explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1357: Free Speech

2026-02-13T13:53:45Z

146.70.174.163:

I think the last frame should be interpreted as whoever Cueball is preaching to getting tired of his drivel and showing him the door [[User:BarnZarn|BarnZarn]] ([[User talk:BarnZarn|talk]]) 05:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:Really? I think it's the reverse, personally. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This comic is terribly outdated now.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.57|162.158.158.57]] 07:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
:Yeah, everyone knows doors don't exist anymore. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
::Doors were those wall hole lids, right?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.21|141.101.77.21]] 15:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice to mention how this applies only to the Federal government; discussions of how it is enforced on the states may be beyond the scope of this wiki. In addition, it might be amusing to note that freedom of association and other freedoms specified in the Bill of Rights have the same scope. That is, there are very few enumerated powers given to the Federal government, the Bill of Rights specifies some limitations on the Congress - but in general, the restriction on Congress was to the enumerated powers, a concept that made the Bill of Rights redundant - and the Bill of Rights does not apply (as written) to anyone but the Federal government. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.40|173.245.54.40]] 20:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

: The First Amendment also applies to the various State governments (including their subsidiaries, such as local governments) through the {{w|Incorporation Doctrine}}, which is based on the Fourteenth Amendment (which is about the States). To be sure, the text of the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't spell out this doctrine, so the whole thing is a bit of a stretch, but it's how the courts interpret it now. This (along with the courts' broad interpretation of the enumerated powers) makes the Bill of Rights far from redundant (and I for one am happy to have it applied as broadly as possible). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 23:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

:I have attempted to address some of the concerns you raised by editing the first paragraph. Please feel free to edit/improve my work. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 11:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've clarified the sentence about the Constitution being a legal document. Legal documents are not necessarily limited to government activity (for example, an apartment lease is a legal document but says nothing about what the government can or cannot do). I added the phrase "that defines the structure and powers of the government" to the end of the sentence. [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 04:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Another recent event (within the past couple of weeks) was a campaign against Stephen Colbert for an out-of-context quote taken from a bit on his show. It was hash-tagged under "CancelColbert". Interestingly, people from Fox News that had supported the Duck Dynasty guy were completely against Colbert. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 05:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That door in the last frame is a backdoor to fascism. --[[User:Mus|Mus]] ([[User talk:Mus|talk]]) 06:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
: Are you [http://gawker.com/5951080/vp-debate-attendee-tells-chris-matthews-obama-is-a-communist-but-cant-explain-what-a-communist-is related to this woman?] LOL.
: Nevertheless, I agree the comic would be stronger and more accurate if it didn't have that last panel. Disagreeing with someone's speech doesn't mean you get to throw them out. Places of public accommodation, such as most businesses, are required to be non-discriminatory. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 11:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Reading-comprehension fail. Read the '''entire''' bottom row; it is a complete sentence. Removing the last clause negates the first. — [[User:Fluffy Buzzard|Fluffy Buzzard]] ([[User talk:Fluffy Buzzard|talk]]) 14:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
::Businesses are allowed to throw people out for almost any reason. The non-discriminatory clause has nothing to do with what people say, and isn't even tangential to the First Amendment. And yes. Disagreeing with someone in your domain does mean you get to throw them out. In fact, you can throw them out if you do agree with them. Or don't know them. Or if they're your brother. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 21:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Can someone add something saying that other countries also have similar laws on free speech? I would do it myself, but I'm new to editing the wiki and I wouldn't know how to word it. [[User:Cheeselord99|Cheeselord99]] ([[User talk:Cheeselord99|talk]]) 07:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:I would if there was some sort of summary of them available. Though there's the {{w|Universal Declaration of Human Rights}} from the UN, I don't think it specifically requires any entity (such as a government body) to do (or not do) anything, just like I understand most anything U.N. related to be. I believe it's a guide/declaration/definition/resolution/statement of belief, and it would then be up to any soverienty to actually enforce or comply with it. [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
::"Can someone add something saying that other countries also have similar laws on free speech?" Are you implying that you think ALL other countries have similar laws, or SOME other countries have similaar laws? Saying that the local dictator sucks, or that the local religion is bullshit is certainly not protected free speech in many, many countries. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 23:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This is going to be one of those XKCDs everyone is linking to, to make a point.[[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 08:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Though, I will say, I'm a bit concerned that the point people may be making is that "Argumentum ad Populum" is totally legit, as there is a suggestion one could infer that if a bunch of people are mad at you for something you say you deserve to be shown the door. And I'm not sure that's the intended message, and even if it is, I'm not sure it's a good one. Speaking an uncomfortable or undesired truth to a community (Which will almost certainly anger them, and make them think you're an asshole, let's say) doesn't mean the door is an appropriate response. On the other hand, when speaking such truths, one probably has a better justification than "Because Free Speech," just hopefully the disgruntled masses will actually listen to it.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.46|108.162.216.46]] 10:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
: That's the point, if your only defense is "Free Speech" - you should be shown the door. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 15:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Obviously, no one making an argument personally thinks the only defense is "it is not illegal for me to say this". Other people, defending him afterwards, do not agree with the argument but are offended by censorship of his argument. Democrats think there are no merit to Republican arguments, and most Republicans think there are no merit to Democrat arguments; by your logic, a Democrat defending a Republican's right to hold a job, attend college, go to grocery stores, and generally be tolerated, is being hypocritical and should actually believe Republicans should be shown the door. Imagine what a shit world we'd live in if everyone wanted to show the door to people they disagreed with. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.197|108.162.218.197]] 00:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
::: That's not obvious at all, actually. I believe the English language has a noun for the specific kind of person who, making an argument, personally thinks the only defense is "it is not illegal for me to say this": troll. And in any case, imagine what a shit world we'd live in if sincerity of belief were considered to mitigate the legal import of direct incitement to violence. "Yes, your honor, I did tell that man that the owners of that pizza place deserved to have their place shot up in retaliation for their crimes, for which I had no evidence, and which turned out not to exist; but in my defense, I believed it so sincerely that I wanted to shoot it up myself." [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.76|162.158.214.76]] 20:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Both Jeff and 108.162.216.46 are accurate. 108.162.216.46's example of an uncomfortable or undesired truth causing anger is possible. It's up the the messenger to make sure that they frame the point properly and use appropriate supporting materials to justify their claims. A messenger with bad news won't say "free speech," they will say "this is the evidence" if they want to avoid being shown the door. {{unsigned ip|173.245.55.85}}
: The issue, of course, is that a lot of people aren't willing to listen to evidence when told things they don't want to hear. Say, I dunno, if you're hanging out on a particularly conservative forum where people are taking turns bashing "Obamacare," even if you have a perfectly rational, backed up by numbers, etc. reason to say it may not be all bad, or may even be good, there's a decent chance that you could get shown the door simply because that's an unpopular opinion no matter how good your reasons are. And it's the sort of person who wants to punish someone simply for saying something unpopular on a forum, simply because it's unpopular (Or, in the case of some admins/mods, something they just don't personally like), who I'm concerned about using this comic as rhetorical backup. For the message of this comic to work, the community/etc. has to be willing to listen to rational evidence and they frequently aren't. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.46|108.162.216.46]] 22:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Frankly, it would be entirely appropriate for all those sorts of people to use this comic as rhetorical backup. Your "right" to say what you think, free from interference, applies only in public spaces and on your own property. You certainly do not have the right to use other people's media as vehicles for your thoughts. So yes, it is perfectly right (and, incidentally, the only workable solution) for the person who controls the medium to decide what is said on that medium. And it is perfectly right and just for even the most woefully misguided, closed-minded, power-hungry, dogmatic or extremist admin to point to this comic and say: "I'm not willing to broadcast your opinions". That is the whole point. The freedom NOT to disseminate ideas you disagree with is just as fundamental and suffers very few exceptions. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.122|108.162.229.122]] 00:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Just happened to see this today, thought it was relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJMqYcRgf-A&t=51s [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.60|173.245.54.60]] 16:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:The video doesn't exist anymore lmao [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This comic has it <s>completely</s> backwards! There are people who say "You're violating the First Amendment." when they're being censored by somebody who's not the government; they are mistaken, and this comic would be absolutely correct if it were addressing them. But it's not. In fact, it doesn't talk about the First Amendment (or similar provisions in other constitutions or other laws) at all; it talks only about freedom of speech. [ETA April 19: Whoops, that's wrong! The first panel has it backwards, but the third panel is perfectly correct. So my complaint is that the comic ''conflates'' freedom of speech and the First Amendment, not that it addresses ''only'' freedom of speech.] And if you're being censored on Facebook, or in the privately-owned shopping mall, or wherever, then yes, your freedom of speech is being violated.

It's not illegal, and it may not even be wrong (why should my blog have to display your speech, after all?), but it's still a limitation on your freedom to speak. And if you want to argue that Facebook or the shopping mall (or even my blog) should not do that, then that's a perfectly legitimate position to take. As long as you say nothing about the First Amendment or the like, but instead complain about freedom of speech, then my only response (if I want to respond) is to explain why you shouldn't have free speech on that forum, not some irrelevant blather about the government. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 23:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

: The comic does not address the concept of free speech itself; it addresses the *right* to free speech. Sure, your speech might be restricted on certain forums or in certain communities, but you generally have no actual *right* to free speech there. It's simply that the forum or community does not want to support your ideas. --[[User:V2Blast|V2Blast]] ([[User talk:V2Blast|talk]]) 02:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

:: Who decides whether that is a right or not? {{unsigned ip|108.162.217.47}}

:: Rights aren't just for governments. Any entity can grant you rights and then uphold or violate them. (Facebook actually calls its terms of service a "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities", which it is, even though it's primarily their rights and our responsibilities.) So one might argue that Facebook (as a public forum intended for everybody and everything) ought to grant freedom of speech (which it kind of does, with a few exceptions, but only implicitly), while a personal blog should not (and then there are also forums that should maybe grant freedom of on-topic speech or something like that). People also consider natural rights (which is how the Declaration of Independence treats them, although free speech is not on its list), but personally I think that it's clearer to discuss what rights ''should'' be rather than what natural rights ''are''. So if somebody claims that FB (eg) is violating their right to free speech, then at best you have them on a technicality (because that is not a natural right and also not a right explicitly granted by FB), but their real point is that FB is violating their freedom of speech (which FB sometimes really does, including in ways that its terms of service does not authorize, hence various complaints from time to time like [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/18/breastfeeding-photos-facebook-respect-the-breast_n_1285264.html this one]). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 17:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I see 2 ironies:
1. Those from the BGLT+ side tend to use the 'Free Speech' argument, too.
2. This was posted in Good Friday.
[[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 23:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:Looking at #1, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are we reading the same comic? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

:: On the first irony, I think this article rather misrepresents the uproar around the Duck Dynasty incident (which is mentioned in the article explanation). It wasn't just that people felt the guy's rights were violated (the merits of which argument I am not commenting on), but that A&E essentially ambushed him after he gave an opinion, in an interview, that no one should expect he didn't have. It's essentially the same issue with the Chik-fil-a incident, where people became extremely angry over an open Christian donating money to anti-gay groups, even though he was doing so for several years previously. It's not just the first amendment rights, it's that A&E, a company who is so prideful about being open minded and tolerant with the BGLT community, would drop the hammer so hard on someone who was already well-known for having opposite opinions. The point is, while A&E does technically have the right to show the Duck Dynasty guy the door, they cannot seriously do so without seriously undermining their own reasons for firing him. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.45|173.245.54.45]] 18:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've had the situation where I express disagreement with someone and they accuse me of violating their right of free speech. A possible response to this, which I wouldn't actually use, is "I absolutely defend your First Amendment right to behave like a jerk." [[User:Mark314159|Mark314159]] ([[User talk:Mark314159|talk]]) 15:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, while it is correct to say that the kind of actions talked about in this comic don't violate the ''First Amendment'', it's not at all beside the point to point out that there are problems with the ''free speech'' involved. Basically, Randall Munroe is repeating a popular line of argument these days, and one that unfortunately sidesteps the entire issue of whether non-state entities can be censors. If you think the issue through for more than two seconds, it's pretty clear that they can be. Take for example some group of armed thugs physically threatening a journalist. (Hardly a hypothetical - there's a lot of that going on in the world today.) If they don't represent a government, according to a strict interpretation of the argument just made in the above ''xkcd'', they're just providing consequences and "showing the door" to someone who's speech they don't like. So, obviously, there are very clearly non-state actions that amount to censorship.
:The fact that it has to be explained to you that blackmail is illegal... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, what about non-violent actions? That still can run into a lot of grey areas. Most certainly, nobody owes anybody else the use of their venue or platform for someone else to make their point - *that* would be a violation of free speech rights to be compelled to do so. And certainly, boycotts of those who's views one disagrees with in order to influence public opinion have a solid history in democratic societies. What is problematic, however, and crosses the line into a kind of privatized censorship is the kind of "no platform" activism that seems to be in fashion these days, that seeks to deny *any* venue to those who are deemed to have unacceptable views or are practicing "hate speech" - slippery and ever-expanding concepts, it seems to me. Who is it that should have the power to "show the door" into outright silencing? BTW, a recent blog post raises these concerns in response to the above cartoon [http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/04/xkcd-is-wrong-about-free-speech.html here], and I blogged about this at length last year [http://www.skepticink.com/skepticallyleft/2013/04/07/sunday-sinner-guest-post-iamcuriousblue/ here] in regards to some of the more censorious actions of Ada Initiative. [[User:Iamcuriousblue|Iamcuriousblue]] ([[User talk:Iamcuriousblue|talk]]) 04:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

:Look, the two concepts you raise are different things. And it's not a government's job to determine which point of view is valid or best, or even to protect or promote that PoV. The point is that the U.S. government (in this case) must remain un-hostile (if that's a word) to dissenting points of view. In fact, ''especially'' towards dissenting points of view. Thugs threatening journalists? I agree that's a problem. And the state/local government (in most cases) should do its best to prevent this kind of coercion. The overarching principle is that within the U.S. is that we want to create as open a marketplace for ideas as possible. That marketplace structure does not determine the value of a speech's content. It simply allows it to exist.

:So the USG can't prevent others from not listening, or even from telling a speaker to shut up. You must see that this ''cannot'' be the role of a government that is seeking to promote open and constructive discourse. Because once the government starts favoring one PoV or providing "more favored treatment" for, let's say, your coerced journalist, then it is condoning or supporting that particular speech over others. And that, if you think about it for more than two seconds, is in itself infringing on the very same free speech guarantee. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 11:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact, there are (admittedly rare) situations in which the "right to free speech" can require a private entity to host a speaker. Marsh v. Alabama involved a Jehovah's Witness handing out literature in a company town completely owned by a corporation. The Supreme Court held that because the admittedly private spaces in a company town were akin to public spaces, the company could not enforce a trespassing law against the Jehovah's Witness without violating the First Amendment. So long as one is talking about the "right to free speech" (which goes beyond the First Amendment), the Pruneyard Shopping Center case, in which a mall owner was forced to allow participation by a speaker due to a California law expanding free speech rights in commercial areas, serves as another example of where a private entity can be forced to accommodate another's speech. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.13|173.245.54.13]] 10:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

'''TL;DR''' --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A very recent article that pretty much shreds this comic. XKCD is usually on point, but this one goes a bit too far. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/22/freedom_to_marry_freedom_to_dissent_why_we_must_have_both_122376.html {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.86}}
:I have no idea what you were trying to use "shred" to mean. "shredding" refers to either cutting or the name of a skateboard trick.

I find it very disturbing that one of the most popular science-themed comics on the Internet gives a free pass to the Catholic church like this. The Catholic church is not a government, it is an international cultural institution, therefore, if the Catholic church bans people, ideas, speech, and behavior from all domains of its organizational influence, this comic clearly supports such a move. (I doubt the author needs a primer on that part of history.) The stated position that free speech only means that government can't come after you, but cultural institutions can and you just need to be quiet and leave if you disagree with that. {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.85}}
:As an atheist, the Catholic church's policies have no relevance to me. I do not visit Catholic churches, I do not attend Catholic schools, and I do not use Catholic businesses. If anyone doesn't like what they do, they -can- just leave. When enough people are fed up, they'll be a cultural institution of zero. Or one, or whatever. A number too small to have any bearing on society at large. Unless you're suggesting that people somehow have a right to impose things on someone else's property, which is false. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 09:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
:: I believe that Randall made this comic without fully thinking of the implications of the stance it takes. I mean, it certainly is a backlash against currently so-called homophobic (I have problems with this word) community, but it also essentially justifies a whole lot of other stuff this society wouldn't deem right. {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.86}}
:::Seems kinda irrelevant to the comment you're replying to. And weirdly vague, too. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

:: I'd like to explain all the ways I think this comic is ridiculous- if, indeed, he;s talking about what everyone thinks he's talking about:

::1. His casual and condescending dismissal of actual, seriously held points of view as mere trolling.

::2. His pretending that all these debates are about is so much trolling, akin to a website choosing to remove someone disruptive.

::3. Every who's protested this has stressed that they have no argument that Mozilla had a legal right to do as they please; they are making a more moral argument. To many, alas, *anything* is government action or it's nothing at all, so moral arguments, interestingly, end up having no weight.

::4. Many on the "other side" have had no problem calling "Freedom of Speech!" with little to no actual legal basis. Turnabout is...

::5. Those same people have often had no issue with actual repression even when government (e.g., a state university) is involved. One wonders what the argument would be like if, say, Woolworth's refused to serve blacks at their lunch counters. Oh wait. Well, turnabout again.

::That's most of what I can think of off the top of my head.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.224|141.101.88.224]] 20:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

HAAY GUISE I HAS A OPINON AND YOU ALL MUST LISTEN TO ME OKAY HERE GOES WAIT DON'T DELETE ME WAAAGH!!! [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.71|199.27.128.71]] 06:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

How recent was the Clippers scandal in relation to this comic? I just saw on Facebook's trending bar that sponsors are pulling away so they won't be associated with racism, and people are crying about the First Amendment. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 05:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

;Off topic — Free Speech Schtonk!
At {{w|The Great Dictator}}, the greatest movie Charlie Chaplin ever did, the Führer shouts: "Demokratsie Schtonk! Liberty Schtonk! Free Sprekken Schtonk!“ The word {{w|Schtonk!}} was also used as the title of a satirical German movie, retelling the hoax of the {{w|Hitler Diaries}}.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"The 1st amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences." - Of course it doesn't, I live in the UK --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.10|141.101.99.10]] 18:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Little disturbed that nobody else has called out the specious defense that [http://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ shouting fire in a crowded theatre] actually is. If you want to use something like '''that''' to prove that not all speech is free, go for it, but it's a pretty weak argument, especially considering the very judge that ruled on it recanted several years later in a later decision. Protesters got the right to protest, yo. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.129|108.162.219.129]] 23:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Conversation on a mincraft server:
Moderator: Please stop
Idiot: No, I have the right to free speech!
Moderator: And we have the right to ban you
*Idiot left the game {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.180}}

Ironically, the title text also applies in the other direction. "If I don't like your speech, I can respond by unfriending you, boycotting you, etc. The First Amendment only limits government action; what I'm doing *isn't illegal*! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.117|162.158.85.117]] 12:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
:Where's the irony? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The reference to Schenck completely mischaracterizes it. The defendants were convicted of urging draft resistance, and their conviction had nothing to do with allegations that they were lying. They were convicted of opposing Wilson's war and the laws that forced people to fight in it. The expression "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since then been a popular way for censorship advocates to justify all sorts of prohibitions on speech.

Munroe is wrong. The right to free speech means a lot more than "the government can't arrest you for what you say." It means the government can't discriminate against people based on their views. It can't deny them jobs, block them from using a public forum, or punish students of government-run universities on the basis of what they say. If the only thing the First Amendment only stopped the government from arresting dissidents, we'd have all kinds of censorship.

Munroe's suggestion that views which provoke yelling or boycotting are "bullshit" is also disturbing. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 11:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This comic shows that Munroe, at the time at least, fell for the common error of confusing an objection about human rights with an objection about legal rights. Anybody who spends time saying unpopular things will realize that it is most often the community, not the government, that moves to restrict your freedoms when you have an unpopular position. This sounds perfectly acceptable and even just to people holding the majority position, but it displays a certain naivety that they don't consider what it would be like if they found themselves in the minority. Freedom of Speech does not originate from the First Amendment; it is a universal ideal that was incorporated into the First Amendment, as it was realized that the government is an organization with sufficient power to oppress people with minority views. Similarly, any other organization with the power to oppress those with minority views is morally obligated to adopt similar policies of open discourse, just as the government was. The Title text is the most egregious part, in that it gets the situation completely bass-ackwards. Contrary to what he was once told - that citing freedom of speech when told to shut up is the ultimate concession that you don't have a good argument - it is the person attempting to silence you that has admitted they have no good argument. To delete, silence, or ban someone is to admit that you cannot address their words with words of your own. It's frankly baffling that Munroe would express this view when it is quite contrary to the views expressed in pretty much everything else he produces. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.214|108.162.219.214]] 17:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
:It seems like the entire point of the existence of the government is to ensure human rights and to intervene whenever they need to achieve that goal, so... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.80|172.69.34.80]] 19:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
: "it is the person attempting to silence you that has admitted they have no good argument" - I think this is an important point to raise, although I would also say that the two aren't mutually exclusive. It is possible for someone to claim freedom of speech for lack of a better argument, and it is also possible for someone to deny freedom of speech for lack of having any better argument. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.84.150|172.68.84.150]] 22:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

In the 19th century, Western Union routinely engaged in discrimination by preventing certain people of a particular political viewpoint from sending telegrams. One of the eventual consequences of this was the common carrier rule, which required telegraph companies, and later phone companies, to accept communications from all people on all topics. These platforms were deemed so important to the functioning of society that censoring speech was against the interest of the public. If the phone company or telegram company doesn't like what you're saying on their platform, they can't just show you the door. Today, social media companies routinely discriminate against political viewpoints by censoring speech they don't agree with. Surely social media is a platform just as, if not more important to the functioning of society than the telegram and phone was in the 19th and 20th centuries. [185.181.9.120] 21:19, June 32rd 2018 (UTC)

:Social media sites are not common carriers. Internet service providers (ISPs) are. If all ISPs (and telegraph and phone companies and the post office) block you, then you can't send a message to your friend. If all social media sites block you, then you can still call/text/email your friend, even if you have to get their IP address manually and use a peer-to-peer protocol. If anything, being banned from a social media site is like being banned from taking out ads in a newspaper. It's their right to decide how to use their speech. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.155|172.68.46.155]] 03:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
:No, being banned from social media is ''nothing'' like being banned from taking out adverts in the newspaper. What a disingenuous argument. It's akin to being banned from talking in the public square. [[Special:Contributions/146.70.174.163|146.70.174.163]] 13:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

This comic. This is one of my (if not 'the') favourite comics. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] [[User talk:Beanie|talk]] 11:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you create [[Template:User says free speech]]?
:could not find a comic named "censorship" [[User:Translated ORK|Translated ORK]] ([[User talk:Translated ORK|talk]]) 09:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
::What are you trying to do? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.109|162.158.74.109]] 13:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::rationalwiki has a template called user says free speech. i hope explain xkcd has one. [[User:Translated ORK|Translated ORK]] ([[User talk:Translated ORK|talk]]) 09:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Fish have no word for "water".{{Citation needed}) (Neither do they have one for bicycle, I also imagine, but that's not my point.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.89|172.71.241.89]] 10:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Been thinking about this comic a lot lately, especially in light of the Jimmy Kimmel incident. [[Special:Contributions/131.194.11.62|131.194.11.62]] 19:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
:Although we must also always admit the possibility that it's the people shooing people through the door that are the ones being the assholes. [[Special:Contributions/92.17.62.87|92.17.62.87]] 20:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
::True. [[Special:Contributions/131.194.11.63|131.194.11.63]] 22:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

What a strawman. When someone is trying to silence dissenters, we've moved '''far''' beyond "justifications for your argument" and into "justifications for ''being allowed to present'' your argument". The people who censor others do not care how justified your argument is. If anything, the stronger your argument the ''more'' they want to censor you rather than engage with it, because they know they would lose so they seek to ''bypass'' the argument. [[Special:Contributions/146.70.174.163|146.70.174.163]] 13:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:1357: Free Speech

2026-02-13T13:50:08Z

146.70.174.163:

Talk:1354: Heartbleed Explanation

2026-02-13T12:52:47Z

146.70.174.163:

I assume everybody got the (truncated) reference to the password "CorrectHorseBatteryStaple"... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.210|141.101.89.210]] 06:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
:Until I read this wiki, I did not get that. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.50|108.162.216.50]] 10:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)BK201
:There are also references to (if I recall correctly): [[Missed Connections]], "snakes but not too long" from [[Umwelt]], there's boats (of which many comics exist), "bees in car why" may be slightly related to [[Parody Week: TFD and Natalie Dee]]... that's all I see. Also the ip (375.381.283.17) doesn't seem to represent anything, but you never know. {{User:Grep/signature|11:04, 11 April 2014}}
::The IP most certainly does not represent anything because it is invalid. Three of the octets are >255. [[User:Dan|Dan]] 21:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
:::It does not refer to anything as an IP address. It can still represent something that is not a real IP address - fake IP addresses with four random non-octet numbers are far from unheard of in Hollywood products (e.g, Iron Man 3: 936.345.643.21) [[User:Amadan|Amadan]] ([[User talk:Amadan|talk]]) 03:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
::::guys check the map of the internet --[[User:Bb777|((((((((((((([...](((((]] ([[User talk:Bb777|talk]]) 01:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
While the bug is explained very good, there is one point missing: The word "user" seems to imply that Meg is known to server. But the bug doesn't require that - ANYONE can ask the server. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
: Nope, the word "user" does not indicate a logged in user. It's just a reference to anybody who happens to "use" (actually: connect to) the server at the moment. In fact, it is a particular network connection (TCP or else), on which other end there is a "user" Meg. -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.111|108.162.210.111]] 12:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
::I would ague that the fact that the server associates her with the name 'Meg' rather than an IP address does indeed imply that she is known to the server. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.117.38|172.70.117.38]] 21:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The transcript should include all the text in the servers memory, not just the highlighted text. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
:Nope, it can only do 64k per request. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.91|108.162.216.91]] 16:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
::I meant that the transcript here above the talk page should include all text. When I wrote my comment, only the highlighted text in the computers thoghts where transcripted. Now that I visit the page again, it seems to be complete. The text in the servers last speech is only half the 500 charachters long (251) but that is explained by OnePointEight in the comment below. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
:The speech bubble is formatted as truncated, but if it were complete it would be 500 characters which is what was requested by Megan and within the 64k max.[[User:OnePointEight|OnePointEight]] ([[User talk:OnePointEight|talk]]) 19:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Heartbleed Explanation Explanation. Lovely. Also, I see that Eve is an administrator. Eavesdropper? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 15:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
:Also the attacker is Meg, which can be thought of as an alternate to Mallory/Trudy [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.65|108.162.221.65]] 16:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
::This is absurd. Meg is a common nickname for Margaret. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.84|173.245.50.84]] 20:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
:::As my main language is not English I'm not familiar with nicknames, but if Meg is a common nickname for Margaret then that is important and should be included in the explanation of the title text. I did not understand why Margaret suddenly turned up... [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
::::The explanation of the title text has presumably been expanded since you visited it. It's a reference to a book. --[[User:V2Blast|V2Blast]] ([[User talk:V2Blast|talk]]) 03:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"Snakes but not too long"... great! --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.241|108.162.210.241]] 15:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the "server key" is a phone number: 1-483-503-8534 {{unsigned ip|199.27.130.228}}
:I was thinking the same thing. 483 is not a valid area code however. {{unsigned ip|173.245.48.60}}

The User Ada is a reference to Ingress, in which Ada is the head of the blue team. Ingress, being an ARG, would be an IRL game.{{unsigned ip|108.162.219.10}}

Why has everyone here missed the reference to Portal 2? It almost seems so obvious :). [[User:YetAnotherGeek|YetAnotherGeek]] ([[User talk:YetAnotherGeek|talk]]) 09:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
:"Are you still there?" could also be a reference to the turrets in Portal / Portal 2 [[Special:Contributions/173.245.62.126|173.245.62.126]] 09:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Are we sure that the hacker in the comic is Megan? She has long, curly hair as opposed to short straight hair. Considering she has long hair and has malicious intent, she might be Danish. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.71}}
:The server refers to her as "Meg", and if she were spoofing the source address, the packets wouldn't go back to her. That would be an amplification DoS attack. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.4|108.162.246.4]] 22:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
::What's to say that [[Danish|Danish's]] real name isn't Margaret? Last I checked, Margaret and Megan are not the same name. That and I'm pretty sure Megan doesn't have curly hair. --[[User:XndrK|XndrK]] ([[User talk:XndrK|talk]]) 19:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Has anybody figured out what the selfie.jpg contents reaaly are? It isn't a valid JPG because the magic numbers don't match, and it isn't ASCII text because multiple bytes have the most significant bit set. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.45|108.162.215.45]] 07:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
:I put 834ba962e2ceb9ff89bd3bff8c into a file and [https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/809c727dee625e37c3487f6d57d42e295e2fdd74a8c1f89ce7e667d8ae3e2fcc/analysis/1397428742/#additional-info sent it to VirusTotal]. The magic literal seems to match "DBase 3 data file with memo(s)", so I'd say that it's just random data. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.4|108.162.246.4]] 22:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone figured out if the words "potato", "bird", and "hat" are supposed to mean something in particular? --[[User:Dfeuer|Dfeuer]] ([[User talk:Dfeuer|talk]]) 07:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about "potato" and "bird", but "hat" could possibly be a reference to Black Hat Guy, who often creates havoc to prove a point. Also, completely separately from Black Hat Guy, in security discussions, attackers are broken up between black hat ("bad") and white hat ("good") hackers. So "hat" could be a sort of generic reference for a hacker. {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.116}}
:Black Hat Guy is not completely separate. He wears a black hat because he is a black hat hacker. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.65|173.245.55.65]] 23:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC) TooMuchBlue

I think that "potato" and "bird" are a reference to portal 2, (possibly) how the computer cores constantly malfunction. [[User:mailmindlin|mailmindlin]]

To understand better how far this goes, [http://www.pabr.org/heartbleedtax/heartbleedtax.en.html A taxonomy of Heartbleed attacks] contains a very interesting list of attack cases. --[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 12:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Not gonna [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1354:_Heartbleed_Explanation&curid=14548&diff=293068&oldid=273249 edit-war this revert], but a "note book" is the {{wiktionary|note book|less standard}} version (and makes me think more of a "{{wiktionary|scrapbook}}", or even where I might secrete a secret stash of (bank)notes interleved with the pages of the most boring novel on my bookshelf, than a "writing pad"), of what is monatomically a "notebook" in standard English (and even American...). Even after considering notepad (or writing pad, reporter's pad or even "pad" in its own, amongst others) the pen-not-stylus mentioned should be enough, more so than notepad (with confusion with "tablet", both ancient and modern), to read better ''and'' unambiguously. But clearly my whole internal monalogue prior to/during editing (which was much too long/boring to inflict in whole in the summary) isn't as conclusively apparent as I thought. ;) But I feel more strongly about it than I realised, so just making this little note (not upon a pad...) to get it out of my system. Finis. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.78|172.70.91.78]] 09:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

this gotta be the best explanation ever of this bug [[User:An user who has no account yet|An user who has no account yet]] ([[User talk:An user who has no account yet|talk]]) 15:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking back from the future, this was ''such'' an obvious bug it really does make one a bit suspicious. It's basically a read version of a buffer overrun, which relies on the server trusting user supplied data without verifying it. Both are such well-known security exploits it really does make you wonder how someone could put it in by accident. [[Special:Contributions/146.70.174.163|146.70.174.163]] 12:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:1327: Mobile Marketing

2026-02-12T16:04:51Z

146.70.174.163:

The sad thing is that when I saw the name "CNN", and then the title text, I knew exactly what this comic was referring to. https://twitter.com/waxpancake/status/426390907038887936

And ohhhh dear, looking at the latest news/results for this, they've somehow messed up even WORSE than before. https://www.google.com/search?q=cnn+the+news+will+shock+you http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/02/05/dear-cnn-please-be-careful-about-copying-our-headlines-sincerely-upworthy/

But, I think ironically the best part is how practically everyone that's piling onto CNN for this is also doing the same manipulative, emotive, Upworthy-style headline bait tricks as well. (Looking at you, Slate, Salon, Washington Post, The Atlantic, BuzzFeed, ThinkProgress...)

[[User:Mudkip3DS|Mudkip3DS]] ([[User talk:Mudkip3DS|talk]]) 07:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

:BTW I'm not sure how exactly I would phrase this, so I'm not going to add it, but I think one of you should add a reference to those two incidents (the "murder shock" and "rape surprise" ones; though the first one is what I remember making more news, the latter is very recent). It almost seems clear, looking at the comic and text, that it's referring to them. [[User:Mudkip3DS|Mudkip3DS]] ([[User talk:Mudkip3DS|talk]]) 07:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, and from the first panels, I thought it was going to refer to NBCNews.com's new site redesign. CNN hired Blackhat to redo NBC's website to drive visitors from there to CNN... I mean, who /watches/ the news anymore? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.57|108.162.221.57]] 07:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that sending a message to turn on the news to random numbers is very unlikely to drive people to CNN in particular as there are many other competing news channels that they could choose. {{unsigned ip|162.158.7.28}}
:Even if only 10% tuned in to CNN, that would still be a significant bump in their viewership. [[Special:Contributions/146.70.174.163|146.70.174.163]] 16:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:1325: Rejection

2026-02-12T15:57:40Z

146.70.174.163:

How do we know which one is Cueball and which one is “guy”?

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.119|108.162.254.119]] 08:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

:I was wondering the same thing. Is there some kind of assumption that Cueball is always the "smart" stick figure? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.65|108.162.254.65]] 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

:Cueball has a bigger head. Please notice the difference. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.240|103.22.201.240]] 14:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
::That last post makes no sense. Neither of these guys are Cueball in Randall's view, since Cueball is a concept made up on explain xkcd. But it is usually considered that the protagonist of a story is Cueball. And in this case this is obviously the front guy who corrects the guy behind. See my post below from this date. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all we dont know that the first guy has been recently rejected, that is actually an assumption made by the second guy. Also, the "they choose jerks over nice guys" argument is wrong not because it lacks judgement and self awareness, it is wrong because it belittles the woman's judgement and self-awareness. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.105|108.162.254.105]] 08:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the first guy is a jerk and the girl rejected him because he's a jerk. The second guy is quite blatantly pointing out that the first guy's a jerk, but the first guy is so self-absorbed that he just doesn't get it - and probably never will. This is indicates a personality disorder/character flaw. The first guy is incapable of accepting that he is a jerk and therefore has to blame the girl by falling back on a cliche about girls only wanting nice guys. This is OK for the first guy because he thinks nice guys are losers.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.9|108.162.229.9]] 09:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

:Uhm... Some of the above may be correct - but not the last sentences. The first guy thinks he is a nice guy, and he is about to use this to explain why he has been rejected since girls only say they want nice guys but really want something else. She probably doesn't want a jerk! But may rather go for a sporty/strong/hansom type without considering how nice he is. So the guy she chooses may or may not be nice to her (and may even be a real jerk). All this is of course just part of the stereotyping of women. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble editing the article. I am trying to change the explanation to:

In popular culture women supposedly go for jerks instead of "nice guys". The guy on the left in this picture is frustrated and complaining as he has just been (presumably) rejected by a girl, and thinks it's because he's the "nice guy" type. However, there are many other reasons why a woman might reject a guy who isn't a jerk. (Though this guy just might be a jerk.) Cueball is trying to tell this guy that there are many, more complicated, reasons, and that saying "women don't like nice guys" and presuming to know what women "really want" is showing a rejection of that woman's agency, which might be the real that reason she rejected him.

The Alt Text continues the "conversation", with Cueball implying that he believes that the first guy is bad at taking hints, offering a sarcastic "crash course" in hint taking, with Cueball outright saying that he is trying to end the conversation while the first guys continues to follow him.

but it won't save. Can someone help me or copy/paste my changes themselves? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.77|173.245.50.77]] 10:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

:Nevermind. Found the captcha check while posting the above. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.77|173.245.50.77]] 10:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
::Dear 173.245.50.77, You could create a userid and login -- that way your explanation would also appear in the history nicely with your name against it [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 14:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's about "negging" by pick-up-artists. See http://xkcd.com/1027 The theory is that putting a woman down somehow makes her more attracted to you. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.216|108.162.222.216]] 11:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)DivePeak

:Exactly, "Nice guys" is a pick up artist phrase, especially in conjunction with the "what women really want" type of line. One of the techniques they use is "negging" which is exactly what Cueball describes. It isn't about being passive-aggressive. Very often they constitute the "[http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html missing stair]" in a group. --[[User:Ioldanach|Ioldanach]] ([[User talk:Ioldanach|talk]]) 13:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What is particularly interesting is the assumption by Randall that ALL woman are self aware enough to know what they really want in a man. The cartoon generalizes that self proclaimed "nice guys" are in error and whining needlessly and cluelessly about their situation. But it is this exact sort of generalization that has lead to the popular cultural conception of woman going for "jerks" over "nice guys."
In reality, there are men who are rejected by woman who have poor judgement in men, as well as men who perceive themselves to be "nice guys" but do not have the introspection and awareness to respect a woman's judgement, even if it could be poor. [[User:Tardyon|Tardyon]] ([[User talk:Tardyon|talk]]) 14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, if your judgment is poor your judgement shouldn't be respected regardless of gender. It should be pointed out to you, such as is happening here. That being said the primary issue the generalization."Guy" can speak about only one person, the woman he knows. And it'd still be estimation, but it'd probably be a deeper insight into the girl than all women everywhere. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.170|199.27.128.170]] 17:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Rheios

Consider a parallel comic: "Harvard says they want well-rounded students, but what they really want are - " "Applicants who respond to rejection letters by belittling Harvard's judgment?" Suddenly it's not so amusing.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.39|108.162.219.39]] 20:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:Suddenly? I actually find that equally amusing. Your parallel is a bit off thou, as guy talks about women generally rather than a specific one, so rather than Harvard it would be universities and then cueball's response would be more helpful, as in that guys current response won't help him and perhaps he need to self analyze to find out why he failed and change to do better with the next application (or woman).[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.96|199.27.128.96]] 16:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually don't see your point. Are you saying Harvard doesn't want well-rounded students? I'm sure they do; if you go there with a 5.0 GPA but nothing else to recommend you, you probably won't get in, and if you do get in you won't be successful.

When girls say they want "nice guys", they want someone who will treat them well. What would something like that look like to Harvard? Maybe - someone who respects the institution, the staff and the property, someone who won't plagiarize, who won't use the facilities for illegal or unethical activities. Someone who isn't going there just so they can say "I'm going to Harvard". Can you measure these things ahead of time? No, probably not. Even if you could measure them, by themselves, would they make you attractive to Harvard, or likely to succeed there? No, they would not. Harvard wants intelligent, well-rounded, hard-working individuals who can actually demonstrate that they are worthy of acceptance. So yes, of course they want "nice guys", but that doesn't mean shit unless you bring everything else too.

1. Yes, girls want guys who will treat them well, instead of badly. And they shouldn't really have to say it.

2. Being a "nice guy" has almost nothing to do with getting the girl. You have to bring more than that.

3. It is necessary, but not sufficient. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 19:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

How do we know that the girl did not go with someone who is more jerk than the character who thinks to be a nice guy? {{unsigned ip|141.101.70.103}}
:Doesn't matter. "Nice Guy" said "they", not "she", so he is generalizing. If he specified his last girlfriend, he might have case, but he did not, so he does not. Anonymous 19:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I found the girl's response to be rude and belittling his judgement. She cut him off before he could finish. He could have said something like '''"what they really want are interesting, exciting guys"''' as if he was making a discovery on the matter. He could have said that girls used it as a casual expression.

Or he could have said that girls want the "bad boy", which could mean muscular, but not character-wise bad.

[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.87|173.245.55.87]] 13:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ugh Randall. Your presumption that the woman is acting fully rational because people act rational, is countered by the fact that you believe the guy in front of you is not acting rational. Can't you just admit for once that all people act irrational. The guy complaining could very well be right about the particular girl he is talking about. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.114|108.162.216.114]] 15:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
: Except nothing in this indicates that he is talking about a specific event or person, hence why the first thing we see him say is "Women say-" not "She says-" or "This girl said-". This comic is addressing a common trope and attitude, not a particular person. Additionally, it's not rationality that's in question here, it's agency and self awareness. A person may reject the advance of another because they are not interested, and the resulting "Women say they want-" nonsense is attacking their agency (in implying that their choice is faulty and/or should be vetoed, even though it is entirely the person's choice that no other authority need be considered) and their self awareness (by claiming that they don't know what they want, which is ridiculous). -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 06:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
::And yet all this "treat people as individuals and don't make generalisations upon trends" mysteriously vanishes when it's talking about what ''men'' are like, which is acceptible to the kinds of people who object to generalisations about women. [[Special:Contributions/146.70.174.163|146.70.174.163]] 15:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Merge_Cueball_.26_Rob|community portal discussion]] of what to call Cueball and what to do in case with more than one Cueball. I have added this comic to the new Category:Multiple Cueballs. In this case the Cueball walking in front is the protagonist of the story and hence it makes sence for our community to call him Cueball, so this has been kept in the explanation. But it has been made clear that the other character is Cueball-like. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

My first parsing of "...respond to rejection by belittling their judgement and self awareness" was that it was referring to the proposistioner criticizing themselves, which, in the context, would have made the comic really dark. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.30|162.158.186.30]] 15:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:1322: Winter

2026-02-12T15:45:23Z

146.70.174.163:

There is a reason we have correct and precise words for just about every item. "Flappy planes" could refer to birds, or it could refer to the impractical early attempt at a flying machine known as an ornithopter; and in the same manner "stick towers" could also refer to telephone poles or the piers from an old-time wooden railroad trestle.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.30|173.245.54.30]] 17:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
:I think the main reason we like to have so many words is so we can belittle people that don't know as many as we do. The German way is more sensible, if less poetic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 02:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel like he's referencing a song but I can't make the things fit anything. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.53|108.162.219.53]] 06:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
:I thought this may be a shot at media's coverage of the "polar vortex"[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.31|108.162.219.31]] 14:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
:Sounds a bit like Let it Snow to me [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]] 21:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Amusingly, I feel, the German for gloves is "Handschuh" (plural "Handschuhe)" as in
hand shoe(s). [[Special:Contributions/173.245.49.72|173.245.49.72]] 09:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I still think that's whitehat, he is again making an argument that is getting beaten [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 09:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

How does the title text build up on the romeo&juliet's rose idea? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.74|108.162.229.74]] 12:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

:Maybe "build up" is the wrong phrase. It certainly continues on the same train of thought. [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 15:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"Monosyllabic" doesn't quite seem like a fitting description of "water", "flappy", or "towers", especially in contrast to "pond", "birds", and "trees". --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.207|108.162.238.207]] 13:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've added [Birds chirping] to the transcript, but I can't really see what else is missing. I'm open to suggestions. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
:This was something I was trying to grasp when I added the "Birds Chirping" - to what detail do we describe the events going on in any given panel? A transcript is supposed to be a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcript_(law) written record of the spoken word] and while some actions do bear significant meaning to the "record" of the strip as a whole, the question remains - to what detail? [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 20:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
::To the musical notes that appear in the upper right corner of the relevant panels. [[User:Sciepsilon|Sciepsilon]] ([[User talk:Sciepsilon|talk]]) 05:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes, I agree - the musical notes should be transcribed (or notated, lol). But should we be transcribing physical acts, such as characters walking on/off panel, setting up the scene, etc. It would seem that we're moving from Transcript to Script. In any case, I'm going to move this discussion to the [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Coordination|Coordination]] page as I can't seem to find any real guideline on this.[[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It almost scans right for "These Are a Few of My Favorite Things" and a lot of the lines could be taken as references to that song. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 17:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
:If you say so. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 02:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The stickman with the antennated headwool is right. [[User:Sten|'''STEN''']] ([[User talk:Sten|talk]]) 21:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Might "little flappers" refer to fruit bats, instead of birds, since flappy planes is already used for birds? Most of the replacements so far were logical, and since birds mainly generate lift using Bernoulli's Principle (like planes), wouldn't bats more more accurate when only refering to "flappers"? [[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 23:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
:No, I think "little flappers" is definately birds - specifically wrens, sparrows, warblers, etc - all of which are both small and commonly called "songbirds", hence the indication of musical birdsong. {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.46}}

It feels like there is some special significance to the last panel. Either the birds' chirping indicates offense at being called flappy planes, indicating that somebody does in fact care, or they are continuing to chirp happilly because they don't care. Or it could just be that Cueball/White Hat sees Beret Guy's point, as seems to be the consensus. [[User:Sciepsilon|Sciepsilon]] ([[User talk:Sciepsilon|talk]]) 05:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure this isn't a comic about sentient birds. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 02:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Is "spacelight" meant to be "the illumination from space" i.e. "sunlight", or "the lamp in space" i.e. "sun"? I thought the latter. {{unsigned ip|173.245.49.67}}
::I don't think it matters that much, as long as white hat is warm enough. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.86|108.162.229.86]] 19:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
::Do you get confused when people say "The sun is warm today" ? This is the same thing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]]

I have referenced Feynman's "Difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something" to the explanation as the reference would be obvious to someone like Munroe. [[User:Tardyon|Tardyon]] ([[User talk:Tardyon|talk]]) 22:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"Floor water" was referenced in the latest What-If. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 05:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No baby birds in winter? Could they be crossbill's? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.84|108.162.254.84]] 15:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
:He is only saying "little flappers" to create a certain tone in his statement. He simply means the songbirds. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 02:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have always liked Feynman's parable about knowing something vs knowing the name of something. I especially like it in context of those students and intellectual wannabes that spew out names and jargon without actually knowing, understanding or appreciating the how (and perhaps why) behind what they are spouting off.
On the other hand, a shared nomenclature is absolutely essential to communication, especially effective and unambiguous communication, as the discussions herein (above) make clear.
For instance, although "beret guy" may have a deep understanding and appreciation of what he observes, he is failing to communicate this (if that indeed was his intention) to "cueball", and indeed it could be said to the readers. For instance the "little flappers" are birds to some, bats to others. "Lamp in space" is not very unambiguous as well.
People create names and words with specific meaning in order to shorten communication time, and to create a shared mental picture that helps further understanding. An argument could be made that "cueball" has a point about "wrong words for those things" in that if one really wants to communicate ones understanding or appreciation for something, one had better learn the nomenclature. [[User:Tardyon|Tardyon]] ([[User talk:Tardyon|talk]]) 15:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I notice that some of the names Beret Guy is using imply that in the dialect of English he speaks, only manmade or highly technological things are known, and he has to describe his natural surroundings by reference to manmade ones: "floor" "tower" "planes" "light" "beeping". --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.109|108.162.216.109]] 00:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

And here I am in 2016, somehow having missed this comic. And I wonder if this was part of the impetus for [[Thing Explainer]]. [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 01:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

So this could be off-base, but in terms of themes, images, and cadence, the comic (a four-part discussion of journey through the winter woods) seems to allude to the poem "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" by Robert Frost, a four-part discussion of a journey through the winter woods. Especially because the second line of the final stanza of the poem starts with an abrupt "But I have..." and the second panel of the comic starts with an abrupt "But I have..." It's where my brain wants to go, and Frost is a topic that he seems to know well enough, at least the more famous poems (https://xkcd.com/312/). Thoughts, an avenue to consider? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.93|108.162.221.93]] 22:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
It shares a similar setting as the Frost poem & you could consider "cold weather" a common theme. But tone & central theme have little overlap by my reading. And lots of stories have that common setting/theme: from "The Giver" to that Jack London novella about the guy who's freezing to death -- to name 2 from among the several we read in 8th grade.
The prior art this strip reminds me of more would probably be the song "what a wonderful world" --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.44|172.69.22.44]] 03:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm way, way late, but isn't that [[Knit Cap]] that [[Beret Guy]] is talking to? [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 16:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe the Romeo & Juliet quote has been misused. Just as "Wherefore art thou, Romeo?" would be rendered nowadays as "Why did he have to be a Capulet?", so "That which..." is a more poetic way of Romeo pondering the fact that if they'd been, say, Romeo Smith & Juliet Jones instead of a Montague & a Capulet, there wouldn't be the obstacle of their families' vendettas to their love.

This comic kinda reminds me of the conlang Toki Pona. [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous#Help_with_Creating_a_User_Page|Trogdor147]] ([[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous#Help_with_Creating_a_User_Page|talk]]) 02:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The words "sky" and "spacelight" seem to suggest that it was night. [[User:ChristmasGospel|ChristmasGospel]] ([[User talk:ChristmasGospel|talk]]) 16:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:Really? You think that there is no sky at night? And "spacelight" is obviously the sun, which is warm. The moon is not noticeably warm to human senses.

1318: Actually

2026-02-12T15:21:19Z

146.70.174.163: /* Explanation */ There is nothing in the comic that remotely suggests that it's a reference to some random book from 2005 that is about economics rather than geophysics. Removing.

{{comic
| number = 1318
| date = January 17, 2014
| title = Actually
| image = actually.png
| titletext = Protip: You can win every exchange just by being one level more precise than whoever talked last. Eventually, you'll defeat all conversational opponents and stand alone.
}}

==Explanation==
The image shows a sphere, a simple model for the shape of the Earth. Six people stand on its surface, talking about ways to best describe it, starting with a flat surface, the first belief held, and ending with general relativity. As the statements form a circle, the very first statement can lead recursively off the last. Starting from the top, people are giving more precise statements, until the last guy mentions the shape of the universe. Then, re-examining the top guy, he's stating that it's measurements of the universe that are flat, not the Earth. This is based on large-scale cosmological measurements of the distribution of galactic clusters and the spectrum of the cosmic microwave background, which suggest that over large scales the geometry of the universe is flat, where flat means that giant, universe-sized triangles add up to 180 degrees. If the universe were 'open' or 'closed' instead of flat, this would not be the case. The statements in detail:

; Actually, measurements suggest it's flat.
: This statement is located at the top of the sphere in the comic, making it most likely to be read first. Given no other context, it will be interpreted as referring to the Earth; i.e. "The Earth is flat." Early man, without any way to measure, likely assumed our planet's surface was flat.

; Actually, it's a sphere.
: Many experiments over the ages have proven the planet to be round. These early scientists described their findings as the Earth being a "sphere."

; Actually, it's an oblate spheroid.
: This clarifies the previous statement; an {{w|oblate spheroid}} has a wider radius at the equator than through the poles. This distinction would have been difficult to notice before the modern age with more precise instruments and the proliferation of airplane travel. On Earth, this occurs because a rotating body tends to bulge at the equator, where the matter experiences greater centrifugal forces (analogous to experiencing more force at the outside of a round-a-bout rather than at the center). This is known as the {{w|equatorial bulge}}.

; Actually, it's a shape defined by the EGM96 coefficients.
: This adds even more clarification to the previous statement; the {{w|EGM96|Earth Gravitational Model 1996}} is a detailed map of the Earth's gravitational field, which is not as uniform as a pure oblate spheroid would suggest.

; Actually, it's that plus local topography.
: This adds an almost unnecessary level of clarification to the previous; obviously the Earth's surface is not a smooth shape but rather contains numerous mountains, hills, valleys, etc. which constitute "local topography".

; Actually, it's embedded in a universe that's curved.
: This shifts the perspective from the actual shape of the Earth to the "shape" of the space around it. According to {{w|General relativity}}, our planet's gravity bends the space-time around it, making it curved. At the time General relativity was discovered, it was not conclusively known whether the {{w|Shape of the universe|whole universe was flat or curved}}.

; Actually, measurements suggest it's flat.
: Looping around to the first statement and given the context from the previous one, this can now be interpreted as "the universe is flat" rather than "the Earth is flat". Recent measurements of the universe's shape strongly suggest that it is more or less completely flat rather than curved.

; Actually...
: The next two statements could also be interpreted as referring to the universe rather than the Earth - but they would no longer continue to be more precise than the previous ([[Cueball]]'s) statement.
: The text will not continue on to form a ''recursive loop'' - as the statement about the EGM by [[Megan]] would no longer make sense in context of the universe - and the same would be true for the next two statements.

; Title text
: The title text pulls the whole comic together, pointing out that each statement in the comic is more precise than the previous. Unlike the loop in the comic, someone who does this will likely eventually win any real-life debate. The victory will not necessarily be a result of actually proving your logical argument, however: the phrase "stand alone" refers to driving away all conversation, resulting in no one wanting to speak to the person.

==Transcript==
:[Six people are standing upon a white circle as if it were a miniature planet. Each person is facing the reader and says something to the person on their right. All texts are displayed as a near-continuous stream over their heads to form one circle that encloses the whole picture.]
:[From topmost, going clockwise.]
::Cueball: '''''Actually,''''' measurements suggest it's flat.
::Ponytail: '''''Actually,''''' it's a sphere.
::White Hat: '''''Actually,''''' it's an oblate spheroid.
::Megan: '''''Actually,''''' it's a shape defined by the EGM96 coefficients.
::Hairy 1: '''''Actually,''''' it's that plus local topography.
::Hairy 2: '''''Actually,''''' it's embedded in a universe that's curved.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Protip]]

Talk:1282: Monty Hall

2026-02-11T03:24:48Z

146.70.174.163:

This has absolutely nothing to do with "The Monty Hall Problem". It's strictly about the TV game show ''Let's Make a Deal''. In the game, contestants are often given a choice of several options (Curtains, boxes, envelopes etc). Generally, one has a valuable prize (such as a car), and the others either have a lesser prize or nothing. The "nothing" prizes are often given a colorful name, such as "A pig in a poke". Colloquially, such losing prizes are known as "winning the goat". The joke here is that the contestant, having lost the car, is happy to get a goat as a pet. (In fact, the fine print of the rules make it clear that contestant do not really get such "losing" prizes) [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 15:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

: I believe this is correct. The focus of this comic is that he didn't win the prize, but instead got the gag prize. Most contestants on the show are bummed out, but Beret Guy is actually excited for a new pet goat! Sucks though that you can't actually keep the goat like the above commenter said. [[User:Uctriton00|Uctriton00]] ([[User talk:Uctriton00|talk]]) 17:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

:You cannot say it has nothing to do with "The Monty Hall Problem" when the title of the comic is "Monty Hall" and the "winner" is leading away a goat. What? Randall sidestepped expectations by not dragging us through the Monty Hall problem again? This sounds like the type of misdirection that you might find in a...joke! Zounds! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 23:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

:This is literally the monty hall problem. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] [[User talk:Beanie|talk]] 10:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Monty hall. Is this a Monty Python reference? Or something related to a skit of theirs'?
--[[User:Commarchinin|Commarchinin]] ([[User talk:Commarchinin|talk]]) 04:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
: [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Monty+Hall Not a Monthy Python] -- {{w|Monty Hall}} is a game host famous for Let's Make a Deal which gave birth to the {{w|Monty Hall Problem}} [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])

I don't understand "It is known that door 3 has a goat, but nothing else." What do you mean by that? At the beginning in the Monty Hall problem, a contestant knows nothing. --[[Special:Contributions/209.51.184.11|209.51.184.11]] 04:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It goes like this: Player chooses door A, Monty then opens a door he knows there is a goat behind. Player is then offered a chance to switch.

If you do not switch you get a 1/3rd chance of winning because it was a 1 in 3 guess and nothing changed. But if you take into account that Monty will ALWAYS open a goat door and never a car door you can recalculate the odds. So you have a 1/3rd chance that you initially chose the car which means you will lose if you switch 1/3rd of the time, but you had a 2/3rd chance of not selecting the car initially meaning you have a 2/3rds chance if you switch at winning the car. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 04:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

:Reminds me a bit of [[1134]]: ''Goats make sense. Goats are fine.'' --[[Special:Contributions/132.230.1.28|132.230.1.28]] 08:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

[[User:Goldstein-Izayoi|Goldstein-Izayoi]] ([[User talk:Goldstein-Izayoi|talk]]) 14:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Umm, I think there's no telling if the Beret Guy chose A or C in the beginning~
:It's either A or C. Then the player should choose again between A or C. [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 14:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

; Sequence of the events (assuming Beret Guy initially selects door A)
:''Monty:'' Pick a door.
:''Beret Guy:'' I choose A.
:''Monty:'' I will open another door. It is B. ''(He opens it and they see a goat).'' Do you want to switch doors? ''(Meaning if he will switch from A to C.)''
:''Beret Guy:'' I choose door B.
:''Beret Guy (to the goat):'' ...And my yard has so much grass, and I'll teach you tricks, and...
:''A few minutes later, the goat from behind door C drives away in the car that was behind door A.''

"In that scenario, if a goat is revealed, there is in fact an equal probability of winning by switching or keeping the initial door." I'm not sure of this, can anyone explain? It seems to be stating that simply because of the random chance of the host picking the goat door in this situation then the facts about probability change.This seems to be a very large stretch. Surely in this situation since the host is picking randomly then your probabilities of losing are increased but the moment he does randomly pick a goat door then your chances of winning by switching remain the same as they were in the original problem, 2/3. --[[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 17:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
:Let's see... for a "random door opened by host", split it as follows: Initial choice is G (2/3rds goat), or C (1/3rd car). If G, then host has even chance of getting a goat, GG (2/3 * 1/2 = 1/3) or a car, GC (2/3 * 1/2 = 1/3), whereas if C then host has 100% chance of a goat, CG (1/3 * 1 = 1/3). A GG happens at a frequency of 1/3rd (best to swap), a CG happens at a relative frequency of 1/3rd (best to stick) and a "game ender" happens for the final 1/3rd (no choice, no win). Thus in any non-ended game (i.e. excluding the car-revealing third of possibilities), you have equal chance ''regardless'' of what you do.
:You can also analyse it explicitly by noting down the full six combinations of "Goat 1", "Goat 2" and "Car" in the "First chosen", "Host chosen" and "Swap choice" doors. "Swap choice" is the winning move in two circumstances (having sequentially had "G1 then G2" or "G2 then G1") and "First choice" is the winning move in two others ("C then G1" or "C then G2"), with the two remaining (G1,C or G2,C) being end-games that make the option moot.
:Note, the above frequencies only happen with the 'dumb host'. Re-run it with a 'knowing host' and you get your proof for the "best to swap" scenario. (I found the above explanation by 184.66.160.91 to be the most succinct explanation of this problem that I've seen, BTW. Although maybe I have the advantage of understanding it in the first place.) [[Special:Contributions/31.111.43.68|31.111.43.68]] 00:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the various comments above. While this comic does use a goat, it really isn't making use of "The Monty Hall Problem" at all. That involves offering a player a chance to switch doors, and there's no indication that happened here. In this comic, for all we know, Beret selected door B, won a goat and, unlike most players, was pleased with having won a goat.

Even if one were to assume the Month Hall Problem scenario occurred, Beret isn't following it. That scenario involves the player being offered a choice between keeping their original choice (a door currently closed) or switching to the other still closed door. Choosing the door that was opened is not part of the Problem. So if Beret was being offered the Problem choice, he took neither of the options offered to him. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 20:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
:The Monty Hall problem doesn't require that the player be forbidden from picking the door the host opens. It's assumed that he won't, because he wants the car instead of a goat, but the problem works just as well if the host asks "do you want to switch to the other closed door?" as if he just asks "do you want to pick one of the other doors?" As I said it's ''assumed'' that he will either stick with his original pick or switch to the other closed door, but Beret Guy has apparently chosen to switch to the open door instead. [[Special:Contributions/146.70.174.163|146.70.174.163]] 03:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I remember the show, in Monty's day, vaguely. The deals varied but I don't think there were ever two goats. Typically I think there was a big prize such as a car, a moderate prize like a washer/dryer, and a zonk. Player chose a door, Monty revealed another door that had the washer / dryer, to show the player that it was now 50/50, car or nothing. He might ask if he wanted to switch to the unchosen, unopened door, or switch to the open door and go home now with the washer / dryer. OR he might offer him cash. "I'll give you three hundred dollars to walk away now. No? How about five hundred dollars?" The car might have been worth $3000 or something, so if you don't feel lucky, you might take a sure $500 instead of a 50/50 shot. [[User:Wrybred|Wrybred]] ([[User talk:Wrybred|talk]]) 21:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC) wrybred

Observe that in the comic only ''one'' of three doors is open. The second door was never revealed. The reason why this joke is funny is because the contestant (Beret Guy) ''subverts'' the playing rules by not choosing a second door and therefore disregarding the possible car and leaving happily with the goat that was revealed in the first phase of the game:

:"There's a goat behing door B! Now you must stick to your door A pick or switch to door C..."
:"Nah... let it go. I take the goat!"
:"But, but, you must choose a second door..."

As for all of you who say it's about ''Let's Make a Deal'' and not ''The Monty Hall Problem'', keep in mind that xkcd is a comic about nerdy-ness stuff. Keep in mind also that outside the USA people have rarely heard of Let's Make a Deal but most people who went through undergrad-level Probablity Theory heard about the Monty Hall. [[Special:Contributions/83.41.36.244|83.41.36.244]] 02:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

In Victor Hugo's Hunchback of Notre Dame, the main characters are in a conflict over the love of Esmarelda, while the character of Pierre Gringoire falls for her goat (Djali). I think Beret guy here is like the poet and playwrite Pierre Gringoire. 17:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The title says: Monty Hall – so it is of course to do with him… It is in the comments above that ''The Monty Hall Problem'' is mentioned. The funny thing is that if the Beret guy fails to comply with the rule of the quiz show, then Monty Hall do have a problem… :)
(By the way - the Beret looks a lot like the optimist in the What if explanation - [http://what-if.xkcd.com/6/ Glass Half Empty] - is this interesting enough to be mentioned in the trivia section) [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This comic reminded me of the lamb scene in The Little Prince. I feel like Randall put it in intentionally. Thoughts?[[User:Deyesed|Deyesed]] ([[User talk:Deyesed|talk]]) 00:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1274: Open Letter

2026-02-11T01:20:26Z

146.70.174.163:

If you believe in a shadow government, it seems likely that you would actually see a goverment shutdown as part of the conspiracy. {{unsigned ip|108.13.108.44}}

:Is this another shadow fact? http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1272 --[[User:MauroVan|MauroVan]] ([[User talk:MauroVan|talk]]) 09:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

:Actually, theoretically speaking, a government shutdown ''would'' be part of the conspiracy. Think about it. If there was a shadow government, then the only thing that can stop them is the people uniting against them. So, in order to keep the people from finding out, you would have to destroy their unity. And, unity in the US is at an all time low with people vehemently fighting amongst themselves. So, I don't think that the argument in this strip is valid. An orchestrated chaos would certainly be a tool of a shadow government. Theoretically speaking, of course. [[User:Kwyjibo|Kwyjibo]] ([[User talk:Kwyjibo|talk]]) 20:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess Randal is only right as long there is only ONE group involved ;-). --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 11:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Randall knows ''exactly'' which group is in control, but has been forced by them to leave their name completely off of the aforementioned list. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.212.190|178.98.212.190]] 13:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
:I noticed that the World Economic Forum is not listed. [[Special:Contributions/146.70.174.163|146.70.174.163]] 01:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I removed the words 'Self-proclaimed' from the description of Scientology. It's so vague to be meaningless. Aren't most religions and churches self-proclaimed? Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc all started with somebody claiming secret knowledge. It should either be applied to all religions, or none.[[Special:Contributions/154.20.80.41|154.20.80.41]] 13:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Is "Sincerely, A Concerned Citizen" really a Half-Life 2 reference? The phrase is generic enough that it actually appears before Half-Life 2 was released ([http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x372352 example]). --[[Special:Contributions/75.119.250.35|75.119.250.35]] 15:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
:Agreed, people have been using the "Concerned Citizen" phrasing for years. [[User:Mattflaschen|Mattflaschen]] ([[User talk:Mattflaschen|talk]]) 17:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
:It's not just the wording, but the context, so it does seem to be a reference. [[Special:Contributions/108.13.108.44|108.13.108.44]] 18:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
::The context being that of somebody concerned about their government? That seems a wee bit broad to be a contextual reference.[[Special:Contributions/154.20.80.41|154.20.80.41]] 03:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow! The actual group secretly running the government is so powerful they had themselves removed from the explanation table, apparently! (There's no Trilateral Commission entry right now.) [[User:Imperpay|Imperpay]] ([[User talk:Imperpay|talk]]) 16:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
:Fixed. :) [[User:Mattflaschen|Mattflaschen]] ([[User talk:Mattflaschen|talk]]) 17:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No mention of what an open letter is? [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87|76.106.251.87]] 04:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
:I just added something. It got wordy. Probably could be improved (and/or wiki-link to at least their page on Open Letters). But it's there, FWIW. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.212.190|178.98.212.190]] 13:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems he left off Monsanto (according to the hippie types I hang around for some reason, they're running the entire world). Who else was left off the list? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.53|108.162.221.53]] 19:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)MR
: ...the Mafia. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 02:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Really? The Knights of Malta read xkcd? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 18:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The Lizards may be a reference to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "I come in peace. Take me to your lizard" Ford Prefect explains here:
:https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/162557-it-comes-from-a-very-ancient-democracy-you-see-you [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.148|162.158.34.148]] 18:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

inter dimensional guardian of life here. the illuminati does not control the U. S. government. right now. {{unsigned|Overlord of oddities|21:05, 27 January 2020}}

Okay, I just gotta say that this hits differently after the last two years. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.230|162.158.107.230]] 18:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
:Differently good or differently bad? It could be either way, depending on personal perspective/suspicions/conspiratorialisations.
:(And moved your thing down to the bottom, so it's properly chronologically.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.173|172.69.79.173]] 21:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

THIS COMIC MAKES NO SENSE [[User:Z1mp0st0rz|Z1mp0st0rz]] ([[User talk:Z1mp0st0rz|talk]]) 19:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
:Does the Explanation not explain it? What part does not make sense for you? (And why are you adding ALLCAPS comments to so many comic Talk pages..? You're new here, we know, but it's distracting.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.54|172.69.195.54]] 13:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

infinitely relevant. [[user talk:lettherebedarklight|youtu.be/miLcaqq2Zpk]] 17:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
: is it the bit about zionists? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.138|172.69.79.138]] 13:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1232: Realistic Criteria

2026-01-27T01:21:15Z

146.70.174.163:

I'm not sure I want NASA (or other space agencies) to solve all problems on earth. And what constitutes a problem? My laptop crashed this morning? Fighting in Afghanistan? Flooding in Germany and Poland? [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 07:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hence the title: "Realistic Criteria" ;-) [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 07:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

:I'm sure there is more that enough problems for 15 years in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ alone. Also, exploring other planets can help solving problems on our one. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
::Earth should have a Bugzilla. [[Special:Contributions/80.195.213.223|80.195.213.223]] 13:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

''"The argument between exploring space vs saving resources and solving problems on Earth is a pretty common modern one, both in theory, and in practice."''

Actually, we shouldn't have started expanding our species out of Africa before predicting (and allowing for) the development of Religious Hatred, Mechanised Warfare and Oppressive Copyright Practices...{{unsigned ip|86.10.119.75}}
:Personally, I usually quickly send my initial Zulu forces up to blockade the land-bridge in the vicinity of Egypt, and ''then'' expand out throughout Africa so as to allow me to develop my own superior navy (and as many wonders as I can, including the library) before anyone else gets there. (Apologies, my comment below rather sent me down this line of thought.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.53.132|178.98.53.132]] 17:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This attacks a rather typical conservative attitude that we shouldn't "waste" resources on "minor" problems when there are bigger problems to deal with. (e.g., "Why are you giving me a ticket for speeding when there are murderers out there you should be catching?") The title text pinpoints the fallacy of it (if you only ever work on the biggest problems, you will never solve that problem and also never accomplish anything else) [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 16:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I have issue with 'The comic is, at its core, a parody of the overly optimistic scientism that often attaches itself to the idea of a manned Mars mission, which in the minds of its supporters is always "ten to fifteen years away," no matter the unsolved technical or logistics challenges that are still standing in the way.' I think it's the converse. The overly optimistic ''semi-''scientism that if we put something like Mars exploration on hold that the resources this frees up would be instantly transferable into "solving all the world's ills". The ten-to-fifteen-year span is then the (sarcastic?) suggestion as to how long this would need to be done for, before we can consider them all solved and start pumping the same resources back into space missions and pick up from where we leave off.
:I agree that the 'The comic is, at its core, a parody of the overly optimistic scientism that often attaches itself to the idea of a manned Mars mission, which in the minds of its supporters is always "ten to fifteen years away," no matter the unsolved technical or logistics challenges that are still standing in the way.' line is not a correct analysis of this comic. I removed it, but would be happy to see it re-added if there is a discussion here that bring to light any evidence supporting it. [[Special:Contributions/149.32.192.33|149.32.192.33]] 13:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Mike Powers
::It could even be some what of a reference to [https://xkcd.com/678/ 678: Researcher Translation] [[User:Regdoug|Regdoug]] ([[User talk:Regdoug|talk]]) 14:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(Reminds me of my typical Civilization-playing scenario, pumping lightbulbs into one or other single scientific advance, but switching the target when realising I would ''quite'' like something else researched (perhaps for its associated military unit), even though it wasn't my original plan on the way to (perhaps) the Alpha Centauri win. Or, more generally, jumping between all 'spare population' being scientists and them all being entertainers or tax collectors, for a few turns, to deal with morale or cashflow problems while a corrective Wonder is being built... then once it's done I'm free to blithely make it 100% Science again, if I've got such a max/min playing style at the time...) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.53.132|178.98.53.132]] 17:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Great(!) Made a unanimous decision to make the change I intended (the "Fuggit!"-labelled edit), after apparently no-one else having an opinion about the need to switch the focus round, and then quickly a set of ''other'' edits occur that don't even revert things back (which I wouldn't have minded). Anyway, don't want to cause an Edit War by reverting/de-reverting/etc, so I'm leaving the following here for your combined consideration.

Mr (or Ms) 149.32.192.33 who "removed the comment about (...) the Mars Mission". You didn't remove anything explicitly about Mars, as I'd already removed that reference and re-edited that section (check what I did in http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1232:_Realistic_Criteria&diff=prev&oldid=42725) and of all the edits I made , I actually quite liked that bit of rare non-waffling. I propose we re-add text similar to:
The comic is, at its core, looking at the idea that space exploration is something we can ill-afford to fund whilst there are so many Earth-based issues that need to be addressed.
It's indicating White-Hat's views, and is neutral about whether this is a ''sound'' idea or not. (The rest is maybe more forceful, as I'm personally definitely not an "Earth-only" person, although I'm not extreme in the other direction either so hopefully created balance.)

My thanks to the typo-corrector (I'm always mistyping "lieu", it seems). Although "spaceborne" seems more correct to me than the hyphenated version. "Space-born", yes (born of space, e.g. a person of said heritage), but "airborne" is a word in my dictionary, so... Anyway, I've no excuse when I used "seem" instead of "seam" as the root of another word.

Dgbrt: Good reduction of my waffle (surrounding my oblique reference to Teflon), but I'm saddened to lose the general (if not always proven) examples and your edit perhaps goes explicitly pro-Space more than I'd intended. Still, it's shorter and more readable. I don't understand the criteria for "Trivia" enough to understand if that'd be a more suitable locale for what was removed. (But suspect it wouldn't be for the purely hypothetical asteroid-avoiding scenario.)

And I know this is potentially a hot-topic. Hence why I used loads of words to try to indicate that it ''is'' a hot-topic, that almost everyone could have an opinion about. (Even exclusing the totally uninformed, "for every expert there's an equal and opposite expert", so I tried to make sure everybody understood why they might find the explanation neither too pro-Space or too anti-space, depending on their defauly stance.) But for now I shall leave it as is. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.53.132|178.98.53.132]] 15:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

:Uhhh, who should (or would) read all this?
:I'm trying to keep it simple, but all important details must be shown. That's why this article is still incomplete.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

:I apologize for the issues. I assume what happened was that we were both editing at the same time. When tried to submit and was prompted to update. I skimmed the update too quickly and only seen the "The comic is, at its core" start of your paragraph and assumed it was the "Mars Mission" paragraph and thus deleted it. I have no issues with you adding the "The comic is, at its core, looking at the idea that space exploration.." initial paragraph and you will not be starting an editing war. --[[Special:Contributions/149.32.192.33|149.32.192.33]] 15:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Mike Powers

;Chaos at the explain section

Please try to add your content in a proper way, people will NOT read this chaos. But even if they do, they still do not understand what you're talking about. At this moment this explain is chaos and so it is incomplete.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, chaos indeed, and I don't pretend to understand the edit-history progression. (When did the Mars Mission get specifically reintroduced? Perhaps I don't care.) How about something ''quite'' brief like...
White Hat is suggesting that the exploration of space and other planets is a luxury that we should not yet be dedicating resources to when there are so many other things for which the resources could apparently be similarly used.
Cueball agrees, possibly disingenuously, then asks how long it would be for a society purely focussed upon Earth-problem solutions to implement the necessary answers, allowing us to renew spending on the aforementioned luxuries without cause for complaint. The Title Text errs towards the lengthier period, almost certainly tongue in cheek regarding the ease of such an approach.
It is probably a simplistic point of view that funding and work currently dedicated to the space sciences are fully transferable away from this area and towards creating a utopian ideal on Earth, on a whim. It also unfairly discounts the very real possibility that large tracts of research and practical engineering might indeed have useful Earthly applications, but without the driver of 'space' may never be undertaken in the first place.
Then perhaps a final paragraph about Real Life not being a game where, turn by turn, the entire scientific apparatus can be diverted from one 'tech tree' target to another without causing stumbling blocks. And that we don't even have a well-defined Tech Tree, and sideways propogation of ideas is rife. Purely non-space research is as self-destructive to advancement as much as single-mindedly purely pursuing its space-targetted counterpart to the exception of environmental protection, food production, etc.

Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this suggestion explain the <strike>obvious</strike> direct content of the comic. Paragraph 3 deals with the issue raised (I'm very much assuming Cueball and the Title Text are being as sarcastic as White Hat is being earnest). Anything else could be considered mere opinion, but perhaps can still be kept neutral. But someone else might have better wording for all of it. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.53.132|178.98.53.132]] 22:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

;Do What Works

This is my first post, so I'm not sure if it's appropriate to discuss the underlying theme. If not, please let me know. Anyway . . .

Historically, for my ancestors at least, exploration and expansion to new frontiers did a lot more to solve their problems than any government programs. They came to America during the potato famine, climbed into a covered wagon and headed west.

From Apollo 15 astronaut Alfred F.Worden's poem, "Apollo Lost":

Say to me we need the money 
Just to feed the poor, 
And I say, 'Gee that's funny, 
It's for them that we explore.' 

Say to me we should be fighting, 
Say to me the world's at war. 
And I say we are uniting 
People tired of war and more. 

[[User:CoderLass|CoderLass]] ([[User talk:CoderLass|talk]]) 20:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I have made the new explanation too pro-space. But I believe it should be, as Randall is. Great poem, by the way. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 22:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
:Many thanks for your edit, but humans are still also animals. So I did remove a few statements. The incomplete tag is also removed. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 14:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
::You removed the reason why space exploration is especially important? Good job. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 21:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Coincidentally, a lot of things that are used in day-to-day life now were actually originally developed for space travel or made possible by space travel, such as GPS, solar energy or the ability to freeze dry food. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 00:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I always felt Cueball was being sarcastic, pointing out the ridiculousness of White Hat's statement.

This comic hits a little differently in 2021, when billionaires are spending [https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/jeff-bezos-space-flight-money-better-uses/ enough money to prevent 37.5 million people from starving] in order to enjoy four minutes in space. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.242|162.158.89.242]] 10:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
:Hear hear, well said! [[User:The Cat Lady|-- The Cat Lady]] ([[User talk:The Cat Lady|talk]]) 12:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

:Thing is, were those issues any less real even back then? I do love Randall's comics, and I've read that he's a nice guy. Yet, the comic itself, as well as the comment thread at the top of this, reeks of arrogance and condescension, as if Randall and people here KNOW the answer to how funding should be prioritized, while the ignorant fool with the opposite opinion does not. Maybe no one actually knows?--[[User:Klo876|Klo876]] ([[User talk:Klo876|talk]]) 13:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::Funny, I'd say that the ones saying "You shouldn't spend your money on what ''you'' want, spend it how ''I'' want you to spend it instead" are the arrogant ones. Do you somehow ''not'' read that slop from "Global Citizen" as condescendingly claiming that ''they'' know the answer to how funding should be prioritised? [[Special:Contributions/146.70.174.163|146.70.174.163]] 01:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Do we need "Space" category? [[User:CategoryGeneral|CategoryGeneral]] ([[User talk:CategoryGeneral|talk]]) 09:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:Should we ''create'' a [[:Category:Space|space category]], do you mean? No, it already exists.
:Should you add that category to this comic? Up to you (and the community not deciding to reverse your decision, if so). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.178|172.68.205.178]] 16:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1184: Circumference Formula

2026-01-25T18:57:34Z

146.70.174.163:

Tau x Radius, superscript 2
:Since tau is more commonly used for the Golden Ratio, that's a silly idea. [[Special:Contributions/121.74.169.237|121.74.169.237]] 11:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
::You may be confusing tau with phi. I've never seen the golden ratio represented by anything other than phi. I've also never seen tau representing anything other than 2pi. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.7|108.162.219.7]] 19:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

:Leaves one wondering what the superscript 1 refers. {{unsigned|‎74.215.40.250}}
::It's 2''πr''2, '''not''' ''τr''2. —[[Special:Contributions/173.199.215.5|173.199.215.5]] 05:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
:::You're missing the point. ''τ'' == 2''π'' and is considered better than using ''π'' by some people {{unsigned|138.195.69.136}}
::::Only for very loose definitions of "better." [[Special:Contributions/71.201.53.130|71.201.53.130]] 14:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Whoa! Never heard about that before, but after 2 hrs or so, I think I'm getting convinced! Check this site out: http://tauday.com/ What do you think? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 18:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Ok so τ might make more sense than π but as comic [[1179]] pointed out, both pi-day and tau-day are wrong. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 13:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

::I think tau is pointless. Using tau what then happens to Euler's famous formula, the most beautiful equation of them all? Pi shows up in so many different ways and places in mathematics. Tau appears pretty much only in the formula for a circle's circumference. Why bother needlessly proliferating symbols? [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 18:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
::: Surface area of a sphere is 2τr^2, or if you want to get pi in there ''π''d^2 {{unsigned ip|108.162.218.101}}

:::RE: Euler's Identity: e^(tau*i) - 1 = 0 --[[User:Max Nanasy|Max Nanasy]] ([[User talk:Max Nanasy|talk]]) 18:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Ok, that works [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 17:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Why not just e^(tau*i) = 1. Do you routinely do 2 + 2 - 4 = 0?[[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 20:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Because:
:::::* Symmetry wrt the original Euler's Identity (e^(pi*i) + 1 = 0)
:::::* According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_identity#Mathematical_beauty, "in algebra and other areas of mathematics, equations are commonly written with zero on one side of the equals sign."
:::::--[[User:Max Nanasy|Max Nanasy]] ([[User talk:Max Nanasy|talk]]) 00:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::I think Euler only did that because he disliked negative numbers. It really is less a deal than people make of it.[[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 03:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Also, it uses the five most important constants in mathematics: ''e'', ''π'' (or ''τ''), ''i'', 1, and 0. [[User:Curtmack|Curtmack]] ([[User talk:Curtmack|talk]]) 20:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
::::The tau variant of Euler's identity above, ''e^(tau*i)=1'', appears to miss the point. Normally, a positivt number to the power of any real number is positive. Thus ''i'' could be any normal number. Well, not any number. ''i'' could be 0 and the equation will hold. With pi however, ''e^(pi*i)=-1'', ''i'' must be magical. /David A [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.111|141.101.80.111]] 23:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
:::[http://tauday.com/tau-manifesto The tau manifesto] fairly well convinced me that all occurances of π in mathematics utimately trace back from the formula C = 2''πr''. If so, π naturally ''enter'' calculations as 2π. Can anyone find a counterexample to this thesis? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
::::How could there be a counter-example? I think it is true. In complex analysis, it really should be 2π, and thus Gaussian integrals. And then number theory applications. Even [http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2589152?uid=3739704&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101976916347 this] neat result really stems from trig identities, so it really is a result for 2π. [[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 02:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:From what I understand, the thesis from the tau-proponents is that 2*pi is the fundamental natural constant, and that virtually ''every time'' that pi shows up without the factor 2, there originally was a factor two that was cancelled out. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 01:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
:For everyone who suddenly started a debate about 2pi and tau: http://xkcd.com/1292/ [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.61|108.162.222.61]] 06:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Not completely sure Earth Prime is from Sliders, but it's true it's the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Prime only one named exactly that] ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There's also a [http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Prime_Earth Prime Earth] now. Just so DC can screw with us. [[User:Hogtree Octovish|Hogtree Octovish]] ([[User talk:Hogtree Octovish|talk]]) 10:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I still don't get it.[[Special:Contributions/49.176.102.213|49.176.102.213]] 12:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

:If you don't get it, you don't need to get it [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 18:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was lame. --[[Special:Contributions/87.122.60.227|87.122.60.227]] 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This comic illustrates the strategy of "The Unconsummated Asterisk", from the essay "Mathmanship" by Nicholas Vanserg (available at [http://e-science.ru/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=7701]).
<blockquote>
The other side of the asterisk gambit is to use a superscript as a key to a real footnote. The knowledge‐seeker reads that S is – 36.714 calories and thinks "Gee what a whale of a lot of calories" until he reads to the bottom of the page, finds footnote 14 and says "oh."
</blockquote>
For bonus points, Randall could have used also "Pi-Throwing":
<blockquote>
For example every schoolboy knows what π stands for so you can hold him at bay by heaving some entirely different kind of π into the equation. The poor fellow will automatically multiply by 3.1416, then begin wondering how a π got into the act anyhow, and finally discover that all the while π was osmotic pressure. If you are careful not to warn him, this one is good for a delay of about an hour and a half.
</blockquote> [[User:Chymicus|Chymicus]] ([[User talk:Chymicus|talk]]) 19:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
:Another good one is π as a symbol for profit in financial discussions. -[[User:DrGaellon|DrGaellon]] ([[User talk:DrGaellon|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/DrGaellon|contribs]]) 23:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the current description of prime as denoting derivatives is true but irrelevant. Since the area and circumference refers to geometry (not really calculus), it's more likely that the title text is referring to the common use of primes in geometry. For example, there might be two or more parallel lines that are denoted by x, x′, x′′, etc. Wikipedia also notes another geometric use of {{w|prime}}: "if a point is represented by the Cartesian coordinates (x, y), then that point rotated, translated or reflected might be represented as (x′, y′)." [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 23:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

that is so wrong, i feel my mind corrupted now. -- [[User:Anarcat|Anarcat]] ([[User talk:Anarcat|talk]]) 23:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This explanation was hillarious -- where is the up-vote button ?? [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])

:+1 [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 16:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So, where's todays comic? How many times has Randal been late?[[Special:Contributions/70.199.225.225|70.199.225.225]] 16:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

:Today's comic was posted just a few minutes ago. I'm anxiously awaiting its explanation as it picks on a programming language I'm not familiar with (possibly SQL). [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 16:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It uses pseudocode. The new one is about sorting algorithms in general, not any particular language. [[Special:Contributions/130.245.231.101|130.245.231.101]] 17:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me, but did no one see the "square the circle" gag...? --[[Special:Contributions/128.232.142.37|128.232.142.37]] 09:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC) No one but you saw the square-the-circle gag, because it's not there. For it to be there, it would require this: (2πr)² [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 15:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This one threw me for a loop for the longest time because I learned to use πd to find circumference, not 2πr. Anyone else learn that way? (Knowing how my brain works, it is equally possible I taught myself to use πd as a shortcut, and was in fact taught 2πr by my teachers.) [[User:Boct1584|Boct1584]] ([[User talk:Boct1584|talk]]) 22:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought the joke in the title text was that primes can refer to successive derivatives. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.150|108.162.221.150]] 05:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

: I support this. r' can be the derivative of r = angular speed, r" the double derivative of r = angular acceleration. The joke is that r' and r" are horrible notations, because they are already have two meanings, giving them yet another meaning beyond derivative and "r measured in different frame of reference" would add to the existing confusion. [[User:MigB|MigB]] ([[User talk:MigB|talk]]) 09:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but the 2nd sentence in the explanation has a grammar mistake. The sentence reads, "Randall then makes a footnote about r, using." In this case "²" is an indication for a footnote, isn't it ? {{unsigned ip|162.158.83.240}}

== Amicable numbers ==
1184 is one of them that are discovered relatively rather late. The other one [[1210]] (very close to [[1208]]) is also math-related.

I don't think I would ever see v' as "v at time zero", that's v0, or possibly v(0). v' is acceleration (assuming v is velocity).

Talk:1162: Log Scale

2026-01-25T17:50:26Z

146.70.174.163:

The fictional notation MAY BE a parody of Knuth's up-arrow notation - and uranium MAY BE an effective energy source. By the way, labeling the energy sources just with material name is insufficient: how good energy source is hydrogen? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
:It has a calorific value of about 150 kJ/gm(much higher when compared to coal,etc.) but is too explosive[[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 14:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
:That is for burning it I assume? But what if you use it as fuel in a fusion reactor? Or an H-Bomb for that matter?
:is it really a parody? (well, probably arrow notation grows much more, here there is just a log log log etc) --[[User:.mau,|.mau.]] ([[User talk:.mau,|talk]]) 14:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The calorie standard is defined by burning. So comparison doesn't fit with the graph as written. [[User:DruidDriver|DruidDriver]] ([[User talk:DruidDriver|talk]]) 20:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
: The calorie is a unit of energy. Just because it's defined by combustion doesn't mean it can't be used to measure energy generated by other forms any more than the kilogram being defined by water means that you can't measure things other than water with it. Calories are in fact ''very rarely'' used to measure energy of combustion. They are usually used to measure the energy in food. [[Special:Contributions/146.70.174.163|146.70.174.163]] 17:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

It's true that uranium has an extremely high energy density, which is of great importance for mobile power plants; however, nuclear fission has a lot of safety issues, especially for mobile power, which is why it is used only for stationary power plants and large military vessels, such as aircraft carriers and subs.
: No, that's because nuclear power plants are large in size, not because of your hysteria about "safety". [[Special:Contributions/146.70.174.163|146.70.174.163]] 17:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hydrogen is pretty good when highly compressed so as to get high energy volume density as well, but that leads to problems too. Also, hydrogen leaks more easily than almost anything else. That is especially a problem for an extremely flammable gas. On the plus side for hydrogen, nothing burns more cleanly.

:"The log scale can also be abused to make data look more uniform than it really is, so on a log scale sugar and other materials would look largely equal energy density when they clearly are not."
I think this is missing the point, which I take to be that displaying the data on a log scale would understate the vast difference between ''uranium'' and the hydrocarbons/carbohydrates:
E/m log(E/m)
sugar 19 1.3 *
coal 24 1.4 *
fat 39 1.6 **
gas 46 1.7 **
uranium 76e6 7.9 ****.***
Uranium is clearly larger than the others, but only by a factor of 4, so the real magnitude of the difference may not be appreciated.
With the stack of paper, he's proposing a way to show linear values for the data without having the uranium column simply shooting off the top of the page, with an arrow and the number. [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 17:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
: or, he could just print at a scale that allows 76,000,000 to fit on the page, with the other values shown as near-infinitesimally thin lines. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 18:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A googolplex in Knuth's paper stack notation (based upon 3818 chr per page, and 25,824 pages to fill up a typical 8ft tall room), would be:
96.41816408 with a 2 pinned on it.

The algorithim is:

KnuthPaperStack(N):

y = log10(N)/3818

If y >= 25824
Z = Z + 1
z = KnuthPaperStack(y)
Return z,Z
Else
Return y,Z
End if

--[[User:Markozeta|Markozeta]] ([[User talk:Markozeta|talk]]) 15:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the name "Knuth paper-stack notation" sounds like "'Nuff paper-stack notation", meaning that it is a notation in which you need "enough paper" to stack up.

--[[User:NiccoloM|NiccoloM]] ([[User talk:NiccoloM|talk]]) 00:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a pun on Log which is itself an energy source as well as being the source of any reams of paper used to record values.
[[Special:Contributions/192.11.175.219|192.11.175.219]] 06:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one not seeing the glaring mistake on the comic? First thing I thought was "that stack of paper is not high enough!". Please someone double check my math: If the height has to be 6.6e6cm (stated above) at 29.7 cm each A4 (vertical), that would mean 222,222 sheets of paper one on top of another. Each stack of 100 pages is aprox 1cm high. That would represent the stack to be 2222cm high, ergo 22m, roughly a 7 story building. Unless there is the equivalent of 6 stories in the waving paper, or the length of the folding 7x that of an A4, or the stick figure is 7 times closer to the camera than the stack of paper is... '''THE HEIGHT OF THE PILE IS OH SO WRONG'''!!!!!! Please prove me wrong!

[[Special:Contributions/87.238.84.65|87.238.84.65]] 14:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Guest, 2nd time posting :)

Assumption #1) the graph is drawn on an 8.5 x 11 sheet of ordinary paper in landscape orientation.

Assumption #2) the graph is drawn in normal (linear) scale.

Assumption #3) Cueball is 6 feet tall.

Trusting MSPaint with the conversions, I read the first four bars to have about 5 units (megajoules per kg) per pixel. 76 million units divided by 5 units per pixel is a 15.2 million pixel tall bar.

Looking again to MSPaint, I read the 8.5" dimension of the paper to be about 193 pixels. 15.2 million pixels of graph bar divided by 193 pixels per page is 78756 pages.

Looking above, I read that 100 pages is 1cm, so our stack is going to be 787.56cm tall.

On this side of the pond, that's 310 inches, or about 25 feet.

So, the stack Cueball is looking at is too short to house an accurately long enough bar....

...IF the stack's footprint's longer dimension is only 8.5 inches. While the original graph paper appears to be 8.5x11, the ribbon of paper continuing the bar does not appear to be segmented. Again looking at MSPaint, it would seem the ribbon is about 4.75" wide. The stack is clearly much longer than it is wide. If the stack is 30" long and 4.75" wide, the stack would be whittled down to just over 6 feet tall.

So, making a gang load of assumptions, and scaling from an drawn image, it's reasonable to say the stack in the image could be accurate enough.

The explanation's assumption above that the gasoline bar is 4cm tall makes the piece of paper 96.5cm (38") tall, and that's just not practical. Using the scale I've based my statements on makes the gasoline bar just about 9mm.

-psychoboy[[Special:Contributions/70.164.66.64|70.164.66.64]] 19:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the energy density of gasoline if it undergoes nuclear fusion? {{unsigned ip|173.245.48.91}}
: The correct answer is "nuclear fusion is impossible in gasoline" [[Special:Contributions/146.70.174.163|146.70.174.163]] 17:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

This is similar to the iterated logarithm function, right? --[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.192|199.27.128.192]] 21:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually had to present this chart when I was ten years old, but I needed to use a split level to save paper due to the theme of environmentalism.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.186|141.101.104.186]]

The stated value of 76'000'000 MJ (76 Terajoules) per kg Uranium corresponds roughly to the energy released by the fission of U-235 nuclei of 202.5 MeV or 3.24·10-17 MJ per nucleus [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Output]]. One kilogram of pure U-235 would release about 83 Terajoules. In a real nuclear power plant more energy is generated due to breeder reactions, so that per kg U-235 about 128 TJ are produced. One kilogram of natural uranium has about 0.71% U-235 and therefore the potential to produce about 910'000 MJ in a usual nuclear power plant. A fuel rod as used in a nuclear power plant (enriched to 3.5% U-235) has the potential to produce about 4.5 TJ. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.231|162.158.150.231]] 01:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

What if the number of iterations doesn't fit the room? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.74|141.101.80.74]] 21:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
:Case 1: The original paper stack doesn't fit the room. --> Pin a paper to it showing how many iterations you need to write it out.
:Case 2: The pinned paper stack doesn't fit the room. --> Pin a paper stack to THAT showing how many iterations you need to write it out.
:Case 3: That pinned paper stack doesn't fit the room. --> Pin a paper stack onto that showing how many iterations you need to write it out.
:etc.
[[User:625571b7-aa66-4f98-ac5c-92464cfb4ed8|625571b7-aa66-4f98-ac5c-92464cfb4ed8]] ([[User talk:625571b7-aa66-4f98-ac5c-92464cfb4ed8|talk]]) 07:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1132: Frequentists vs. Bayesians

2026-01-25T14:44:41Z

146.70.174.163:

I just sort of assumed he bet 50 dollars because if the sun had exploded, they'd be dead and therefore wouldn't need the machine. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.16|108.162.237.16]] 07:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Something should be added about the prior probability of the sun going nova, as that is the primary substantive point. "The neutrino detector is evidence that the Sun has exploded. It's showing an observation which is 35 times more likely to appear if the Sun has exploded than if it hasn't (likelihood ratio of 35:1). The Bayesian just doesn't think that's strong enough evidence to overcome the prior odds, i.e., after multiplying the prior odds by 35 they still aren't very high." - http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/fe5/xkcd_frequentist_vs_bayesians/ [[Special:Contributions/209.65.52.92|209.65.52.92]] 23:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: taking that bet would be a mistake. If the Bayesian is right, you're out $50. If he's wrong, everyone is about to die and you'll never get to spend the winnings. Of course, this meta-analysis is itself a type of Bayesian thinking, so [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dunning-kruger+effect Dunning-Kruger Effect] would apply. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 13:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
: You don't think you could spend fifty bucks in eight minutes? ;-) (PS: wikipedia is probably a better link than lmgtfy: {{w|Dunning-Kruger effect}}) -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 15:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Randall has referenced the Labyrinth guards before: [http://xkcd.com/246/ xkcd 246:Labyrinth puzzle]. Plus he has satirized p<0.05 in [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=882:_Significant xkcd 882:Significant]--[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 15:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A bit of maths. Let event N be the sun going nova and event Y be the detector giving the answer "Yes". The detector has already given a positive answer so we want to compute P(N|Y). Applying the Bayes' theorem:
: P(N|Y) = P(Y|N) * P(N) / P(Y)
: P(Y|N) = 1
: P(N) = 0.0000....
: P(Y|N) * P(N) = 0.0000...
: P(Y) = p(Y|N)*P(N) + P(Y|-N)*P(-N)
: P(Y|-N) = 1/36
: P(-N) = 0.999999...
: P(Y) = 0 + 1/36 = 1/36
: P(N|Y) = 0 / (1/36) = 0
Quite likely it's not entirely correct. [[User:Lmpk|Lmpk]] ([[User talk:Lmpk|talk]]) 16:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I get for the application of Bayes' Theorem:
: P(N|Y) = P(Y|N) * P(N) / P(Y): = P(Y|N) * P(N) / [P(Y|N) * P(N) + P(Y|~N) * P(~N)]
: = 35/36 * P(N) / [35/36 * P(N) + 1/36 * (1 - P(N))]
: = 35 * P(N) / [35 * P(N) - P(N) + 1]
: < 35 * P(N)
: = 35 * (really small number)

So, if you believe it's extremely unlikely for the sun to go nova, then you should also believe it's unlikely a Yes answer is true.

I wouldn't say the comic is about election prediction models. It's about a long-standing dispute between two different schools of statisticians, a dispute that began before Nate Silver was born. It's possible that the recent media attention for Silver and his ilk inspired this subject, but it's the kind of geeky issue Randall would typically take on in other circumstances too. [[User:MGK|MGK]] ([[User talk:MGK|talk]]) 19:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree - this is not directed at the US-presidential election. I also want to add, that Bayesian btatistics assumes that parameters of distributions (e.g. mean of gaussian) are also random variables. These random variables have prior distributions - in this case p(sun explodes). The Bayesian statistitian in this comic has access to this prior distribution and so has other estimates for an error of the neutrino detector. The knowlege of the prior distribution is somewhat considered a "black art" by other statisticians.

My personal interpretation of the "bet you $50 it hasn't" reply is in the case of the sun going nova, no one would be alive to ask the neutrino detector, the probability of the sun going nova is always 0. [[User:Paps|Paps]]

:Yes, you would be able to ask. While neutrinos move almost at speed of light, the plasma of the explosion is significally slower, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova 10% of speed of light tops]. You will have more that hour to ask. (Note that technically, sun can't go [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova nova], because nova is white dwarf with external source of hydrogen. It can (and will), however, go supernova, which I assume is what Randall means.) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

:: Our sun will not go supernova, as it has insufficient mass. It will slowly become hotter, rendering Earth uninhabitable in a few billion years. In about 5 billion years it will puff up into a red giant, swallowing the inner planets. After that, it will gradually blow off its lighter gasses, eventually leaving behind the core, a white dwarf. [[Special:Contributions/50.0.38.245|50.0.38.245]] 01:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

:::Please don't edit others' comments on talk pages; it's considered quite rude. On a talk page, discourse is meant to be conducted, by editors for the betterment of the article. For constructive discourse to occur, a person's words must be left in tact. The act of censorship hurts the common goal of betterment. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments Wikipedia], the authoritative source on how a wiki works best: "you ''should not'' edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 17:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Note: much of this conversation has been removed at the request of the authors.

I think the explanation is wrong or otherwise lacking in its explanation: The P-value is not the entire problem with the frequentist's viewpoint (or alternatively, the problem with the p-value hasn't been explained). The Frequentist has looked strictly at a two case scenario: Either the machine rolls 6-6 and is lying, or it doesn't rolls 6-6 and it is telling the truth. Therefore, there is a 35/36 probability (97.22%) that the machine is telling the truth and therefore the sun has exploded. The Bayesian is factoring in outside facts and information to improve the accuracy of the probability model. He says "Either the machine rolls 6-6 (a 1/36 probability, or 2.77%) or the sun has exploded (an aparently far less likely scenario). Given the comparison, the Bayesian believes it is MORE probable that the machine rolled 6-6 than the sun exploded, given the relative probabilities. If the latter is a 1 in a million chance (0.000001%), it is 2,777,777 times more likely that the machine rolled 6-6 than the sun exploded.
To borrow a demonstration/explanation technique from the Monty Hall problem, if the machine told you a coin flip was heads, that would be 50% chance of occuring while a 2.7% chance of the machine lying, the probabilities would clearly suggest that the machine was more likely to be telling the truth. Whereas if the machine said that 100 coin flips had all come up heads (7.88x10^-31%). Is it more likely that 100 coin flips all came up heads or is it more likely the machine is lying? What about 1000 coin flips? or 1,000,000? I think the question is, whether one could assign a probability to the sun exploding. Also, I think they could have avoided the whole thing by asking the machine a second time and see what it answered. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 19:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Another source of explanation: http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/43339/whats-wrong-with-xkcds-frequentists-vs-bayesians-comic --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 20:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The P-value really has nothing to do with it. If I think that there is a 35/36 chance that the sun has exploded, then I should we willing to take any bet that the sun has exploded with better than 1:35 odds. For example, if someone bets me that the sun has exploded in which they will pay me $2 if the sun has exploded and I will pay them $35 if it hasn't, then based on my belief that the sun has exploded with 35/36 probability, then my expected value for this bet is 2*35/36 - 35 * 1/36 = 35/36 dollars and I will take this bet. Clearly I would also take a bet with 1:1 odds - my estimated expected value in the proposed bet in the comic would be 50*35/36 - 50 * 1/36 = $49 (approximately), and I would for sure take this bet. The Bayesian on the other hand has a much lower belief that the sun has exploded because he takes into account the prior probability of the sun exploding, so he would take the reverse side of the bet. The difference is that the Bayesian uses prior probabilities in computing his belief in an event, whereas frequentists do not believe that you can put prior probabilities on events in the real world. Also note that this comic has nothing to do with whether people would die if the sun went nova - the comic is titled "Frequentists vs Bayesians" and is about the difference between these two approaches. {{unsigned|171.64.68.120}}

The Labyrinth reference reminds me of an old Doctor Who episode (Pyramid of Mars), where the Doctor is also faced with a truthful and untruthful set of guards. Summarized here: http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Pyramids_of_Mars_(TV_story) [[User:Fermax|Fermax]] ([[User talk:Fermax|talk]]) 04:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This is actually an example of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy Base rate fallacy]. --[[Special:Contributions/71.199.125.210|71.199.125.210]] 04:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

People have gone over this already, but just to be a bit more explicit:
Let NOVA be the event that there was a nova, and let YES be the event that the detector responds "Yes" to the question "Did the sun go nova?"
What we want is P(NOVA|YES)=P(YES|NOVA)*P(NOVA)/P(YES)
Suppose P(NOVA)=p is the prior probability of a nova.
Then P(YES|NOVA)=35/36, P(NOVA)=p, and P(YES)=p*35/36+(1-p)*1/36=1/36+34/36
So then P(NOVA|YES)=35p/(1+34p). If p is small, then P(NOVA|YES) is also small. In particular, the Bayesian statistician wins his bet at 1:1 odds if p<1/36, which is probably the case.
If the Bayesian statistician wants 95% confidence that he'll win his bet, then he needs p<1/666. =P

It's cute to attempt to connect this to the U.S. presidential election, but it's far likelier that it's a reference to Enrico Fermi taking bets at the Trinity test site as to whether or not the first atomic bomb would cause a chain reaction that would ignite the entire atmosphere and destroy the planet. I'll bet you $50 it is. [[Special:Contributions/71.229.88.206|71.229.88.206]] 21:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the explanation at all. Some of the discussion posts give a good view on this. I'd like to share my thought about the last panel, though. The page reads as if the punch line is about the fact that you cannot spend the money if the sun was going to explode; but why does the bayesian propose this bet and not the frequentist - no reason for this. I think there is a better explanation for this panel: there are several proofs that bayesian probabilities result in "rational" behaviour: They state that if you act according to bayes' rule you cannot be cheated in betting. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.179|108.162.254.179]] 17:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The last panel may refer to Nate Sliver's view expressed in his book {{w|The Signal and the Noise}} that if one believes one's prediction to be true one should be confident to bet on it. --[[User:Troy0|Troy0]] ([[User talk:Troy0|talk]]) 18:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance, but how is two sixes rolled on fair dice 31/32? (In the explanation: "the detector is telling the truth (31 in 32)") --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 17:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
:Just a missreading, not stupid. The detector is telling the truth when you dont role 2 sixes. roling 2 sixes is 1/6 * 1/6 or 1/36. So not roling is 35 in 36, wait oops 36 not 32, thanks. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.209|108.162.216.209]] 17:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I have always thought that the suggested Bet is also a reference to the Dutch Book argument for judging and accounting for probabilities underlying Bayesian interpretations of probability theory. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.100|141.101.98.100]] 22:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The likelyhood of a solar explosion may be wrong. Since the detector I'd only used at night, the event is twice as likely to occur than listed. That said, there's a 50% chance of the event never being detected, so I'm not sure. Any one more knowledgeable than I care to comment? [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 06:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Huh. I thought that the last panel was pragmatism: "If the sun goes nova, $50 doesn't matter; I'll be dead. If the sun hasn't, I get $50!"
:Same, but sign your comments, [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 14:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This comic hurts my head. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.7|173.245.54.7]] 21:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It is my feeling that sloppy or machiavellian academics have come to use the term "Bayesian" to mean something more like "we adjusted it to what we felt was most reasonable", which introduces so much bias that it actually leaves one unable to determine the scientific validity of the results. I was reading [https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/23/3/619/224216 a publication], today, that made me think of that and look up this comic. —[[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 21:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there a statistical angle I'm missing to the final part of the mouseover text 'did your brain fall out? [roll] yes...' Or is is purely linguistic between literal and figurative i.e. if his brain has fallen out as in he has made a careless error, then that's true. If it's literally did his brain fall out, is the 'yes' the 97% chance that it's talking about his mistake, or the ~3% chance that it's lying about the literal truth? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.244|172.69.69.244]] 14:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

As per Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.54|108.162.229.54]] 10:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

When he Bayesian says "Bet you $50 it hasn't.", he is saying that he will probably win the bet. However, he isn't saying he knows whether the sun has exploded or whether the detector is lying. What he is saying is roughly equivalent to "If we are playing Texas Holdem and I have a royal flush while you have nothing showing, I am probably going to win and might as well bet what I can.

If the eventist says "Detector! What would the Bayesian statistician say if I asked him whether I would say the sun had exploded", the Bayesian doesn't know what the detector would say. (I am changing the wording slightly, but it doesn't make sense to me as stated.) Therefore, the Bayesian can't give an answer. The Bayesian's answer would therefore be "I am a neutrino detector (answers are sometimes true and sometimes false), not a labyrinth guard (answers are always true or always false)". He then predicts that the Bayesian would say "Seriously, did your brain fall out?" After somebody hits the button, the detector answers truthfully (the likeliest option), and gives his opinion "YES". [[User:BradleyRoss|BradleyRoss]] ([[User talk:BradleyRoss|talk]]) 01:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

With regard to Bayesian having multiple meanings, this is probably similar to there being a Turing test, a Turing machine, and Turing Complete. [[User:BradleyRoss|BradleyRoss]] ([[User talk:BradleyRoss|talk]]) 01:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

No-one has discussed how to properly apply frequentists statistics to the problem.
1: Rerun the test several dozen times.
2: Find the 95% confidence interval of the generated data (A Poisson distribution is most appropriate for the modeling of event frequency).
3: If the 95% confidence interval includes the value of 1/36 then it supports the null hypothesis that there is no correlation is suggested between the sun and the positive detector results.
Bayesian and Frequentist Statistics should yield the same result if handled correctly, because they are basically algebraic rearrangements of each other. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.215|172.71.154.215]] 21:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
: So... explode the sun several dozen times? :P [[Special:Contributions/146.70.174.163|146.70.174.163]] 14:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:1121: Identity

2026-01-24T22:25:29Z

146.70.174.163:

He could also be bothered by her willingness to give away the password so easily. Anyone who has spent a sufficient amount of time with the character would have an idea of the things he's interested in. The image text supports it a little by saying how anyone he knows would be aware that he acts like that. [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 08:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

They could also be using a version of Google Wave or some such IM... It was possible to view realtime what the others were typing on the window. Then Megan would be able to interrupt Cueball easily.

Notably, although the characters appear to be communicating by way of text (whether SMS, or some instant messaging protocol), Megan should not be able to interrupt Cueball. Text-based messages do not typically stream in realtime as they are typed. She wouldn't be able to read his message until he completed it and sent it. {{unsigned|TheHYPO}}

:Unless they are using something like the unix talk command, which does stream characters as they are typed. This might make sense since they are conversing about a server password, but talk might also perform proper authentication, although it could likely be spoofed as most early unix programs were not very secure. The characters are not streamed in real time, by the way, because there is no deadline for transmission of the characters. Sending something "as soon as possible" is pretty much the opposite of "real-time" and I think this wiki should make great efforts to be extra geeky about the use of the phrase "real-time" treating it like "real-time operating system" rather than "I use the web so I think the word 'real-time' means that time itself is not fake." Has Randall written a comic about the misuse of the phrase "real-time"? He should. {{unsigned|Jsbqvb}}

::I'm going to quibble over your quibbling over semantics for a moment. "Real-time communication" is not simply saying something immediately after another person. Imagine you and I are sitting in plush armchairs in my front parlour, discussing philosophy. You ask me "What is real-time communication?" I look up to the ceiling, as I formulate my response. According to your definition, this conversation has now left real-time, and become a no-deadline-for-transmission delayed communication, because I've failed to respond immediately. Another example, we're sitting in a park outside at a marble chess table. You move your rook. I study the game board before making my own move. Are you going to argue that this is no longer a real-time game because of my delay?

::A third example. I sit down in my writing room and write a lengthy letter addressed to you and put it into the mail. My postman picks up the mail later that day. It gets sorted and put onto a truck to your house. The truck drives across state lines to the distribution center near your house. The letter gets put in your postman's sack, and that day on his rounds he delivers it to your postbox. You read it and write your response. Your postman picks it up the next day, it's trucked back to my state and delivered to me 2 days after you wrote it. Is this real-time communication? I'll answer that one for you. No it isn't.

::What makes communication real-time, and what doesn't? I don't have a hard-and-fast definition for you. I consider, talking to a person whether face-to-face or over the phone real-time. I consider sending mail and email delayed communication. Instant Messages are real-time if I get an answer within five minutes of when I sent them, same with text messages. So is five minutes a good differentiating line? Here's another example.

::We're in grade school, and we're all sitting in a circle playing {{w|Telephone (game)|Telephone}}. I whisper the message to my neighbor, who whispers it on until it reaches you, at the other end of the circle. The whole game takes perhaps a minute. Is this real-time communication? No, because I'm passing the message to middle-men. But that's how messages travel the Internet, bouncing through routers until they reach you. So, it can't be that there are no middle-men involved.

::In conclusion. I think your argument that "somewhat delayed delivery of a response" would be a better phrase instead of "real-time" is fallacious, and pointless. That we need to be cautious of the usage of "real-time communication" is not one of the things I think we need to be worried about. I do think we need to be careful of how we rear the upcoming generations, pay attention to the difference between "loose" and "lose", how to spell "onomatopoeia" and "definitely" correctly, as well as using "literally" accurately, "who" vs. "whom", when to and more importantly when not to dangle prepositions, learning when to use which dashes, avoiding ''ad hominem'' arguments, trying to be a little less pedantic with others, and taking some time to slow down and smell the flowers and enjoy the scenery.

::--[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 19:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

:::I agree with the action plan given in your final paragraph. However, while I don't disagree with your point, your example about the chess game might be a little confusing for some because in games there is a rather well established usage of "real time" games as being in direct opposition to "turn-based" games. Here "real time" usually means that the action all happens continuously and simultaneously, whereas "turn-based" means that everything proceeds by turns (i.e. I make a move, then you do, then me again, etc.), such as in chess. [[User:Erenan|Erenan]] ([[User talk:Erenan|talk]]) 15:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

:Moved here from the explanation. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

:::If you say something, the sound of your voice is spreading by speed of sound, which is relatively slow. What communication can actually be called real-time by the "no delay" definition? Telepathy? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

::::It's possible that by utilizing quantum entanglement we may be able to achieve communication of information without any delay. I may be wrong about this. Anyone with more knowledge about it care to correct me? [[User:Erenan|Erenan]] ([[User talk:Erenan|talk]]) 20:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

My understanding would be that instantaneous communication is impossible. Communication implies a transfer of information of some kind (regardless of how useful it is). Since in order to receive information into the human mind you atteh very least must wait the tiny amount of time for your nerves to transmit their signals from the sensory nerves to the brain. Add to that the assumption of travel via light waves which take time and or sound waves which take longer to arrive at the sensory organ. Even if a device could use a technology to have information come out as soon as it goes in somewhere else, you will have to wait again for the nerves if you surgically implant the the device. Why go through all that trouble and not go the next logical step. If time travel is incorporated you could include the lag so that the trip is finished at the same time it arrived. Of course you could also send yourself a message from the future to not waste Jorge time and to get a life. [[User:DruidDriver|DruidDriver]] ([[User talk:DruidDriver|talk]]) 22:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that he was sending each sentence separately, and she's responding to one of the ones he already completed. [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 18:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The "NO!" may not be for security but the disappointment of missed opportunity to design a 'cool' identity proof protocol.

:While it's true he hasn't yet properly proved his identity, the "NO!" is DEFINITELY the disappointment of missed opportunity to design a 'cool' identity proof protocol. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

They could be using skype (mobile and on PC with mic) to communicate, not necessarily text.

:: Seriously, why would any of you NOT think that they were using a speakerphone to communicate? (be it through the phone, skype or gtalk or whatever service)? You even got the little "sound wave" lines coming from the devices as the character communicates. [[Special:Contributions/206.72.206.101|206.72.206.101]] 13:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

::: Cueball is holding his phone with two hands. He's clearly texting. The "sound wave" lines are clearly meant to indicate that it's what the character is typing/texting. Also, the transcript indicates that Megan's text in the third frame is a text message (the parenthetical is here only because it's the only place where text is present from a character not visible in the image). [[User:Erenan|Erenan]] ([[User talk:Erenan|talk]]) 00:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

:::: That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. And I've read a LOT. Who needs two hands to text, and why can't someone hold a phone with both hands when on speaker? Furthermore, the transcript has NO BEARING AT ALL on discussions of the comic, because it's subjective. [[Special:Contributions/174.142.37.82|174.142.37.82]] 04:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
:::: Never mind, Erenan, I just saw your user-page and your pages. You've got enough issues. You're right, of course, there's no conceivable way Cueball could be doing anything but texting. It's "clear", and the sound wave lines "clearly" indicate that as well. I stand corrected. Enjoy life. You're "clearly" very smart and always right. [[Special:Contributions/174.142.37.82|174.142.37.82]] 04:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::At no point is there a need to personally attack another commenter on this site like that. Also, '''do not''' edit other people's posts on a talk page, that is rude in the extreme. Come back in a week, maybe you can keep a civil tongue in your head. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 05:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::Wiki etiquette states that you do not touch other people's comments - replacing his name with "dumbo" is childish. As for the transcript, it came from the div with id "transcript" in the source on the XKCD website. I believe Randall knows his own comics well enough [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 05:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

::::::{{w|Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments|Link}} as source for Davidy's statement. Go forth and educate thineself. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 05:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The reference to dinosaur fascination might be a last ditch attempt to try and fool people who MIT try and impersonate Randall. My understanding which may be flawed is that Randal has a fear around raptors, and close friends might hear praise for these and get suspicious if the leave out the fear part. [[User:DruidDriver|DruidDriver]] ([[User talk:DruidDriver|talk]]) 22:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

To support the feasibility of what happens in the last panel, it could be that Megan doesn't have the password in mind, and hit 'Enter' to go look for the password elsewhere. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.220|108.162.212.220]] 20:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph about RSA encryption, though interesting, is irrelevant to the explanation of the comic, as there is nothing to indicate he intends to use it (Seriously, who can name random large primes off the top of their head?). As such, I'm going to delete it.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.30|108.162.215.30]] 02:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The entire conversation is perfectly understandable if their voices were reversed, and Megan was saying Cueballs lines, while Cueball Megans lines. [[User:Thisfox|Thisfox]] ([[User talk:Thisfox|talk]]) 10:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

They’re not chatting through text-based messaging. Notice how Megan immediately catches on that it’s Cueball: she interrupts him. Things like that wouldn’t normally occur in text-based messaging. [[User:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|SilverTheTerribleMathematician]] ([[User talk:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|talk]]) 07:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
:They may not be using SMS-based messaging, but there are "send characters as they are typed" text-based messaging systems (awkward pauses whilst looking for the right word, sometimes even conveying backspaces across so that tyop^H^Hpo corrections are witnessed as they happen, how they happen).
:It's perhaps a more deprecated method than the "… user is typing …" status that can appear and vanish again as, perhaps, the current sender puts something down but then retracts it all while they have another think (and the sendee is on tenterhooks and wondering whether to write that they can go away and ''think'' about the last issue they posed, if it has no easy/immediate/diplomatic answer), but all it needs is a low-volume (mostly-)synchronous bidirectional connection protocol that can bunch up changes if full real-time connectivity is a bit choppy.
:And with so many chat-type protocols developed since {{w|talk (software)|the original one I used}}, it seems there's some that use (or ''can'' use) this character-by-character (or word-by-word?) mechanism, still. As noted in various spots further up this discussion page... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.156|172.71.242.156]] 20:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
:If they ''weren't'' texting, she would be able to know it was him by hearing his voice. How likely do you think people are to ask "how do I know it's really you?" over the phone as opposed to texting? We use voice communication as the second channel to exchange keys for secure text apps! [[Special:Contributions/146.70.174.163|146.70.174.163]] 22:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:1120: Blurring the Line

2026-01-24T22:17:21Z

146.70.174.163:

This comic might refer to the movie {{w|Adaptation (film)|Adaptation}} --[[User:Mambro|Mambro]] ([[User talk:Mambro|talk]]) 10:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
:It might also refer to the movie, "Teen Titans Go! to the Movies". {{unsigned ip|172.68.38.64|02:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)}}
::Highly unlikely (at least originally), as that movie came out in 2018, nearly six years after the comic. [[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 16:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

:There's a whole host of movies that white hat might be referring to. We can't know just from one theme present in the play, as there's a bajillion possible movies that it could be. Best to leave it unnamed.[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 11:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
::Or we could just mention the best-known (recent enough that a plurality of modern First-Worlders remember the ad blitz for it, yet old enough that many of those already probably regard it as a classic) example of such a movie, "Inception". I could say a lot more on the subject of MNG, but I'm not exactly an unbiased witness, so I'll leave the topic alone for now. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.52|173.245.54.52]] 19:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
::: ''Inception'' was a movie about movies? [[Special:Contributions/146.70.174.163|146.70.174.163]] 22:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think he was "passing the conversational ball" so much as it was meant to be a humorous blurring of the line between metaphor and reality (he's the "Michael Jordan" of blurring the line between metaphor and reality and then he has an actual basketball).
Also, what is "masturbatory naval gazing" supposed to mean? If someone could explain that portion, that would be great. [[User:Trek7553|Trek7553]] ([[User talk:Trek7553|talk]]) 14:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Referring to the basketball's orange color in the transcript could make a more accurate transcript. The appearance of the coloured basketball in the otherwise black and white panels is a very dramatic intrusion of "more reality" into the black and white 2D panel. "More reality" since color is an important property most of us experience in our real lives. A very abstract 2D drawing of people discussing 3D movie depictions of our shared actual reality (i've never considered xkcd to reference Flatland) seems to be playing with levels of abstraction visually, in addition to the self-referential language.[[User:Rashby|Rashby]] ([[User talk:Rashby|talk]]) 07:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow!
Really?

Is sexual self arousal the goal of masturbation?[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 17:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
:Yes. Entirely so. I mean, literally what other function could it have? -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 03:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"Masturbatory navel gazing" is a contradiction in terms, hence the cursor text.

From Merriam-Webster: Naval-gazing is useless or excessive self-contemplation. One could define a movie about movies in this way. Masturbation is self-love, and a movie about movies could be thought of as a form of self love too. --[[User:Johngardner|Johngardner]] ([[User talk:Johngardner|talk]]) 15:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Time to add absolutely nothing to anything.
b0nk
There we go. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] ([[User talk:Beanie|talk]]) 13:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:1119: Undoing

2026-01-24T18:17:14Z

146.70.174.163:

Perhaps his motivation is to restore natural wind patterns to the environment. I remember reading about the ecological impact of wind power includes lessened wind currents. Some organisms rely on the wind to propagate the species, such as winds that blow seeds or how some spiders "parachute" on wind currents. Or it could be that he just likes to mess with people. --[[User:Joehammer79|Joehammer79]] ([[User talk:Joehammer79|talk]]) 13:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

:I always though that if you put a forest of windmills on top of hill the damage of ecosystem done by the building is enough. Adding the fact about wind used for propagating ... damn, windmills are almost as unecological as solar plants on fields ...
:Seriously, how can anyone who things ecologically be AGAINST nuclear power? -- [[Special:Contributions/89.177.52.2|89.177.52.2]] 08:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
::Ten thousand of mutations from radioactivity? (Seriously, we should be using Liquid-fluoride thorium reactors, only 300 year half-life on the waste, rather than 10,000)--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.24|173.245.56.24]] 15:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

At first I thought this should be more of a Blackhat trick, but since he seems to think he is creating good in the world by restoring, it makes sense that it is Cueball--[[Special:Contributions/70.166.209.171|70.166.209.171]] 14:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only one who is also entertaining the possibility that the fan setup in the picture is not acting with, but rather counteracting the wind, which is turning the windmill that supplies it power? I understand that the alt-text makes it seem like Munroe's thinking about 'making up' for our interference with insolation (and presumably wind, water etc.) patterns. But, if we're going to bring in logic here, EVERYTHING falls apart :D I had a little fun trying to model what kind of a dynamic equilibrium the hitherto described windmill-fan arrangement would settle into. [[Special:Contributions/123.238.25.42|123.238.25.42]] 17:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are... The fan's blowing to the right... The wind came from the left... [[Special:Contributions/184.88.110.135|184.88.110.135]] 21:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Robert

:Indeed, the first thing that comes to mind is the "fan blowing into the sails" arrangement you sometimes see in cartoons, but I don't think that's what's going on here.[[User:CityZen|CityZen]] ([[User talk:CityZen|talk]]) 17:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It's even more fun to do to condoms.
--[[User:SuspendedPhan|SuspendedPhan]] ([[User talk:SuspendedPhan|talk]]) 18:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

:What the hell is "rotational" energy?!
::Although "rotational" energy exists (it is a verbal shorthand for kinetic energy that exists due to a rotating mass), what we actually have here is rotational power, another verbal shorthand for mechanical power transmitted by a rotating object working against a load. Also, Cueball has not disconnected the turbine from the generator but the generator from its electrical load (battery charger or electrical grid tie-in, perhaps).--[[Special:Contributions/174.138.205.139|174.138.205.139]] 13:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, he has disconnected the windmill that was supplying power to the grid and that windmill is now powering a fan which is creating suction which is pulling more wind through the windmill.[[Special:Contributions/38.104.209.10|38.104.209.10]] 16:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Worth mentioning existence of ram air turbines. [[User:Pallas|Pallas]] ([[User talk:Pallas|talk]]) 08:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, wind turbines have an motor which is computer-controlled, and which I think isn't completely powered by the blades rotating (if only that, when the wind is still, the turbine stops spinning, and needs a boost to start again when the wind picks up, similar to a battery and starter motor). If the power was cut (which wouldn't happen, BTW. Wind farmers aren't stupid and they realise the problems with normal cables, so it's all underground), the turbine would slow down and stop, like a solar-powered pinwheel. {{unsigned ip|108.162.250.223}}

I've been sneaking out at night and installing lamps on the underside of every photovoltaic panel I can find. Sure, there are upwards of 80% losses, but I prefer to think of them as nearly 20% gains.

When?[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 17:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is the truth: Enough wind turbines over time will kill us all. The wind turbines slow down Earth's rotation. Whit that the trade winds will die and then there would be no life possible on Earth. Maybe and only maybe we already slowed down Earth enough to induce a climatic change (so many strange natural disasters the last few ...) and we will face a real-life "The Day After Tomorrow". {{unsigned ip|162.158.83.144}}

That's a small turbine based on Cueball's size. [[User:SilverMagpie|SilverMagpie]] ([[User talk:SilverMagpie|talk]]) 20:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Disagreeing with the explanation: the speed of light ''in a medium other than vacuum'' is '''not''' identical for different frequencies. Thus, the light from the hypothetical LEDs would not necessarily travel at the same speed as (all of the) light from the sun. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 23:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
: Except that the medium that the light is travelling in, the air, is exactly the same above the solar panel as it is below.

Talk:1118: Microsoft

2026-01-24T18:12:53Z

146.70.174.163:

Let the discussion begin! (replace this stub with actual content?) [[User:Odysseus654|Odysseus654]] ([[User talk:Odysseus654|talk]]) 04:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well in the case of Microsoft they already dominated the market and so threatened to gain monopoly power. In the case of Apple (disclosure: I use a Mac) the market share is insignificant, really. As for Facebook and Google, the oversight is puzzling to say the least.[[Special:Contributions/172.190.2.141|172.190.2.141]] 05:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)ExternalMonologue

:¬I Ummmmmmm... Why does my IP address show?? Other peoples' addresses don't show. How do I prevent this from happening?[[Special:Contributions/172.190.2.141|172.190.2.141]] 05:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)ExternalMonologue

::Click the "log in / sign up" icon in the upper right and login or create an account for youself. Then you will no longer be known by your IP address[[User:Odysseus654|Odysseus654]] ([[User talk:Odysseus654|talk]]) 06:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

:I think the reason Microsoft was noticed and Facebook/Google didn't was that Netscape complained. It didn't helped him, of course. Which may also be reason why nothing is happening with Facebook/Google: seriously, WHAT do you think can the court do? And about Apple: yes, they could forbid Apple to control the list of application, but ... RIAA/MPAA will then complain. They WANT to end the era of "you own the device, therefore you can install whatever you want on it", because THEY want that control. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
One could add that the European Union did the same thing (see [[Wikipedia:European Union Microsoft competition case]]), first because of Windows Media Player (imagine any operating system coming without media player), but later also because of Internet Explorer. (It was already laughable back then, even before Apple completely dominated the mobile and tablet market.) Thanks to that we now have [[Wikipedia:BrowserChoice.eu]], and we are a free people. --[[Special:Contributions/84.75.58.16|84.75.58.16]] 08:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

: In the tablet and smartphone markets, Apple's market share is not at all insignificant. Furthermore, legal solutions are supposed to be even-handed, not "it's okay if these other guys do the same thing because." If a situation arises with a particular party arises such that one of its practices is determined to be abusive, then that practice is restricted, not that party.
:: That isn't how it works at all. If a company is in a dominant market position, they are NOT free to do things that are allowed for their smaller competitors. [[Special:Contributions/146.70.174.163|146.70.174.163]] 18:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Note that Microsoft [http://venturebeat.com/2012/09/27/microsoft-browser-choice-fine-eu/ has been in the news recently] because they (accidentally?) broke the agreements they made (or were forced into) when the last browser rulings came down [[User:Odysseus654|Odysseus654]] ([[User talk:Odysseus654|talk]]) 22:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What about Fa€ebook, App£e, and Goog£e?

:In retrospect, the whole Internet Explorer thing seems pretty dumb. I guess at the time web browsers still weren't considered to be an essential, fundamental piece of computer functionality. But they certainly are now. It would be weird for an operating system, ANY operating system, to not have a built-in web browser at this point. [[Special:Contributions/173.21.57.231|173.21.57.231]] 20:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

::Wouldn't Fac€book be more exact?
::Yes, the browsers ARE essential and BECAUSE of that it's important WHICH browser you have. Personally I can't understand why the OS (any of them) can't came with multiple browsers preinstalled. I find hard to believe it's because of size. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::How many web browsers? What standards are used to select them? Which one is the default? How are naive users to decide? As a semi-power user, I would be irritated to know that a bunch of redundant bloatware came pre-installed, especially when it's an application that often intertwines with the operating system. Frankly, it's NOT that important which browser you use for most users, just that you have one. The ones for whom it is important are going to change theirs regardless of what came preinstalled. [[User:Jerodast|- jerodast]] ([[User talk:Jerodast|talk]]) 17:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

::::Apple bundled their OS with two browsers at least twice. First, after Microsoft told Apple they would no longer commit to maintaining IE for Mac, Apple began installing both IE and Mozilla. I don't remember anyone complaining about that. Much later, they started preinstalling Safari (and installing it with updates) alongside Firefox. People did complain about that, but only the people who thought Safari was not ready for prime time, who would have been even unhappier if it were the only preinstalled browser... (OS X also comes with Emacs preinstalled with, IIRC, two different text-mode web browser packages in it, as do many linux and *BSD distros, but I doubt anyone complains that they want emacs but don't want www-mode because they already have a browser...)

::::Meanwhile, the way to solve the problem of the browser intertwining with the OS is to not intertwine it with the OS. You can have WebKit or KHTML3 or gecko or whatever as a shared lib if you want to share between programs without making Safari or Konqueror or Firefox the default browser. There really is no reason to organize things the way Microsoft did unless you're deliberately trying to make it hard for people to switch to Netscape.

::::Anyway, this is no longer the same issue it was at the time. The first-gen browser wars were about trying to lock people into other technologies; the current ones are about making products (phones and tablets) better. Android comes with Chrome instead of WebKit or Gecko because it means Android devices do better on benchmarks and feature checklists so more people want to buy them, not because Google wants to lock people in to Chrome. Google has plenty of evil ways to make money, but this isn't one of them; it's a sincere competitive loss-leader. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.180|199.27.130.180]] 11:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

::It's not weird. It might be weird to not have one bundled with it (Firefox in my case, on Mint GNU/Linux), but to me Firefox is just another app that happened to come with the OS installation. [[User:Wilh3lm|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm|talk]]) 15:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Would it also be relevant that, a week before this comic, [http://redmondmag.com/articles/2012/10/01/google-surpasses-microsoft-as-most-valuable-tech-company.aspx| Google surpassed Microsoft] in market value? —[[Special:Contributions/98.122.166.235|98.122.166.235]] 13:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand the advantage of browser market share. Browsers are free and have no ads. If the advantage is in using browser features to promote other services (like search), then THAT's the bundling that should be scrutinized. In contrast, forcing users to funnel all purchases for your system through your own store is much more abusive. [[User:Jerodast|- jerodast]] ([[User talk:Jerodast|talk]]) 17:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's start again shall we?

IE hurt Netscape but Windows is Windows, Netscape should have got its own OS while it was still warm.

Today we have a multitude of OSs and can control what we do either by not doing it or by doing it everywhere even places we aren't really. This would make people following us work bloody hard.

Next we take all their toys away by speaking to "friends" in codes that are unbreakable, using a made up language and converting a mutually shared book into that language and just picking out one word from it occasionally to tell the friend the one particular thing he needs to know. Or substance of this.

After that the internet is pretty much secure again except for ordinary people not in the business of foiling secret services. Everyone who needs to know this knows this. It is about as obvious as the supply of a choice of web browsers to an operating system.

The business of your IP address showing up pretty much foils the secret service's desire to know the things about you that you don't even know about you is marred if you go to hell and back and stop off at ever shop on every street corner along the way. Also if you pop into every supermarket and chase every dog and do all the stupid things that stupid people do, such as sending quasi-secrets on the name tags on kittens in pictures of kittens.

That will fuck with GCHQ and the NSA, it would even get on the nerves of the FBI and the CIA eventually. Not that they would notice.

Begone foul pest[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 17:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1085: ContextBot

2026-01-23T18:38:48Z

146.70.174.163:

Just so you know it would be fairly easy to drop a stack of diamond while alt-tabbing because the default "drop" key is 'q'.
:But the Q key just drops one item, not the whole stack. To drop the whole stack you have to open your inventory, click on the stack then click outside the inventory dialog. (yeah I'm a Minecraft addict :D) -- [[Special:Contributions/41.196.193.193|41.196.193.193]]
::If you were 'holding' the stack with your cursor and left the inventory, it would also drop. Same if it was in the crafting slots. [[Special:Contributions/130.160.145.224|130.160.145.224]] 21:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
::If you press ctrl + q you can drop the contents of the currently selected slot [[Special:Contributions/141.101.64.125|141.101.64.125]] 10:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
::If you are sneaking while you hit "q" you will drop the entire stack you are holding. [[Special:Contributions/71.207.146.202|71.207.146.202]] 21:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the shortcuts![[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.126|108.162.216.126]] 16:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Possible explanation for the bot's choice of avatar. Two girls holding hands in the small image, but the "context" is that it's a group of friends just hanging out. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87|76.106.251.87]] 03:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I added an incomplete tag because of informality and no explanation of google's data gathering. I also removed it from the category "video games." Why was it in there anyway? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.84|162.158.255.84]] 02:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
:Perhaps because Minecraft is one?[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.174|173.245.50.174]] 20:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
:Well I have created a 'Minecraft' category and added this to it [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] ([[User talk:Beanie|talk]]) 12:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Google is altruistic? Seriously? [[Special:Contributions/146.70.174.163|146.70.174.163]] 18:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:1049: Bookshelf

2026-01-23T18:24:53Z

146.70.174.163:

Rig this up to the entire twilight section. Problem solved. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 13:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Does ''Atlas Shrugged'' have any particular relevance to the strip? [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 02:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
::Ayn Rand is pretty controversial, and a lot of people dismiss her books outright. Some of them are an interesting read, though. {{unsigned|217.28.5.48}}

There is a factual inaccuracy in the explanation here — her philosophy is libertarian, not conservative. Please fix that. [[Special:Contributions/46.150.103.149|46.150.103.149]] 14:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"far-right" ??? This very subjective and insulting. But I guess it's the aim of such assertion. [[Special:Contributions/109.255.215.93|109.255.215.93]] 07:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Another inaccuracy: Rand herself found the Libertarians, like any political party, to be counterintuitive to her philosophy of Objectivism. Though I think "libertarian" should be changed to "objectivism," I'll leave it and just make a side-note, because one could say that Atlas Shrugged is to Libertarians as the Bible is to Christians. [[User:Jinx|Jinx]] 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree, Objectivism is a philosophy, Libertarianism is a political movement. Although the two have a few overlaps, they are very different things. Rand was adamantly opposed the Libertarian Party and and wrote quite a bit about her objections. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.175|173.245.54.175]] 23:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Does Libertarianism have anything to do with this strip? Why is it included [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.156|173.245.50.156]] 21:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As a communist, I love this one :D[[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 15:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Reading Atlas Shrugged right now. Randal's political beliefs would probably place him among the villains of the piece, a comic criticizing an influential work based on taste might place him there as well. Doesn't matter, my terrible tastes lead to me reading Atlas shrugged and xkcd so... careful Randal. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.94|172.69.6.94]] 14:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

All you guys in talk:

Proverb
a hit dog will holler

(US) An offended or defensive response to a statement suggests that the statement applies to the person complaining. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.38.120|172.68.38.120]] 02:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"Far right" is broadly similar to "far left"; "far right" only means "further right than I am", and "far left" means "further left than I am", so in effect everybody is one or the other. Not that it matters which one you are, because they're much of a muchness. Both extremes want power, both extremes think the other lot is rigging the election; and neither extreme believes itself to be an extreme. People who dismiss a political view as "far right" or "far left" do so because they don't want people to think it over for themselves. Both labels have long since lost their usefulness, because they have become knee-jerk insults. If we really want to know what's true, we should look beyond vacuous labels, because that's how we can avoid being "a huge asshole to everyone". (Here endeth the lesson.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.101|172.70.85.101]] 13:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I had a hard time with Margaret Atwood because I found myself enthusiastically agreeing with the first 90% of every sentence, but getting lost at 'therefore, legalize killing unborn children.' [[Special:Contributions/51.159.199.32|51.159.199.32]] 07:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

What the hell is that last paragraph? Just because Randall isn't persuaded by one particular book means that he isn't influenced by ''anyone?'' What kind of logic is that?