explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2977: Three Kinds of Research

2024-08-27T16:22:39Z

162.158.126.204: another image detail

{{comic
| number = 2977
| date = August 26, 2024
| title = Three Kinds of Research
| image = three_kinds_of_research_2x.png
| imagesize = 501x306px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The secret fourth kind is 'we applied a standard theory to their map of every tree and got some suspicious results.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a DEPTH-FIRST TREE RE-SEARCHER - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In this comic, three types of research are presented. The first is an analysis of an existing theory, the second is a new theory, and the third is not a theory at all, but a survey.

The title text has multiple interpretations: the "map of every tree" was manipulated or simply inaccurate, someone is messing with trees on a global level, or the tree survey methods and/or mapping techniques are challenged by this type of researcher.

For example, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model|Lambda-CDM standard model of cosmology] could be 
1) confirmed or challenged by new empirical data on the distribution of galaxies, new simulations, or a mathematical thought experiment based on that model 
2) challenged by a new model that is better at explaining some oddities of the model, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy|dark energy] 
3) complemented with a survey of the timeline of everything in the universe :-) 
In this case the fourth kind of researcher would apply the cosmological standard model to the map of everything and find something suspicious.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A single panel with three separate drawings.]
:[Caption above the drawings:]
:The Three Kinds of Scientific Research:
:[Cueball is pointing to a scatter plot with a best-fit curve.]
:Cueball: We applied a standard theory to novel circumstances and got some surprising results.
:[Miss Lenhart is pointing to a similar scatter plot.]
:Miss Lenhart: We applied a novel theory to standard circumstances and got some intriguing results.
:[Hairy, with leaves in his messy hair and on his body, is pointing to another chart that is covered in random dots and unidentifiable shapes, while having both arms raised. Leaves are falling from him and are scattered on the ground at his feet.]
:Hairy: ''Finally, a map of every tree.''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]

Talk:1310: Goldbach Conjectures

2024-08-27T12:26:52Z

162.158.126.204: comments on proof of ternary Goldbach

If a bot can create the text I read here, we have made great strides in artificial intelligence. Probably a human editor forgot to change the "incomplete/incorrect" heading. [[User:Tenrek|Tenrek]] ([[User talk:Tenrek|talk]]) 05:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
:You never know, AI has come a loong way. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

::Let's ask: Tepples, are you a bot? And 199.27.128.62, what about you? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

:::Yes, I'm a bot. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.62|199.27.128.62]] 21:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought that <nowiki>{{incomplete|Created by a BOT}}</nowiki> means that the template was inserted by a BOT. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.84|173.245.50.84]] 13:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
:It does mean that. But as others edit the page, they should keep the "incomplete" reason up-to-date. I've changed it to "incomplete|surely not quite complete yet..." ;) [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 14:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
::I will change this text template beginning at the Friday update when I'm back home. Happy NEW YEAR to everybody! --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 15:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It all seems to work except that the extremely strong seems to imply the opposite of the extremely weak [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 02:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
:I think the mistake is in the implication of the very weak to the extremely weak version. In fact, if there is any connection between those two statements it is an implication that goes the other way round. If the extremely strong version is true, we are not looking at the natural numbers. Thus, "Every number greater than 7 is the sum of two other numbers." does ''not'' imply "Numbers just keep going.", at all. (Also this accounts for no numbers at all, so the very weak version would still be correct.) Then there is the case that the extremely strong version is false. An implication from something false to anything is always true. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.200|173.245.53.200]] 07:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
---I disagree with this, as it is not incorrect to say that "numbers keep going towards seven" as there are an infinite number of numbers approaching 7. Also, the extremely weak conjecture could easily refer to numbers in the negative direction only. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.61}}

I always find it amusing that people assume that something phrased 'scientifically' is therefore right, whereas something phrased unscientifically (eg religious beliefs taken on faith) are automatically wrong. There seems to be an unexamined assumption that science is some magical dark art for uncovering infallible truths. Of course science is really just a methodological system for testing theories. Whenever I try to explain this concept, I try to come up with a general, untestable (non-scientific) assertion that is nonetheless true, alongside a very specific, repeatedly testable (falsifiable) assertion that is therefore eminently scientific, but which happens to be wrong. (Eg "it sometimes rains on Wednesday" and "it rains at least 100mm every Wednesday in Riyadh"). So for me this comic is a commentary on that principle - that the "strength" of a statement is only really impressive if it has also survived testing. [[User:Tarkov|Tarkov]] ([[User talk:Tarkov|talk]]) 10:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
:The assumption is not "that science is some magical dark art for uncovering infallible truths" but that science works. [[54: Science|Bitches]]. Also, the example you have given is quite bad considering that your first statement is so vague that it is essentially meaningless and apparently, what you want to say with your second statement is that falsifiable claims are falsifiable, which is pretty trivial. Finally, the statements that are phrased unscientifically are not assumed to be automatically wrong but they are impossible to be proven or disproven and are often worded so vaguely that nobody in the known universe knows just what the hell they are supposed to even mean. They are just empty phrases that carry no information whatsoever. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.200|173.245.53.200]] 07:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

According to the strong twin prime conjecture, all positive numbers greater than one are prime, due to 2 and 3 both being prime and extrapolation on primes from there. Thus, this nearly proves the very strong Goldbach conjecture, excluding one. Should this be noted in the explanation? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.4|108.162.237.4]] 02:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)(Kyt)

: I don't know if it's worth complicating things to bring the matter up. It's potentially more complicated than a simple error; in Goldbach's day, people still sometimes thought of 1 as a prime number (which simplifies his conjectures). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 18:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This also reminds me of those psychological tests that ask how you feel about this and that. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.226.228|108.162.226.228]] 15:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget the first rule of tautology club. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.236|141.101.98.236]] 18:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

;Moved from explain:
I disagree with this, as it is not incorrect to say that "numbers keep going towards seven" as there are an infinite number of numbers approaching 7. Also, the extremely weak conjecture could easily refer to numbers in the negative direction only. (Edited by some people.) --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"Therefore, the "extremely strong" conjecture could not possibly imply (however indirectly) the validity of the "extremely weak" conjecture, as it would if proved true."
: It can be argued that since the "extremely strong" conjecture is obviously a contradiction (as in the logical sense, "a formula that's always false"), thereby, can imply any other formula. That is, if p is always false, then (p->q) for any q is always true. In this sense, if the "strong" version gets proved somehow, you get an inconsistent logical system, in which each and every formula can be proved as true, including those weaker forms. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.56|108.162.215.56]] 13:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This sentence is problematic: "The weak conjecture does not, however, imply the strong conjecture." "A does not imply B" technically means "A and not B" which, I'm sure, isn't what was meant. I added "in any evident way" which I think corrects it. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.59|199.27.133.59]] 08:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The paradoxical prime conjecture states that the paradoxical prime conjecture is false. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.220|108.162.250.220]] 07:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

KYT's conjecture - prime numbers pattern

KYT's conjecture is described as follows:

a is a positive integer and is even, a>=8, b=a+18, a=c+D, c, D,E are prime numbers.

a=c+D
b=c+E

E=D+18=b-c

There must be a prime number c that satisfies the two equations above.
More examples are as follows:

10=3+7;5+5
28=5+23;11+17
46=3+43;5+41;17+29;23+23
64=3+61;5+59;11+53 ;17+47;23+41
82=3+79;11+71 ;23+59;29+53;41+41

----

Hello, I am not a regular user here (I have no account), but I am a working analytic number theorist. Harald Helfgott's proof of the ternary (i.e., weak) Goldbach conjecture has indeed been accepted as correct.

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.204|162.158.126.204]] 12:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC) Frank Thorne

Talk:2841: Sign Combo

2023-10-14T07:30:57Z

162.158.126.204: Added two comments

Theoretically you can get around this limitation by turning off the road before the sign and doing whatever maneuvers you need to out in the wide open area to the right or left of the road. It's not a U-turn if you're not on the road, and you didn't enter a restricted part of a road either, and didn't stop on the road. After which you calmly make a turn onto the road when traffic is clear. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.207|108.162.245.207]] 02:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure swerving off of a road is also illegal. [[User:SteveTheNoob|SteveTheNoob]] ([[User talk:SteveTheNoob|talk]]) 04:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
:: You can always just pull over - if a cop asks, just tell him you were lost or tired or had to take a phone call. And then take the opportunity to ask about the bloody sign! Anonymous 07:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
So does making a three point turn count as a u-turn? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.66|172.69.58.66]] 02:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Wouldn't putting it in reverse stop you briefly as you switched from forward acceleration to reverse?
:Yes, this is also an example of Rolle's theorem as seen in [[2042]]. [[User:SteveTheNoob|SteveTheNoob]] ([[User talk:SteveTheNoob|talk]]) 04:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immelmann_turn Immelmann!] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_turn Hammerhead!] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_eight Half Cuban Eight!] [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 03:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You could obey the title text if it was 45 miles per hour and 65 meters per hour, respectively. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.96|162.158.90.96]] 04:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Take notice of the road markings too. At least here in Europe double white lines are not to be crossed. And they go past the point of the sign.--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 07:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
:Double lines are also "do not cross" in America. And I think in this case it's supposed to be yellow, the dashed-and-solid combo indicates a one-sided passing zone into a lane with on-coming traffic, and double lines in general are only use to separate anti-parallel lanes of traffic, both of which use yellow. "Solid double white lines" do exist, but are only used in very specific cases. Near me, there's a very congested exit, and the solid double whites are used to indicate "no really, you should have switched lanes ages ago, it's too late now!", but since it isn't a Jersey barrier or a line of rods or even a full on median, nobody actually follows the rule. Anonymous 07:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2819: Pronunciation

2023-08-24T11:54:17Z

162.158.126.204:

These are all heteronyms

(/ɪ/|/t/)+(/ɪ/|/juː/)+(/ɛ/|/ɨ/)+(/s/|/z/)+(/t/|/d/)+(/eɪ/|/æ/)+(/aɪ/|???) ...what's the alternate (anglophone) pronunciation for the 'y' in "gyro"? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.81|141.101.98.81]] 19:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:...oh, ok, now there's an explanation on this. Not convinced by the alternate 'y' at all. And I pronounce "putting" exactly like "putting", as well. Consider me additionally confused. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.90|172.70.90.90]] 19:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:gyro as in the sandwich (pronounced like Euro), or gyro as in short for gyroscope.
::Never even heard of a "gyro" sandwich. (And "Euro" can be YOU-ro, OY-ro, ERR-oh, etc, depending on which country you're(-oh) in.) Clearly something very Leftpondian, this comic. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.90|172.70.90.90]] 21:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Oh man! Come on, we're going to the grocery store. You're one of today's lucky 10,000.- [[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.172|172.70.131.172]] 22:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::It's a Greek dish similar to a shawarma. It's pronounced YEE-ro, I believe. (Which is kind of similar to that first pronunciation of "Euro", so that's probably what they were going for.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.43.118|172.70.43.118]] 22:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Putting/putting - think southern England if you want to appreciate the difference. The golfing sense is somewhere between "patting" and "potting"; the placing sense more like...well, like "putting". "Pooting," I suppose, with a "book" type "oo".[[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 22:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::It's actually gyros, or γύρος using Greek spelling, there is no singular form because it is uncountable, like news. It's not like you can have one new. It's still probably the same word but I guess the meat is more likely to be pronounced in the original Greek way while words like gyroscope, which is a device originally used to measure (scope) the rotation (gyros) of the earth, have been anglicized in their pronunciation. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 23:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::So in English, is it gyros meat or gyro meat?
::::::The "original" Greek way would be /gyros/, but the word for the sandwich was borrowed from modern Greek, while the word for the device was borrowed by way of Latin and maybe French. And English has this silly habit of treating mass nouns with final /z/ or /s/ as plural count nouns, especially if the masses are made of many countable objects, like pease and cherise. Anonymous11:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
::Also, Most Americans pronounce it /hiɹoʊ/, as in "I need a hero", a pun Arby's made ample use of when they started selling gyros. I presume this also where the name "hero" for a sub comes from, despite the fact that most gyros I'm familiar with look more like Greek tacos than subs. Anonymous11:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

In Finland that's not far away. By starting with T and removing æ you are almost correct. Tuesday in Finnish /Ti:stai/

Someone has GOT to find a better joke than "TOMATO BOTATO" - [[Special:Contributions/172.69.59.83|172.69.59.83]] 22:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:I think maybe the {{w|Ghoti|counter-example}} of orthography might work for everyone? I linked it, for those who might still be confused. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.94|172.70.90.94]] 22:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:::That's a lot better, and I feel like an idiot for not thinking of it, since I was just watching Tom Fawkes last night when he mentioned Ghoti of the Deep Beyond.- [[Special:Contributions/172.71.255.24|172.71.255.24]] 01:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Does someone familiar with the IPA have a silly-looking but reasonably accurate transcription of /ɪɛstæaɪ/ they want to add to the page? [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 23:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Listening to the IPA reader, it sounds almost like "yesterday", which is interesting because the comic was posted on Wednesday... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 00:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I think for the 'e' he means the 'schwa' (ə) sound, basically an unstressed neutral vowel sound (as in the 'a' in 'about', the 'e' in 'taken', the 'i' in 'pencil', the 'o' in 'havoc', the 'u' in 'supply', the 'y' in 'sibyl', or sometimes not even written as in 'rhythm') [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous#Help_with_Creating_a_User_Page|Trogdor147]] ([[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Miscellaneous#Help_with_Creating_a_User_Page|talk]]) 01:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

My naive reading of this is: the T in buffet is silent. U in minute is UH, E in record is EH, S in use is Z, D in moped is T, A in bass is AH, Y in gyro is YI. together this makes: UHEZTAYI [[Special:Contributions/172.68.4.169|172.68.4.169]] 04:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2696: Precision vs Accuracy

2022-11-13T08:58:39Z

162.158.126.204:

87.532% of all statistics are just made up. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.220|172.70.178.220]] 11:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is 'Barack Obama is 6'1"' and 'Barack Obama has 4 legs' medium precision? It seems to give exact value, so high precision. [[User:Tkopec|Tkopec]] ([[User talk:Tkopec|talk]]) 11:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
: OK, I get it. 6'1" means something between 6'0.50" and 6'1.49". For height it's OK, but when counting legs, it seems like a stretch. [[User:Tkopec|Tkopec]] ([[User talk:Tkopec|talk]]) 12:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:: The four legs are probably considered to be only medium precise, not because of the number but because of the imprecise term "leg". While humans can walk on all four extremities, thereby using them as legs, the upper two are commonly referred to as arms. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 14:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:: (ECed by Bischoff) Plus a person's height (excluding differences to footwear and perhaps hairstyle) varies by an inch or so over the course of a day, as the spine compresses whilst mostly upright (would depend a bit upon your daily activities, but "an inch" or 2-3cm is the typical quoted value, with all the questions about precision ''as well as'' accuracy). Within an inch of such a foot-and-inch value is basically between slightly over a percentage point of drift across a continuum of ultimately non-integer values.
:: The number of legs is ''generally'' a whole number (perhaps lower-limb amputees could claim "half a leg", but is that for above the knee or below or... that's beyond my wish to define, I would leave it up to the individual amputee to finesse to their own liking) and assigning decimals, even .000(recurring), would be ''over-''precise. A definite plain figure (however inaccurate) being the happy and acceptable medium between that and the vague imprecision (never mind inaccuracy) of the kind in the cell below. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.137|172.71.178.137]] 15:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:::The medium is because it says most, and not all! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
::::It says "most cats", indeed, but the above was about Obama, singular. Though I think it's covered anyway... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.25|172.70.85.25]] 09:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::All the statements about 'Barack Obama' ought to be medium precision at best, because there could be more than one Barack Obama, and it doesn't give any further contextualisation to identify, for example 'the Barack Obama who was president of the United States of America'. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.157|141.101.107.157]] 09:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
: Compare with 6'1"1/50 or 4.0000 legs, both of which would imply a higher degree of certainty.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.204|162.158.126.204]] 08:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Someone should add an explanation of the difference between precision and accuracy. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 13:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:Tried it myself. Maybe made it too compact, but I often go on too long so I tried made it as brief and snappy as I felt I could. Over to other editors to rewrite or replace. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.137|172.71.178.137]] 15:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
::That there is confusion over this was a bit of a surprise to me, about 20 years ago, when I worked (as I did for many years) in the outdoor pursuits trade. GPS units would give a 12-character grid reference (1m2), but couldn't be relied upon to that level. I would tell people they're more precise than they are accurate, until it became apparent that they were waiting for me to complete the joke they thought I'd begun, as I was so clearly contradicting myself, what with the two words meaning identical things.
::Having gone on to explain the difference between the words, the neat brevity I'd sought was lost.
::Obviously they can be used sort of interchangeably in casual conversation, but I thought the difference was well enough known that, when talking about a navigational instrument, it would be obvious what was meant.
::Nope. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 20:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I deal with OS Grid References a lot, in a similar context, and a number of people who give 10-digits or more (2x5, for 1m res) from devices that typically don't ever settle down to less than 3m, and provably can be tens of metres off if there happens to be a small tree or shrub nearby.
:::(In fact, the other day I was geohashing myself, and my device was insisting I was in a totally different bit of the open field, 50m or so, no matter how much I sat it down at the provably correct point and wandered away so that even ''I'' wasn't obscuring its view of the sky. But it was good enough for me, which was all I do it for, so after giving it 5 minutes I counted it as done.)
:::And, in yet another activity, the publicised information for an event included a 12ish-DP reference for the starting area (vaguer than that), but just the ''postcode'' for the HQ (a very definite building that you could bullseye on a map), in a rural area where it covered half the valley! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.12|172.70.86.12]] 22:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

How is 17.082 palindromic? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:My error, I meant an anagram! (Was going for "anagramic", and my brain clearly rebelled.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.137|172.71.178.137]] 15:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

High Precision High accuracy, Randall Munroe misses when Obama was president. Low precision Medium-rare accuracy, so do we, Randall, so do we. {{unsigned ip|172.70.130.154 }}

It is so annoying that the US uses . and , to mean the opposite of what most European countries (including Denmark where I live). So when I read this it states that Obama was president less than 3 days (70 hours) but it more than 70000 feet tall. :-) Of course I now the difference but I have to think about it more than if everyone used the same standard. Also height should use SI units as everyone should ;-) (weight given in number of cats is the new SI unit as far as I know, but don't use inches and feet ;-D ) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:Well, as a UKian, I was happy enough. Tell you what, though, let's develop a [[927: Standards|new and mutually-acceptable standard notation]]... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.25|172.70.85.25]] 09:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
::Good idea. Lets meet on [[2562|11/12/22]] to discuss the details. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I think Randall missed an opportunity to clarify how high precision can make something inaccurate. He could have said that Obama is 6’ 1.02173” tall, which would clearly be very precise, and also clearly inaccurate, simply because of the excessive precision. [[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 15:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:Saying 6'1.0278 would have been more in theme, there. And it would be not really more inaccurate (might even be closer to the truth...) but would convey a false precision.
:Interstingly, when Andrew Waugh measured Mount Everest (before it was so named) he got a diffraction-adjusted figure of 29,000 feet, but decided to announced that it was 29,002 so that it didn't just like a rough figure rounded to the nearest hundred or even thousand feet. This made him the first person to put two feet on the top of Everest!
:(...The actual error was not bad, given his measurements had to be made from hundreds of miles away. Current official measurements with on-the-spot modern GPS say 29,031.7 feet (for the snow-peak, which is all that Waugh could mention), after 170ish years of (by some estimates, but contested) about a foot of extra height per decade through the continuing techtonic raising of the Himalaya. And any unknown differences in snow-depth. Certainly it was within tens of feet, i.e. a dozen or so metres. With a bit of an error-bar, but not really that big when you consider it...)
: So, arguably, that case was a deliberately false accuracy to help convey the true precision. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.3|172.70.90.3]] 16:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:I don't get your point? Unless you just made up everything after the decimal point: How would it be less acurate? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
::The only thing I can imagine is, that these kinds of numbers happen due to conversions. E.g. 6ft1in would be 185.42cm (according to the first calculator I found), but it is unlikely that 6ft1in was as precise as a cm-value with 2 digits after the decimal point would be. And in the other direction 185cm (which would be the usual precision of a height in m or cm - while 186cm could still be correct as it would be 6ft1in in the "usual precision") would calculate as 6ft and 0.83in --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 10:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the current explanation's claim that 'being too precise usually decreases accuracy' is, er, accurate (or perhaps it's just imprecise). It might be reasonable to claim that increasing precision tends to decrease accuracy relative to the level of precision, but not so much in absolute terms, or even necessarily relative to the size of the thing being measured.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.156|141.101.107.156]] 09:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
:I think it's badly phrased. The assumed accuracy can be degraded and disadvantageous.
:For example, to use someone's figures from just above, looking for an individual with a height of 185.42cm might seem to rule out the one that you find is 185.57cm tall, though they are indeed the one initially measured/estimated at 6'1" and would definitely be within an inch or so in this latest attempt to match them.
:An old phrase that I grew up with is "don't try to be accurate over inaccurate details" (courtesy of a chemistry teacher, where we frequently used mmol-like measurements in analyses like titrations). The number of articles that say "the probe flew past the asteroid at a distance of about 20 miles (32.187 kilometres) ...", where clearly the accuracy is misleading, especially if the conversion ends up being back-converted by someone else with no idea ("...which is 20.0000746 miles"), and may have come from an ''original'' figure actually deliberately pegged at 35km (21.748 miles!), within a few metres or less.
:Really, you should be taking the level of precision/accuracy inherent in the initial values, preserving the awkward fractions throughout the intermediate steps ''and'' converting the inherent ranges by the same process then clearly presenting the final figure to no more exactitude than the initial smudge of "all actual values that would be given by this type of input value", and maybe less. The write-up might be then be realistically "...of around 21¾ miles (35km)", if using a better primary source, or "20 miles (~30km)" in a case of the detail already being likely lost by intermediate chinese-whispers.
:But this is what confuses people. And how even those that are not confused can confuse others... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.10|172.70.86.10]] 12:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
::It gets even better when different units also use different 0s. So for a persons height we can assume that as 0ft0in and 0cm is the same, 185cm is one order of magnitude more precise than 6ft1in, as it is 3 significant digits vs 2 at the same height. However a persons body temperature in 38°C with 2 significant digits and 311K with 3 is the same level of precision and only .15°C (Or .15K) apart, while 100°F (37.77...°C) is also very close but a bit more precise. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 14:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
:::One of many reasons that Celsius and Fahrenheit are not considered as true units - their connection to kelvins is affine, not linear. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.75|172.71.142.75]] 05:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I was expecting maybe a reference to Schrödinger's President when I first read the comic - but later realized that this could have been misconstrued as a threat. Oops!

As far as I recall, isn't the transcript supposed to avoid tables? I understand blind people with text reading programs use the transcripts to follow this comic, and thus it should avoid visual elements wherever possible? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
:Generally, yes, though some useful additional description went in before I might have 'flattened' the description again, and there are ther extant table-transcripts
:Best practice would be to not rely on screen-readers to say nice informative things about tabulation and instead say it all explicitly (like they can't be relied on parsing MathML stuff), but there's good manual description and bad, too. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.25|172.70.85.25]] 13:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

In the fewer-legs-than-your-cat category, any interest in adding a link to the "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?" riddle often attributed to Lincoln? The best link I found is https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/11/15/legs/ which makes it clear the riddle was already in circulation by 1825, well before Lincoln's usage. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.163|108.162.246.163]] 05:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)