explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1215: Insight

2019-09-17T17:16:28Z

162.158.186.36:

Indeed, somebody speaking circa 1895 could have made the same remark but instead of Google Glass the subject could have been something then new such as the Horseless Carriage, a technology now known as the Automobile in which I will soon drive to work.
[[Special:Contributions/24.91.233.200|24.91.233.200]] 09:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

:The same could be said for electrification (utility-provided mains, especially when extended to rural areas), steam locomotives, and industrialization as a whole. '''--BigMal27''' // [[Special:Contributions/192.136.15.177|192.136.15.177]] 11:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's make a list! --[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 13:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
:added <fire>, sorted by date--~~ ~~

*Maybe before we rush to adopt <Google Cornea Implants> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(2020)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <the internet> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(1986)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <TV> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(1954)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <automobiles> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(1914)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <electrification> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(1880's)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <growing food> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(10,000 BCE)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <fire> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(400,000 BCE)''



I think that most people initially view a new idea or technology with skepticism and/or suspicion, but eventually accept it and learn to incorporate into their everyday life. This generally works out fine, and often for the better. Historical examples of this abound: the telephone, electricity, and the automobile, for example, probably all caused controversy when they were first rolled out to the general public, but today we couldn't imagine our lives without them. Another great example is civil rights. At first, the public attacks civil rights activists as radicals, then tolerates them as equals, and eventually hails them as heroes who fought for good and justice.

However, I would caution against thinking that every new idea is equally beneficial, and that those who express initial concern about the latest gizmo are merely backward Luddites. Humans are generally a lot better at figuring out how to make/do/use something before we figure out if it's good for us. Just look at drug companies like Bayer at the turn of the 20th century, who marketed aspirin (good) right alongside heroin (not so good) as great new drugs for modern medicine. Or think about eugenics, which developed out of evolutionary theory. While evolution was, is, and probably will always be the foundation of modern biology, eugenics provided justification for some truly horrible actions in the 20th century before people decided that it was all bull**** science.

Or, take Google Streetview. Sure, it's a great new technology, and I use it almost daily. But think about the unprecedented amount of information Google has been able to collect on (literally) the entire world. I don't think anyone can claim that we fully understand the repercussions that these new Google technologies will have on our lives, and I'd argue that it's premature to ignore or ridicule people who advocate caution with Google Glasses. After all, we're talking about strapping a camera to your face! Just my $0.02.

TL;DR: New technology isn't always good technology.
[[User:Chris j|Chris j]] ([[User talk:Chris j|talk]]) 22:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi '''Chris j''', please sign your posts by using the sign button on top of the editor. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

:Maybe before we rush to adopt <signing our posts by using the sign button on top of the editor> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. -- [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.135|173.245.52.135]] 20:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

<blockquote>unprecedented amount of information Google has been able to collect on (literally) the entire world</blockquote>
Nothing like the entire world. Vast areas have no streets. Even where there are streets, there are large areas either nowhere near a street or not visible from the street. I await Google JungleView, SteppeView and (ahem) BedroomView. Or maybe not. [[Special:Contributions/203.206.118.14|203.206.118.14]] 02:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe before we rush to adopt <language> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in... oh, wait. Shit.
--[[User:Jesse|Jesse]] ([[User talk:Jesse|talk]]) 19:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I find this discussion joyously entertaining. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.137|173.245.48.137]] 15:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is related to xkcd 1289. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.177|173.245.52.177]] 23:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess one of the core issues is that it is almost completely impossible to predict the consequences of introducing technology into any part of our lives, central or not. It not even really possible to determine whether or not a specific technology will take up a role in people's lives.- Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.205|108.162.249.205]] 02:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe before we rush to adopt <electronic payment> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. /David A [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.33|141.101.80.33]] 23:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference to the precautionary principle. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.36|162.158.186.36]] 17:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:1143: Location

2019-09-17T03:54:47Z

162.158.186.36:

I thought the words "like" and "hang out" were references to facebook's "like" and google's "hang out". What do the native speakers think? {{unsigned|213.252.171.254|07:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)}}

: Not in this case- here they're just being used as the everyday terms that facebook and google co-opted. {{unsigned|140.247.0.10|08:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)}}

:: I agree. {{unsigned|122.60.40.91|09:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)}}

: Native speaker here: there doesn't seem to be anything distinctive about the use of 'like' and 'hang out' in this comic to indicate they might be references. {{unsigned|170.194.32.42|10:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)}}

:: The words aren't out of place otherwise, so it just might be a (big) coincidence. I still find it likely to be true. [[Special:Contributions/207.237.164.241|207.237.164.241]] 11:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

::: It's really not a "big" coincidence at all. 'Like' and 'hang out' are ''the'' most obvious word choices in their context in the comic. The same words are used in social network apps ''because'' they are common social phrases. It doesn't even warrant the word "coincidence", let alone a "big" coincidence. [[Special:Contributions/46.65.14.73|46.65.14.73]] 22:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

: Another native speaker here. You typically would not "hang out" – in real life – with people you don't "like" – as in you like your friends. There's nothing in the comic to make me think there's any connection with Facebook or Google+. [[Special:Contributions/24.41.5.167|24.41.5.167]] 11:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

: This native speaker agrees. The dialog is ordinary informal American English. That's why facebook and Google hijacked the words. Facebook and Google want to be seen as informal and idiomatic institutions. {{unsigned|174.125.142.147|15:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)}}

::They'll be very disappointed when they discover that he just decorated the bushes around his house with green LED lights for Christmas. --Geoff [[Special:Contributions/128.156.10.80|128.156.10.80]] 19:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No explanation for the space noises? [[User:Max Nanasy|Max Nanasy]] ([[User talk:Max Nanasy|talk]]) 21:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

: The game literally makes space noises. Like... ''whooosshhshhhssshhoooooshhh.'' Things like that. [[Special:Contributions/138.110.225.187|138.110.225.187]] 22:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

::Thank you for that. I had no idea what was being referenced, serves me right for not reading the title text. (This is not sarcasm, it sounded like it was when I read it to myself, so I'm adding this disclaimer) [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 22:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

:: But "space noises" is an oxymoron. In space, you can't hear noise. (Oh... you mean bad-sci-fi-movie noises...) [[Special:Contributions/207.225.239.130|207.225.239.130]] 19:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

::Another Google closed beta – you get to play by invite only. Meh [[Special:Contributions/24.41.5.167|24.41.5.167]] 23:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a game that I played on the computer about 2 years ago. I remember that you could see the entire play area the entire time. It was timed. The object was to get to a hole (maybe blue in color) to end the level. There were blocks that often blocked your path, which you needed to push out of your way or more often use them to make bridges to cross water. Some of the levels were very much a timing game where you needed to quickly move a block through a winding path(up, down, left, right only)to avoid being caught by, I believe, moving blocks.The closest screen shot that I've found is Chips Challenge, which is not the game that I played previously. I remember there were many levels, probably between 50 and 100. Ideas?[[User:Shine|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine|talk]]) 15:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC) RESOLVED : game was called Silversphere[[User:Shine|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine|talk]]) 21:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

: RE: Shine. The game was called Rodent's Revenge. Phenomenal Times, Shine, Phenomenal Times. Glad you reminded me about it!
:::Not the game I was thinking of, but fun game too. No animals of any kind in the game that I'm trying to find [[User:Shine|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine|talk]]) 17:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
:OK got it. It was called Silversphere. [[User:Shine|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine|talk]]) 21:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I was absolutely certain that the bright green "fountains" were supposed to illustrate some radioactive material and them being "excited" was somehow a particle physics joke I couldnt nail down.

:My assumption was that his house was just in a good location to watch some space phenomenon. The Aurora, or a meteor shower.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.156|141.101.104.156]] 12:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You should really try Ingress now. It's great. However, I don't understand what he lives beside that's so portal-worthy. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.185|108.162.218.185]] 00:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

By my house, across the Mississippi from St,l there is a Catholic Church with a portal on two idols and a bell tower. Unfortunately it is just out of reach from my bedroom. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.61|173.245.50.61]] 20:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
:Please do some research before the next time you associate the Catholic Church with idolatry. If you would like, I may be able to refer you to some sources at some later time.
:—[[User:CsBlastoise|CsBlastoise]], a Catholic ([[User talk:CsBlastoise|talk]]) 15:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
::It's not nice to assume malice. In this context he's probably using the definition of "idol" that simply means "statue" ("an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship" via Google) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.35|172.68.46.35]] 22:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Is Ingress still running and available and stuff?[[User:(insert name here)|(insert name here)]] ([[User talk:(insert name here)|talk]]) 16:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
:Yes, they released version 2.0 (called "Ingress Prime") a few month ago. --[[User:SlashMe|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe|talk]]) 14:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The Ingress reference went way over my head. I thought the joke was people wanting to visit the house because it had a sweet wifi spot nearby. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.36|162.158.186.36]] 03:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

532: Piano

2019-08-30T21:56:32Z

162.158.186.36: /* Explanation */ Added comic 2193 to list of comics referencing jinnis

{{comic
| number = 532
| date = January 19, 2009
| title = Piano
| image = piano.png
| titletext = Good thing he didn't make it smaller, or it'd need someone three inches tall to play it.
}}

==Explanation==
The joke here is the reverse of an old joke that appeared in [http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/old90/304.html rec.humor.funny]. In the original, the punchline reveals that a small ''pianist'' is the result of a man's wish for a twelve-inch (one foot or 30.5 cm) ''penis'' which was misheard by a {{w|genie}}. In this version, [[Cueball]] wished for the twelve-inch pianist to a hard-of-hearing genie, with the implication that he instead received a twelve-inch penis. This piques [[Megan]]'s interest.

A long-debated subject in human sexuality is whether sexual activity is more pleasurable for a woman when the man has a larger penis (and therefore whether women desire men with larger penises). Although opinions on the subject seem to vary in surveys, a common stereotype is that women prefer or even seek out men with large penises, or at very least are turned off by men with small penises. Penis size has become associated with virility and "manliness", and another common generalization is that men would choose to have the largest penis, if it were possible to choose. The punchline of the original joke plays on the fact that wishing for a tiny pianist is a very unusual, interesting, and specific wish, until the punchline reveals that the subject's wish was far more expected.

The title text is implying that, since Cueball's wish was misheard as referencing penis size, had the piano been even smaller, it would have only needed a three-inch (7.6 cm) pianist. This would imply that Cueball's misheard wish would have resulted in his being given a three-inch penis, which is below average and therefore, following the same generalizations as above, is seen as undesirably small.

Genies (or magic lamps) are mentioned in at least three other comics:
*[[152: Hamster Ball]]
*[[879: Lamp]] (where Randall also manages to make a penis related joke)
*[[1391: Darkness]]
*[[2193: Well-Ordering Principle]]

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is holding a box with an open lid. A miniature piano is inside. Megan is looking at it]
:Cueball: My hobby is making miniatures. Check this out — it's a fully-functional grand piano.
:Megan: Woah — beautiful.

:[Cueball looks at the miniature piano.]
:Cueball: Sadly, I've never heard what proper music sounds like on it—the keys are too small to play.

:[Cueball closes lid to the piano.]
:Cueball: I once asked a genie for someone who could play it for me, but I think he misheard.
:Megan: ...are you doing anything later?

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Penis]]

Talk:2023: Y-Axis

2018-07-24T22:51:32Z

162.158.186.36:

"There are four kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, graphs, and statistics." [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 13:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

To me this graph stands out as having something very wrong far more than those that limit the y axis to a short range. If the grid lines were several shades lighter however... [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 15:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Also I wonder if anyone can find a legitimate (non-misleading) use for the semi-semi-log plot? I’m sure there’s some scenario where it could be useful. Perhaps showing the population growth of a species, then when the growth levels out at the maximum sustainable level for its environment (I forget the proper term from high school biology) showing more detail of the small population changes or something like that? [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 15:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
:Frankly, it would be better to just use 2 separate graphs. Even if you explain to the reader that the scale changes mid-way, it would still be misleading on the subconscious level. The whole point of visualization is to allow the reader to utilize that sweet auto-processing power of our brains so that we don't have to think about what we are looking at too much. [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 17:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
:Yes, specifically in anomaly or outlier detection before doing any feature scaling/normalization, regression, sampling, replace of missing values. For data modeling, Semi-log can help you detect if outliers affect your model or if your p-hacking based on outliers. For a given programming language or software, semi-log plot has had their place when you were not able to do quantile-quantile plot, heteroskedasticity plots, etc. In layman's terms, it can be beneficial to compare both the semi-log and non-logarithmic pot simultaneously to see how removing outliers or large value might change the plot or results. However, there now are easily accessible specific heteroskedasticity and outlier functions in R and cookbooks in python that would allow you test for outliers and data dredging more rigorously than semilog plots. Therefore, semi-log plots for outlier/anomaly detection may be going out of style. I am not sure if there are any science's that still rely on semilog plots in data exploration step of science. Does anyone know of any applications of semilog plots are still used for a specific science today? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.36|162.158.186.36]] 22:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Are there any IRL examples of this type of plot trick? I've never seen it

At first, I thought the X-axis was logarithmic, because it lacks labels. This can also cause the sudden data jump.

There are no Y-axis labels and values, the x-axis dates are questionable, and the data points are even more questionable, resembling linear growth at really convenient spots. [https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/50b62c2669beddc340000005-320-185.jpg Fox News misleading graph]
:I think you were onto something about the X-axis being logarithmic. X-axis AND Y-axis are both logarithmic. The trick is to realize that the X-axis is reversed. The Y-axis is logarithmic between 50% and 100%, but the X-axis is logarithmic on the LEFT and AFTER the first tick mark. A readable symlog or x-axis semi-log plot has the logarithmic on the LEFT or AFTER the first tick mark. This I think really highlights an important point that Randall is making with this comic: '''Whether you exaggerate tick marks to the range to data or adjust ticks to a range outside of the data, you ultimately skew the meaning of the plot''' Both Y-axis trick and log-scaling are bad. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.36|162.158.186.36]] 22:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
:Yes, there is a programming example in python besides the Fox News one shown above. You can reproduce this plot using the symlog function in python. This is my first time posting in this wiki, so I am not sure if I should edit the page to include this example. Here is a link: https://matplotlib.org/gallery/scales/symlog_demo.html . Specifically, double symlog plot has a similar axis to Randall's picture. You might notice that you can also do this R; however, it is intentionally much harder to do because of the very point Randall is making. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.36|162.158.186.36]] 22:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
:There is an interesting color version of the point Randall is making that was published today in livescience: [https://www.livescience.com/63153-brain-color-distortion-maps.html]. Turns out our eyes for color expect this kind of scaling distortion. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.36|162.158.186.36]] 22:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
:There is also a related problem for the case of discrete plots like bar charts called Waterfall charts. Waterfall charts are so bad, that their is saying in business, "Waterfall charts are how you lie to stakeholders". Here is a deeper explanation: https://zebrabi.com/excel-waterfall-chart/ --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.36|162.158.186.36]] 22:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

1923: Felsius

2017-12-03T20:26:00Z

162.158.186.36: Added information about the ways in which Felsius would be a silly measurement

{{comic
| number = 1923
| date = December 1, 2017
| title = Felsius
| image = felsius.png
| titletext = The symbol for degrees Felsius is an average of the Euro symbol (€) and the Greek lunate epsilon (ϵ).
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Is there anything to add?}}

Just like in [[1292: Pi vs. Tau]], [[Randall]] tries to unify two measurement systems by averaging both values, assumably with little success.

There are several {{w|Scale_of_temperature|temperature scales}} actively used in different parts of the world of for different purposes, including {{w|Celsius}} and {{w|Fahrenheit}}, but e.g. also {{w|Kelvin}} and {{w|Rankine_scale|Rankine}}.

The debate on whether to use Fahrenheit or Celsius is, just like the one between {{w|Imperial_units|imperial}} and {{w|Metric system|metric}} units, one that is mostly restricted to the US. While Fahrenheit is a widely used temperature scale in the US, most other countries have already switched from Fahrenheit to Celsius or have always used Celsius. In scientific circles, even in the US, only Celsius (and Kelvin) are used.

The conversion factors between Celsius and Fahrenheit are:
:°C = (°F − 32) × 5 / 9
:°F = °C × 9 / 5 + 32

which indeed make the average value of °C and °F:
:°⋲ = °C × 7 / 5 + 16 = (°F × 7 - 80) / 9

[[Randall]] choose to name his new unit of temperature Felsius (a {{w|portmanteau}} of Fahrenheit and Celsius). Comically enough, this fictitious Felsius system of measurement discards all of the advantages of either system of measurement - the Celsius scale is based around 0 °C as the melting point of water and 100 °C as the boiling point, which Felsius does not preserve. Fahrenheit is often argued to be a convenient temperature measure for human comfort, as 0 °F is very cold and 100 °F is very hot. Many places on earth which humans inhabit fall well within these extremes the majority of the time. Because these are pleasing benchmarks to humans{{Citation needed}}, this is a common argument as to the utility of the Fahrenheit system; Felsius does not preserve this advantage at all.

The title text states that the symbol he chose to represent this unit also is the average of two other symbols. Visually, it is assumed to be a combination of Celsius and Fahrenheit (a C with a crossbar), but it is actually the unrelated symbols for the {{w|Euro sign|euro}} (€) and the Greek lunate {{w|epsilon}} (ϵ). Randall's symbol has a single crossbar, like the Greek lunate epsilon, but the crossbar continues to the left, like the Euro symbol. (In this explanation and the transcript, we have used the mathematical symbol [http://graphemica.com/%E2%8B%B2 U+22F2], which may appear too large or too small depending on the font.)

{|class="wikitable"
!Symbol!!Number of crossbars!!Length of crossbar(s)
|-
||Euro||2||Long
|-
||Epsilon||1||Short
|-
||Felsius||1||Long
|-
||[not used]||2||Short
|}

In doing all this, Randall has fallen into the trap of creating a new temperature scale/standard: see [[927|927: Standards]].

Randall has also compared Celsius and Fahrenheit scales earlier in [[1643: Degrees]].

This is an example of {{w|Argument_to_moderation|Argument to Moderation}}, also known as the false middle point fallacy. A famous use of this fallacy is in the Bible, the {{w|Judgment_of_Solomon|Judgment of Solomon}}. The true mother of a disputed baby is discovered by proposing the "compromise" of cutting the baby in half. Perhaps Randall has a similar strategy in proposing Felsius, an absurd compromise, in order to discover the "true" temperature scale.

=== Table of Given Conversions & Additional ===
{| class="wikitable"
!°⋲!!°C!!°F!!Note
|-
| style="text-align:right;" |156.0
| style="text-align:right;" |100.0
| style="text-align:right;" |212.0
||Water boils at sea level (1 atmosphere)
|-
| style="text-align:right;" |91.6
| style="text-align:right;" |54.0
| style="text-align:right;" |129.2
||World heat record (per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth Wikipedia])
|-
| style="text-align:right;" |67.8
| style="text-align:right;" |37.0
| style="text-align:right;" |98.6
||Body temperature (accepted average)
|-
| style="text-align:right;" |46.8
| style="text-align:right;" |22.0
| style="text-align:right;" |71.6
||Room temperature (maximum per [https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=room+temperature American Heritage Dictionary])
|-
| style="text-align:right;" |16.0
| style="text-align:right;" |0.0
| style="text-align:right;" |32.0
||Water freezes at sea level (1 atmosphere); 0°C reference
|-
| style="text-align:right;" |0.0
| style="text-align:right;" |−11.4
| style="text-align:right;" |11.4
||0°⋲ reference
|-
| style="text-align:right;" |−8.9
| style="text-align:right;" |−17.8
| style="text-align:right;" |0.0
||0°F reference
|-
| style="text-align:right;" |−40.0
| style="text-align:right;" |−40.0
| style="text-align:right;" |−40.0
||Equivalence point (exactly −40°)
|-
| style="text-align:right;" |−366.4
| style="text-align:right;" |−273.2
| style="text-align:right;" |−459.7
||Absolute zero (exactly −273.15°C or −459.67°F)
|}

==Transcript==
:[A thermometer is shown where the temperature is indicated, with a red column of liquid, to be just above room temperature. This can be seen from the five labels belonging to five lines pointing at the scale. None of these coincide with the 14 ticks on the actual scale for the thermometer. Below the last label is the formula for calculating the temperature on this scale.]
:92°⋲ world heat record
:68°⋲ body temperature
:47°⋲ room temperature
:16°⋲ water freezes
:–9°⋲ 0°F
:°⋲=7×°C/5+16=(7×°F–80)/9

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Since the Celsius vs Fahrenheit debate has proven surprisingly hard to resolve, as a compromise I've started using Felsius (°⋲), the average of the two.

==Implementations==
An implementation of Felsius is available at [http://www.weatherinfelsius.us Weather In Felsius], using a location based on user's IP address and accepting US ZIP codes.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Portmanteau]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Compromise]]

1239: Social Media

2017-07-29T13:11:33Z

162.158.186.36: /* grammar fix*/

{{comic
| number = 1239
| date = July 17, 2013
| title = Social Media
| image = social_media.png
| titletext = The social media reaction to this asteroid announcement has been sharply negative. Care to respond?
}}

==Explanation==
This comic parodies how journalists tend to focus on social networking. Specifically in the case of revolutions, social media is given a lot of weight, even in countries with limited internet access. A direct parallel is made to the so-called {{w|Twitter Revolution}}s.

On {{w|Twitter}} you can send text messages with a maximum of 140 characters. This means that there could not be much content in a single post, but often many people ''follow'' the people doing these ''tweets''. People who are not on social media tend to react like [[Cueball]] and come to the conclusion that twitter makes press coverage more stupid, just because those messages lack much detail. Cueball is also surprised about the stupidity of trying to link social media to the orbit of the asteroid — social media obviously has no impact on the orbit of any space objects, which are entirely driven by physics and gravitational mechanics, and are not influenced by opinions on any media.

The title text continues the joke. The negativity on Twitter concerning an earth bound asteroid has nothing to do with the press conference that announced it but rather with the negativity of wiping out life on earth in general. Again, journalists give undue weight to social media.

It's simply that "How has twitter affected this" has become a standard question for journalists, posed in complete disregard of the actual event.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball heads a press conference.]
:Cueball: NASA has confirmed that the asteroid is heading directly for us.
:Cueball: ...Yes, a question?
:Reporter 1: What role has social media played in this asteroid's orbit?
:Cueball: *''sigh''*
:Reporter 2: Has twitter changed the way we respond to asteroid threats?
:Cueball: Well, it's made the press conference questions stupider.
:Reporter 3: Fascinating!
:Reporter 4: What about Facebook?

==Trivia==
*The comic may also parody an actual interview [http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/12/deb_feyerick_to_bill_nye_is_asteroid_2012_da14_connected_to_global_warming.html Is asteroid 2012_DA14 connected to global warming] in which {{w|Bill Nye}} was asked if the approaching asteroid {{w|2012_DA14}} was a result of global warming.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Social networking]]