explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2128: New Robot

2019-03-27T22:35:01Z

162.158.155.176:

Boston Dynamics does this. [[User:Netherin5|“That Guy from the Netherlands”]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 16:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I have to wonder if the title text is referring to the term "search and destroy", which would certainly be the second type. [[User:MAP|MAP]] ([[User talk:MAP|talk]]) 18:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M46HvyAG2k i'ts a robot! [[User:I prefer qwerty|I prefer qwerty]] ([[User talk:I prefer qwerty|talk]]) 21:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone else reminded of the Rovers from ''The Prisoner''? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.190|172.69.69.190]] 21:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems like, from both the references(E.G. Hookshot) to various things and the captions, that this bot was built with the purpose of being cool rather than any sort of destructive nature. [[User:V|V]] ([[User talk:V|talk]]) 03:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought I recognized [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg_JcKSHUtQ&t=2m9s that stage.] [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.95|172.68.132.95]] 04:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The (current) explanation completley misses the point of the one big advantage robots have for search and rescue missions. especially the search part: They often can access areas humans cannot for reasons such as temperature, space restrictions, safety, height/depth, radiation, etc. So especially for the search part it can be muc hbetter to send in a drone instead of a person. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 07:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A drone is "much better" right up until you need to exert a force on something (clear some debris, open a door, drag the unconcious survivor out along the passage you've cleared...). At this point you need a wheeled, snake-like or multi-legged robot which can reasonably support and anchor itself, a situation where having lots of mass (prohibitve for drones) and hence plenty of momentum and/or inertia becomes an advantage.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.176|162.158.155.176]] 22:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm on mobile and it is too awkward to fix up the current explanation, but it is completely off the mark. The sphere is not a fragile balloon, this is why he didn't say balloon. Engineers come up with robots because they are fun and impressive challenges to make, and it's really cool to make something that has never been made before, especially if it solves a hard problem or it replicates popular fictional media, but others don't understand this and wonder what all the effort is expended for. Floating objects accumulate atmospheric charge relative to ground - this can be used as a weak power source and is the source of lightning. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.50.10|172.69.50.10]] 11:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

In complete agreement with ^^ about the fragile balloon. I'd say something more along the lines of "Impractical for the 'rescue' bit", but a sphere isn't necessarily fragile.
[[User:Glassvein|Glassvein]] ([[User talk:Glassvein|talk]]) 02:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It also states that the helium is a sphere -- "floats using a helium sphere" -- not that the helium is ''contained'' in a sphere. Seems there might be some considerable engineering challenges there, either to keep gaseous helium "attached" to the robot and to keep it from dissipating or to make and maintain a non-gaseous sphere of helium. Kinda difficult to have solid helium hanging around, for instance...

Talk:2129: 1921 Fact Checker

2019-03-27T16:08:44Z

162.158.155.176:

Two gallons of vinegar, huh?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.144|162.158.106.144]] 14:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

While I too respect this fact checker's perspective on what really matters (and what doesn't), it's clear to me that in this fact-obsessed 21st century we cannot let this purported fact go unverified. Get on it, people! ;) [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 14:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I fact checked this comic. The text in question is on page 8 of the newspaper, leftmost column, three paragraphs from the bottom. [[User:Billtheplatypus|Billtheplatypus]] ([[User talk:Billtheplatypus|talk]]) 15:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
: [citation needed] The LOC link in the explanation says that the Kansas City Sun was a Saturday Weekly, so it wouldn't have been published on Friday, May 6th, 1921 as claimed. Unfortunately, the LOC only has scans of from 1914 through 1920, so it doesn't have scans for 1921. Do you have a source where you fact checked it? [[User:Blaisepascal|Blaisepascal]] ([[User talk:Blaisepascal|talk]]) 15:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
::[https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/477982773/ This]. You can get the OCR if you don't want to sign up. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.176|162.158.155.176]] 16:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't "whatever" be not worth checking? "Mostly whatever" implies it could be worth checking but beyond current enthusiasm. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.41|141.101.99.41]] 15:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought corn travelling back from England to America was the problem... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.90|162.158.90.90]] 16:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2090: Feathered Dinosaur Venn Diagram

2019-03-12T08:10:16Z

162.158.155.176:

Or is a losing veteran of the Emu wars [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.70|172.69.55.70]] 14:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Or tried to pet a swan and had to fight said Swan over your dismembered finger[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.70|172.69.55.70]] 15:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC) Or never had an argument with a magpie. Or a Kookaburra, for that matter. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.118.46|162.158.118.46]] 04:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

or kept chickens, flew falcons etc.

Just remember. The term raptor applies to both birds and dinosaurs. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 21:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I hate to be that guy, but isn't this a Euler diagram? [[User:Cyclic3|Cyclic3]] ([[User talk:Cyclic3|talk]]) 15:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
: Yes it is. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.83|172.68.58.83]] 17:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
: Yep! For anyone who's curious, a Venn diagram shows intersections between sets that don't actually exist while sets in an Euler diagram intersect only when they overlap in the real world. [[User:Moosenonny10|Moosenonny10]] ([[User talk:Moosenonny10|talk]]) 17:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
: I have added a description of the difference between the two into the article. Please feel free to cut it down if it's too long, or remove it if it is unnecessary! [[User:Cyclic3|Cyclic3]] ([[User talk:Cyclic3|talk]]) 18:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
: Both this and 1180 have been mislabled as Venn Diagrams. Literally unreadable. [[User:Cyclic3|Cyclic3]] ([[User talk:Cyclic3|talk]]) 18:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
::Seems like Randall has previously called Euler diagrams Venn diagrams, see [[:Category:Euler diagrams|Category:Euler diagrams]]. Strange because he usually do not make these mistakes (twice). Has he ever made a Venn diagram then? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The comic has nothing to do with whether or not dinosaurs with feathers existed, but whether or not dinosaurs with feathers would be scary. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 18:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

For those of us unfamiliar with Jurassic Park, could somebody comment on the relevance of the new movies being "controversial"? (and add any other missing information that would be relevant?) One of the questions this comic leaves me with, is whether or not new Jurassic Park movies contain feathered dinosaurs, which could be a draw to see them. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.201|162.158.93.201]] 02:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
:Yes, for anyone who only watched one or two of the movies once or twice, the title text doesn't make sense. The explanation is about who that kid is, but not what it means. Are the sequel-raptors less scary? feathery? or does it just not make any sense?--[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

:The sequels added some small-ish crests to the raptors that sortof look like feathers, but ultimately the makers of the movie didn't want to stray too far from the look of the dinos in the first movie. In Jurassic World (4th movie) they actually address it with a throwaway line claiming none of the dinos are "natural"(part of the plot surrounds the creation of a genetic hybrid dinosaur, rather than a natural species) and would look very different if they were made with pure DNA. My assumption is this line is meant to explain the lack of feathers [[User:Defaultdotxbe|Defaultdotxbe]] ([[User talk:Defaultdotxbe|talk]]) 15:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I always through the "6 foot turkey" comment was an off-handed acknowledgement that the velociraptors in the movie were much larger than actual velociraptors, and actually closer in size to utahraptor (real velociraptors were about the size of a turkey, but have a cooler name than "utahraptor") [[User:Defaultdotxbe|Defaultdotxbe]] ([[User talk:Defaultdotxbe|talk]]) 15:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I remember seeing that apparently Florida governor Rick Scott used a Venn diagram that was wrong. Might be associated with this [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.84|172.68.133.84]] 18:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

: I did a search and couldn't find anything like this about Rick Scott - I believe you're referring to the outgoing Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. He recently displayed a Venn diagram where the areas inside two circles but outside the intersecting area contained the exact same contents, instead of the content being shown within the overlapping region where it would have been correct. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 22:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

: Furthermore, I don't see any way it could be related to this comic! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 22:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Venn diagram incorrect: there should be an intersection containing Chuck Norris :) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.176|162.158.155.176]] 08:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

2120: Brain Hemispheres

2019-03-07T17:02:00Z

162.158.155.176: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2120
| date = March 6, 2019
| title = Brain Hemispheres
| image = brain_hemispheres.png
| titletext = Neurologically speaking, the LEFT hand is actually the one at the end of the RIGHT arm.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an AUTONOMOUS LEG. Missing explanation for the title text. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
It is thought that the right half of the brain controls the left arm and left leg, and vice versa for the left half of the brain, and competing theories such as [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.1872.pdf these] [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02972358 two] attempt to explain why this is the case. Similarly, many people incorrectly argue that different parts of the brain control logic and emotion, due to the importance of the [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393211000285?via%3Dihub left] brain for language processing. Randall spoofs these by suggesting that the right brain instead controls the upper torso. This would suggest that your left leg moves independently of your brain. To explain the areas of the body controlled by both halves of the brain, Randall declares those sections "disputed," echoing a note added on maps that must display a border which is part of a {{w|territorial dispute}}. This suggests that the halves of your brain fight for control of the region, and is also described similarly to two countries disputing territory. Alternatively, there would be cooperative shared control (= dual control).

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A stick figure with the right half of the figure's brain (on the viewer's left) colored orange and the left half (on the viewer's right) colored iris blue. An iris blue box is overlaid over the right half of the figure's body (on the viewer's left), and an orange box is overlaid over the top half. The boxes are overlapping on the upper right quarter of the body (on the viewer's left).]
:'''Neuroscience Fact:'''
:The ''LEFT'' half of the brain actually controls the ''RIGHT'' half of the body... [Arrow pointing to iris blue rectangle]
:...while the ''RIGHT'' half of the brain actually controls the ''TOP'' half of the body. [Arrow pointing to orange rectangle]
:Disputed/dual control [Arrow pointing to the overlapping area]
:This leg is fully autonomous [Arrow pointing to stick figure's left leg area (on the viewer's right) that is colorless]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Biology]]

798: Adjectives

2019-01-02T10:54:23Z

162.158.155.176: /* Meanings of lesser known words */

{{comic
| number = 798
| date = September 27, 2010
| title = Adjectives
| image = adjectives.png
| titletext = 'Fucking ineffable' sounds like someone remembering how to do self-censorship halfway through a phrase.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is a {{w|Plot_(graphics)|plot graph}} comparing how often certain adjectives are used alone versus in the phrases ''"fucking [adjective]"'' and ''"[adjective] as shit"''. Plot data is based on Google search engine result count, or ''hits''. The graph's formula uses the {{w|natural logarithm}} of the hits for the obscene phrase divided by the hits for the adjective alone.

It's a social observation of linguistics pointing out that the use of swear words as intensifiers is more common with everyday words (''eg. annoying, pissed, stupid'') than it is with more arcane words (''eg. piquant, fungible''). Two words are used as examples in a sentence shown to the right. These sentences are not something you would be likely to overhear. In the case of ''fucking fungible'' it is also a way to justify its relatively high occurrence online. Of course given the log scale, it is still very rarely used like this.

The only word included in the graph that's never found in either obscene phrase is ''[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/peristeronic peristeronic]''. Its definition ''("Of or pertaining to pigeons")'' is included due to its extreme obscurity. (The words was used again later as a [[1572:_xkcd_Survey#Difficult_words| difficult word]] in the survey part of comic [[1572: xkcd Survey]].

The title text mocks the use of the word ''fucking'' in combination with ''[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ineffable ineffable]'' since the colloquialism ''effing'' or ''F-ing'' is a way of censoring "the F-word", ''fuck''. The two used together resembles someone partially self-censoring the phrase "fucking unfuckable."

==Meanings of lesser known words==

'''Prosaic''' - lacking originality/creativity.

'''Ambivalent''' - having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something or someone.

'''Evanescent''' - which disappears very quickly , transient/ephemeral

'''Piquant''' - Which has a tangy appetizing taste.

'''Jejune''' - naive, simplistic

'''Kafkaesque''' - Nightmarishly bizarre and surreal , read more about it [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Kafka#.22Kafkaesque.22 here]

'''Stochastic''' - Random and unpredictable, most often used in a technical sense

'''Fungible''' - Things that are interchangeable and equivalent substitutes for each other - e.g. different cans of diet coke are fungible with each other.

==Transcript==
:Frequency with which various adjectives are intensified with obscenities (based on Google hits)
:[The legend above the plot reads:]
:Red marker: "fucking ____"
:Blue marker: "____ as shit"
:[Mathematical formula for scale next to the legend:]
:Scale: ln(hits for intensified phrase/hits for adjective alone)
:[The plot itself lists a series of adjectives in approximately descending order. Each has a red and a blue marker corresponding to the scale described.]
:[Horizontal axis starts with none, then has a vertical dashed line, then 'rarely' at -17, increasing to 'often' at -5.]
:[Each adjective is listed with approximate red and blue values, in that order.]
:Annoying -5 -4.5
:Pissed -5 -6
:Stupid -5 -8
:Bored -6 -6
:Sexy -5.5 -6.5
:Adorable -6.5 -9.5
:Disgusting -6.5 -12.5
:Calm -7 -10
:Delicious -8 -13
:Obscene -6 -14
:Prosaic -10 -13.5
:Bemused -8.5 -14
:Apropos -10.5 -16
:Ambivalent -12 -17
:Improper -12.5 -18
:Evanescent -14 -14.5
:Piquant -9.5 never
:Jejune -9 never
:Kafkaesque -10 never
:Stochastic -14 never
:Fungible -12 never
:Peristeronic ("Of or pertaining to pigeons") never never
:[There are two small scenes in the bottom right of the plot. The first shows a pair of women holding wine glasses.]
:Megan: Yes, the Cabernet is piquant as ''shit'' this year.
:[The second shows Cueball sitting at a computer desk.]
:Cueball: Whoa — these commodities are fucking ''fungible!''

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Language]]