

Clicking on the original comic brings you to [[:File:lojban translated.png|a Lojban translation of the comic]].

The title-text is also written in Lojban. It translates roughly as: "That was a joke. Really. Wanna be friends with me?"

==Transcript==
:Cueball: If you learned to speak Lojban, your communication would be completely unambiguous and logical.
:Black Hat: Yeah, but it would all be with the kind of people who learn Lojban.

==Transcript (Lojban) ==
:la .kiubal. cusku lu da'i ganai do crebi'o la lojban gi le se cusku be do cu mulno pavysmu je logji li'u
:.i la .xekrimapku. cusku lu .i .ie ku'i cusku fi le prenu klesi poi certu la lojban li'u

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]

Talk:1252: Increased Risk

2013-08-16T14:36:57Z

12.202.74.87: Questioned main article's "1 in a million" assertion

I think this is to address the old chestnut of "<something> will ''double'' your risk of getting cancer!", or the like, where the risk of getting that cancer (in this example) is maybe 1 in 10,000, so doubling the risk across a population wouldmake that a 1 in 5,000 risk to your health... which you may still consider to be an acceptable gamble if it's something nice (like cheese!) that's apaprently to blame and you'd find abstinence from it gives a barely marginal benefit for a far greater loss of life enjoyment. Also, this sort of figure almost always applies towards a ''specific form'' of cancer, or whatever risk is being discussed, meaning you aren't vastly changing your life expectancy at all. In fact, the likes of opposing "red wine is good/bad for you" studies can be mutually true by this same principle (gain a little risk of one condition, lose a little risk from another). (Note: I don't know of any particular "cheese gives you cancer!" stories doing the rounds, at the moment. I bet they have done, but I only mention it because I actually quite like cheese. And I probably ''wouldn't'' give it up under the above conditions.)

It's also possible that this covers the likes of "<foo> in <country> is 10 times more dangerous than it is <other country>" statements. Perhaps ''only'' ten incidents happened in the former, and a single instance in the latter, out the ''whole'' of each respective country. Or a single incident occured in both, but the second country is ten times the size, so gets 'adjusted for population' in the tables. And, besides which, that was just for one year and was just a statistical blip that will probably revert-towards-the-mean next year.

Finally, for a given risk of some incident happening on the first two trips, with no 'memory' or build-up involved, it pretty much is half-as-likely-again for the incident to have happened (some time!) in three separate trips. (Not quite, if those that lose against the odds and get caught by the incident the first or second trip never get to ''have'' a (second or) third trip... but for negligable odds like thegiven example, of the dog with the handgun, it's near-as-damnit so.) [[Special:Contributions/178.104.103.140|178.104.103.140]] 11:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Where did "dogs with shotguns" come from? I only saw "handgun" in the comic. Besides, I interpreted the risk as being hit by a negligent discharge from the handgun, not being deliberately attacked by the dog. Also, since probabilities are the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 inclusive, there are an uncountable number of them. "A x% increase in a tiny risk is still tiny" is an inductive statement, which means it could only be used to argue that a countable set of numbers is tiny. [[Special:Contributions/76.64.65.200|76.64.65.200]] 12:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

:If induction base is uncountable, you can prove it for the whole [0; 1]. For example your induction base may be "every risk under 0.00000000000000000001% is tiny". --[[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 12:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that this comic doesn't [[985|distinguish between percentages and percentage points]]. --[[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 12:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it the case that doing something three times increases risk by 50% over two times inherently? I feel like this is the case, but it's early, here. Also, I'm not sure Randall is attacked by a dog, he may be using it as a diversion. I think that he's done this before. [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 12:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
:(First, good point, DiEvAl, about the percentages/percentage-points. I ''knew'' I'd missed something out in my first thoughts. I actually tend to assume ''against'' percentage points, which is somewhat the opposite from what I've seen in the general public.)
:Actually, depends on how you count it. But I was using the "encounter 'n' incidents per trip", "encounter '2n' incidents per two trips", "encoutner '3n' incidents per three trips" measure, where 3n==2n+50%. But that works best with a baseline of >>1 incidents per trip assumed. In reality, if the chance is a fractional 'p' for an occurance in one instance, it's (1-p) that it ''didn't'' occur thus (1-p)n that it didn't occur in any of 'n' instances and 1-(1-p)n that it did (at least once, possible several times or even all). Not so simple, but for p tending to zero it 'does' converge on 1.5 times for across three what you'd expect for two (albeit because 0*1.5=0). Like they say, "Lies, Damn Lies...", etc. ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.104.103.140|178.104.103.140]] 14:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Randall is being attacked by a dog at all. What he's saying is that if you are going to think getting attacked by a shark is so likely, then you better be watching out for that never-gonna-happen dog scenario too. [[User:Jillysky|Jillysky]] ([[User talk:Jillysky|talk]]) 13:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Is 0.000001% really "one in a million"?
;If 1% = 1 in 100, then
:0.1% = 1 in a 1,000
:0.01% = 1 in a 10,000
:0.001% = 1 in a 100,000
:0.0001% = 1 in a 1,000,000
:0.00001% = 1 in a 10,000,000
:'''0.000001% = 1 in a 100,000,000'''
Would it be more accurate to leave off the % sign?
Assuming I'm right, I think it'd be less confusing to leave it and reduce the numbers by a couple orders of magnitude.
--Clayton [[Special:Contributions/12.202.74.87|12.202.74.87]] 14:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1230: Polar/Cartesian

2013-07-09T20:18:38Z

12.202.74.87: removed my comment b/c it was confusing

Heh. Schroedinger's graph. Simultaneously 100% certainty of being Cartesian and 100% certainty of being Polar. [[Special:Contributions/12.117.213.34|12.117.213.34]] 09:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If you take into account [[833]], this graph shows certainty that you are interpreting it correctly. --[[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 09:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The ambiguity is due to the unlabelled x-axis. --[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 10:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The title text protip is really only applicable to 2 axes continuous graphes, unless you count ants being added or flicked away by the user as discontinuities. [[Special:Contributions/24.247.120.53|24.247.120.53]] 13:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)ProfKrueger

The shape of the graph appears to be (in polar form) r(t)=100/(1+sin(t)), which I solved for using the constraint that r + y = 100, or rather (polar-observer's certainty that the graph is polar) + (cartesian-observer's certainty that the graph is polar) = 100%. The two observers become further entrenched in their own ideologies as time goes on, and at equivalent rates of entrenchment. [[Special:Contributions/98.197.196.242|98.197.196.242]] 16:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC) DAF

The title text is, well, wrong. To plot coordinates "as a function of time" you would need THREE-axes. [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 19:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
:No, we have a radius (from the zero point to the red line), we have an angel (from 0° to 90°), and we have a point moving along that red line by time. A single (not moving) ant would just be a (red) point.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
::No, a two-dimensional red line does not contain information on which direction the ant is moving and at what velocity (well, actually, the ant is where the red line ends), but the point is that you cannot plot a red ball falling to the ground from 100% to 0% height "as a function of time" using a single axis.[[Special:Contributions/176.226.42.80|176.226.42.80]] 05:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I like this comic. But I think "subjective probability" or "degree of belief" might be better than "certainty", because 0% certainty that it's polar is not 100% certainty that it's not polar. I think 0% certainty means that you have no pertinent information, and might as well flip a coin. Also, switching it to be self-refuting rather than self-confirming would also be funny. --Clay

==Incomplete tag==
I did add this tag just because we have a chaos at explanation here. So I will try to simplify but I will also need your help, maybe discussed here at talk first.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

==Transcript is biased?==

"[The graph shows a red curve starting at 50% on the Y-axis and arcing down to intersect 0% at the 10th unit of the X-axis.]" That seems judgemental as to which kind of graph it is. Without misquoting Word Of God in any way is it possible to instead make changes something like "...starting at 50% in the direction represented by the vertical axis and ''either'' arcing down to [...] the horizontal-axis ''or'' spiraling outwards to 100% by the radial angle represented by this perpendicular." But perhaps less verbose, if someone has the verbal skills required to accomplish this. (Also, transcript does not mention the arrow, at all, with its possible significance. It could be just treated as an idle temporal indicator, regardless of graph-type, although it ''has'' strong associations with polar graphing, as mentioned.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 05:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
:The comic had no internal transcript, so I made one up. I just changed it again to try and be as unbiased as possible. If it's still confusing or biased or whatever, take a shot at fixing it yourself. :) --[[User:Druid816|Druid816]] ([[User talk:Druid816|talk]]) 06:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

== Is this it? ==

The similarity is probably just a coincidence, but Comic 1230 reminded me of the middle one of these curves.
Its polar equation simplifies to ''r'' = pi - 2 arctan(sin(theta)).
If a rotational motion in three dimensional space has constant angular velocity,
its angular displacement (aka axis-times-angle) traces one of the curves in this family.

[[File:1230-polar.png]]

[[User:Buster|Buster]] ([[User talk:Buster|talk]]) 21:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks Buster for signing in here and presenting this graphic. But I am still pretty sure Randall did not thought about "pi - 2 arctan(sin(theta))", he was just observing some ants (or flies) on his screen. Sometimes the world is so simple, while the explanation is covered in complex analogies, Randall is doing this often. I like this plot, but I am sure this plot was not in mind of Randall when he did draw this comic.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

== Incomplete tag again ==

The explain is incorrect and misleading for the "time" value. We should explain this by using Randalls ant example from the title text:
*At Cartesian coordinates an ant is a dot, when it moves by time we will get more dots or just a line. So there are three values at the plot: x-location, y-location, and the time which shows the move.
*On polar coordinates the difference is that we have only one axis, this is the radius or the distance from the zero point. The second coordinate is the angel to an arbitrary axis. A single position of an ant is again still just a dot. If the location changes by time we also do get a line.
The arrow just shows the direction for the time value.

There are many more polar plots like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sidelobes_en.svg antenna side lobes], but the plot at this comic is much more simple.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1230: Polar/Cartesian

2013-06-26T14:18:52Z

12.202.74.87:

Heh. Schroedinger's graph. Simultaneously 100% certainty of being Cartesian and 100% certainty of being Polar. [[Special:Contributions/12.117.213.34|12.117.213.34]] 09:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this a Polar graph? If it's a Cartesian, doesn't it end at 0%? As the line goes farther to the right, more time has passed instead of the "certainty" changing. --Clayton [[Special:Contributions/12.202.74.87|12.202.74.87]] 14:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If you take into account [[833]], this graph shows certainty that you are interpreting it correctly. --[[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 09:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The ambiguity is due to the unlabelled x-axis. --[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 10:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The title text protip is really only applicable to 2 axes continuous graphes, unless you count ants being added or flicked away by the user as discontinuities. [[Special:Contributions/24.247.120.53|24.247.120.53]] 13:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)ProfKrueger

1181: PGP

2013-03-04T16:02:08Z

12.202.74.87: /* Explanation */ Made description a little more accurate, corrected some grammar, changed reason of why PGP isn't used for encryption as often

{{comic
| number = 1181
| date = March 4, 2013
| title = PGP
| image = pgp.png
| titletext = If you want to be extra safe, check that there's a big block of jumbled characters at the bottom.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Pretty Good Privacy|PGP}} (or {{w|GNU_Privacy_Guard|GPG}} for the free, open source version) is a program which can be used to encrypt and sign data, including messages sent as emails. Encrypting the message would prevent anybody from reading it if they didn't have the key to decrypt. Signing the message would mean that the message can be verified as unaltered, if the reader was to check the message against the signature. People who use such a program typically only use the feature to sign the message, since encrypting it (which would give you the privacy) requires that the recipient already be a PGP user. Hence the irony here is that nobody actually verifies the "signature" either, but feel secure that the message appears to be signed.

The use of signing software for email is so rare that most people have never seen a signed message. The joke here lies within the approach of ignoring actual privacy guarantees PGP provides, therefore giving a false sense of security.

PGP or {{w|Pretty Good Privacy}}, uses {{w|Public-key cryptography}}, which is defined in RFC-4880 [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880#page-60 RFC4880]-devised. The blob which makes the signature is a binary signature which is encoded into ASCII using {{w|ASCII armor}}.

==Transcript==
:How to use PGP to verify that an email is authentic:
:Look for this text at the top
:[In mail header, light grey.] Reply
:-----BEGIN PGP ENCRYPTED MESSAGE-----
:[in mail message, light grey]
:HASH: SHA256
:Hey,
:First of all, thanks for taking care of
:If it's there, the email is probably fine

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Computers]]