explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1842: Anti-Drone Eagles

2022-02-08T04:44:14Z

162.158.187.178: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1842
| date = May 26, 2017
| title = Anti-Drone Eagles
| image = anti_drone_eagles.png
| titletext = It's cool, it's totally ethical--they're all programmed to hunt whichever bird of prey is most numerous at the moment, so they leave the endangered ones alone until near the end.
}}

==Explanation==
Law enforcement and security agencies often use [http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-35750816/eagles-trained-to-take-down-drones birds of prey] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/21/terrorists-are-building-drones-france-is-destroying-them-with-eagles/ to combat drones] flying unlawfully over restricted sites. This is often more cost effective than using technological means (such as scramblers and counter-drones) and safer for the public than using conventional weaponry (such as shotguns).

Eagles, being predators, have natural tendencies to attack the central components of drones while avoiding the sharp and spinny bits.

[[Cueball]] argues that this is unethical as it forces rare animals to put their lives at risk, and compares it to using police dogs for traffic control, which people would generally frown upon.

Effectiveness depends upon the conditions of use. Obviously eagles can't be used everywhere that drones are restricted, but they are often effectively used where ground security is also present to identify and arrest those that might be unlawfully flying the drones, so they can't indefinitely replenish their hardware. The first paragraph has links to real life examples. Not only would it be unethical, but also ineffective. The supply of Eagles is rather limited, and there are biological limits to how fast it can be replenished, whereas more drones can be created very quickly to replace those that are destroyed. Traffic control dogs would be similarly ineffective, as dogs would struggle to run as fast as a speeding motorcycle, and would be powerless to stop the motorcycle even if they could.

[[Megan]] thinks both ideas (eagles and dogs) sound cool, but she understands the ethical argument against using them for traffic control.

[[Black Hat]], on the other hand, goes a step further and says that he has created a drone that hunts the eagles, flipping the premise from “anti-drone eagles” to “anti-eagle drones”. In the title text, he continues that is ethical because they (only the title text mentions that there are several of such drones) only target the most populous species first, although they will eventually eradicate the endangered ones once they bring down the number of all birds of prey (note that this implies that he wants to make all birds of prey extinct or endangered). He seems to {{tvtropes|ComicallyMissingThePoint|miss the point}} that it is not merely the relative number of birds that creates the ethical problem, but the fact that animals' lives are being put at direct risk by humans. His construction of the anti-eagle drone may be simply for the point of making the eagles' goals not only dangerous, but also entirely ineffective. This is probably not an opposition to privacy but merely his trademark [[72: Classhole|classholery]] in action.

Nevertheless, Black Hat raises a crucial point in {{w|ecology}}: There are generalist and specialist predators (as well as herbivores). A specialist hunts or eats only one species (e.g. the {{w|koala}} eats only {{w|eucalyptus}}), while a generalist hunts or eats the most available food. Thus, a generalist often spares species that have become rare due to overhunting, disease or famine. A generalist predator (or herbivore) thus manages the wildlife, and a healthy population of generalists is almost always beneficial. Now, if Black Hat creates a drone that hunts the most available species, he gets the right idea (a food generalist manages wildlife), but gets the other one seriously wrong: Eagles are already doing their job as generalists, and as predatory birds are not so abundant, a generalist that feeds on predatory birds would need to have a very large territory. And as drones cannot reproduce yet and do not need to hunt as an energy source, releasing a drone to fulfil an ecological role would not make any sense. How does the drone know it has hunted enough eagles? Does the eagle-hunting drone feel hunger and decide to hunt elsewhere after reducing the number of local eagles, or does it just hibernate?

==Transcript==
:[Black Hat, Cueball and Megan are standing and talking.]
:Cueball: Everyone loves these eagles that take down drones, but... I dunno.
:Megan: You gotta admit, it's pretty cool.

:[Close-up of Cueball.]
:Cueball: Yeah, but... training rare animals to hurl themselves at whirling machinery can only get us so far, you know?

:[In a frame-less panel the setting is back to that of the first panel.]
:Cueball: At some point, it's like releasing police dogs onto freeways to attack speeding motorcycles.
:Megan: Also cool, but I see your point.

:[Black Hat lifts his hand and Cueball turns his face towards him.]
:Black Hat: Plus, I just finished my autonomous drone that hunts eagles.
:Cueball: Man, '''''you''''' are an entirely separate class of problem.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Drones]]

2055: Bluetooth

2022-01-31T08:55:46Z

162.158.187.178:

{{comic
| number = 2055
| date = October 5, 2018
| title = Bluetooth
| image = bluetooth.png
| titletext = Bluetooth is actually named for the tenth-century Viking king Harald "Bluetooth" Gormsson, but the protocol developed by Harald was a wireless charging standard unrelated to the modern Bluetooth except by name.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Bluetooth}} is a technology invented in the mid 1990s and intended for devices to connect wirelessly over a relatively short range for the purpose of transmitting information and/or audio. For example, a headset that connects via Bluetooth could be connected to a {{w|computer}} that's also Bluetooth-enabled, and then whatever would normally come out of the computer's speakers would come out the headset's ear pieces instead, and whatever was spoken into the headset's {{w|microphone}} would be transmitted to the computer's audio input system as if coming in through the computer's microphone. For this to work, the two devices need to be paired, which means they need to know the unique identification number of the other device and have been given permission to communicate with it, as well as knowing what kind of data exchanges are both possible and allowed. Pairing is not always a smooth process, especially given the somewhat limited methods some of these devices have for user interaction. For example, headsets typically don't have screens and user interfaces that make it easy to select what computer or other device you want them to connect to, so you're often confronted by blinking lights and/or sounds to make it through the pairing process, with each device having its own method for initiating or accepting a pairing request.

[[Cueball]] is talking to [[White Hat]] about {{w|Bluetooth}} and wireless connectivity. He asks if it has become easier to stream audio via Bluetooth since he last used it. White Hat then jests that it has become an easy-to-use and streamlined service, where connecting devices is easy, and he gives some examples of how easy it is to use. Cueball is excited about this, until White Hat reveals that he was lying and that Bluetooth is still as hard to use as ever. Cueball then invokes the name of "Josiah Bluetooth", a fictitious person implied to have invented the eponymous Bluetooth. "Josiah" is an old-timey name and suggests the amusing idea that in the 1700s or 1800s a hardy inventor named Josiah Bluetooth came up with the idea for wireless audio. (Note that while there is no "Josiah Bluetooth" person, there is a "[https://www.provenance.org/stories/yair-neuman-ceramic-bluetooth-speaker Josiah]" Bluetooth ceramic speaker.)

This comic also references the common problem of audio playing through the wrong device when Bluetooth is activated.

The title text is another misdirection joke because while the first part of the sentence is true (Bluetooth was indeed named after a tenth-century Viking king), it goes on to make the silly claim that King Harald himself developed a wireless charging standard. This is a reference to the {{w|Qi_(standard)|Qi wireless power transfer standard}} that, like Bluetooth, is a well-branded industry standard with a catchy name and wide adoption that also does not work quite as well as promised even 10 years after its first release. (It could also be a reference to Medieval Vikings charging into battle, which is, by most accounts, usually a fairly wireless affair{{citation needed}} (assuming one discounts chainmail armor). In this case, the standard could be a pun as a standard also denotes a royal or military flag.)

Specifically, the Viking king referenced in the title text, {{w|Harald Bluetooth|Harald “Bluetooth” Gormsson}}, usually called Harald Bluetooth, was a ruler of Denmark and Norway who died in 985 or 986. Jim Kardach of Intel named the Bluetooth protocol after him, apparently as he united the various Norse tribes of Denmark into a single kingdom just as Bluetooth unites communication protocols. The {{w|Bluetooth#Logo|Bluetooth logo}} unites the two Norse {{w|runes}} corresponding to "H" and "B" for Harald Bluetooth.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and White Hat are talking, Cueball is holding a cell phone and wireless headphones.]
:Cueball: I haven’t used a wireless/bluetooth thingy in like ten years. Is audio stuff still a nightmare?
:White Hat: Nah, it’s great now.

:[Zoom in on White Hat, who is holding his palm out. Cueball is off-screen.]
:White Hat: You tap devices together twice to link them and they flash in sync. (It pairs using accelerometer timing and sound.) Tap them three times to disconnect.
:White Hat: You can pair multiple inputs and outputs and it handles it smoothly.
:Cueball (off screen): Nice!
:White Hat: It just works. Sound comes from where you expect.
:Cueball (off screen): Wonderful.

:[Zoom out to White Hat and Cueball facing each other.]
:White Hat: Haha, just kidding, it’s a nightmare.
:Cueball: ''Noooooo!''
:White Hat: When I connect to my car, music starts blasting from my headphones while the car repeatedly plays a “New connection!” chime.
:Cueball: ''This is not what Josiah Bluetooth intended!''

==Trivia==
Though it has been around since 2001, Bluetooth has been a well known technology for use with wireless speakers and headphones since smartphones became popular in the early 2010s.

Bluetooth was the subject of particularly wide public attention in 2016 when Apple announced the removal of the 3.5 mm headphone jack in their then-latest smartphone, the {{w|iPhone 7}}. Apple believes the future of audio lies in Bluetooth earphones, but some others argue that the technology is not advanced enough to replace wired earphones. The debate continues as other companies have followed suit in removing headphone jacks in favor of Bluetooth devices.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Smartphones]]

Talk:1050: Forgot Algebra

2022-01-18T20:54:31Z

162.158.187.178:

Actually, I always use Megan's argument whenever I'm in World History Class.--[[User:Castriff|Jimmy C]] ([[User talk:Castriff|talk]]) 21:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
:Yes, because what intelligent people did in the past when faced with complex decisions can have NO bearing on anything in my own life. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 08:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It allways seems strange to me that there are places in the world where preparing your own meals is not an everyday task to most people. Living in Norway it just seems extremely decadent![[Special:Contributions/85.164.251.29|85.164.251.29]] 20:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
:I don't think that by "learning to cook" he means to prepare food, but to do it well and to enjoy it. Many people can prepare very limited food, causing them to not enjoy cooking and to believe that they cannot cook. [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 21:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
::No, he meant "learning to cook". We learn math, not necessarily so we can enjoy it but so that we can function as a modern human being. You don't have to enjoy cooking, but by god's sake you should at least learn the basics. We can't all be generation Y, you know; things would cease to function. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 08:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
::I think the point is that being able to cook, play an instrument, or speak a foreign language is generally seen as positive even if it doesn't benefit the person judging (they aren't expecting to eat the cooking or need an interpreter). "I can do integral calculus" will not get you the same sort of reaction. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.178|162.158.187.178]] 20:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Fortunately for mathophiles, it appears that this sentiment fades with age. In an August 2013 Gallup survey of American adults, respondents were asked which school subject they considered most valuable in their daily lives, and Math took the top spot. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2013/09/math_viewed_as_most_valuable_s.html [[User:Frijole|Frijole]] ([[User talk:Frijole|talk]]) 23:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

A google search of "when am I ever going to use X?" reveals that "math" and "algebra" get tens of thousands of hits, physics gets hundreds, while just about everything else is under 100. I think the extreme dislike of math (edweek survey notwithstanding, and probably self-serving) is in a different league from what others have discussed here. The explanation should reflect. [[User:Jd2718|Jd2718]] ([[User talk:Jd2718|talk]]) 03:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
:It was a Gallup survey, and how can the choice of "math" be self-serving anyway?? It is an educational journal, for pete's sake! The only choices were school subjects.
:My own reasoning is that people have an unnatural fear of math simply because it *is* a pure science, it *is* abstract. The idiotic thing is that people use math all the time, they just don't call it that. Trying to work out how many drinks you can buy and still have cab fare? Algebra, b*tches! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 08:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Counterpoint: Unlike music and foreign language, math is a required course throughout school, which must be infuriating for those who struggle with it. My belief for what are currently the core classes is that students should be taught the material that will help them "in real life" and in a variety of jobs, and probably a bit of extra knowledge beyond that; but the much more complex and abstract topics should be optional. <span style="background:#0064de;font-size:12px;padding:4px 12px;border-radius:8px;">[[User talk:AgentMuffin|<span style="color:#f0faff;">~AgentMuffin</span>]]</span>

Counter-counterpoint: You have to balance the 'need' for abstract topics with the advantage that young minds have in learning. Generally speaking, as you get older it becomes more difficult to learn new things. So the most advantageous time to learn those difficult/abstract topics is when your mind is (statistically) best capable of learning them.