explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2630: Shuttle Skeleton

2022-06-13T14:08:49Z

162.158.50.68: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2630
| date = June 8, 2022
| title = Shuttle Skeleton
| image = shuttle_skeleton.png
| titletext = It's believed to be related to the Stellar Sea Cow.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a NEBULA DESERT HORSE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
The Space Shuttle was a reusable spacecraft system used by {{w|NASA}} from 1981 to 2011, after which it was decommissioned. In this comic, Randall suggests that the nature of the shuttle was in doubt or misunderstood until either an intact 'specimen' (of which there are four) had been dissected, or possibly the remains were reassembled from the two that were [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yibNEcn-4yQ lost in accidents].

With its shape, shown in the small image, and the tail fin, it looks a bit like a {{w|Osteichthyes|bony fish}} or {{w|Batoidea|ray}}. The joke is that after the shuttle was taken out of use, its skeleton was analyzed, and as shown in the comic, was found to have a skeleton typical of a mammal, with details such as the pentadactyl quadripedal bodyform hidden beneath its aerodynamic sweep, as well as having bones (i.e., not primarily cartilage). This morphology is similar to that possessed by a whale. However, it should be noted that the skeleton has several features not found in mammals, e.g. the ribcages extending all the way to the pelivs and past the shoulder these features are more reminiscent of snakes. Of course, the skeleton of a spacecraft is not made of bones, but rather of [https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/22/science/inquiry-focuses-on-skeletons-of-space-shuttles.html metal] and other manufactured materials.

As the understanding of the natural world developed, many taxonomic misconceptions were overturned, or at least the scientific terminology was tightened. For instance, it was found that dolphins and whales were mammals, not fish.<sup>[''{{what if|156|cetacean needed}}'']</sup> Because of convergent evolution – the tendency for distantly-related species to adapt similarly to a given environment – it is often not easy to properly classify organisms merely by observing their exterior. For example, whales and fish have very similar body shapes, as did the extinct plesiosaurs, because life as a swimming vertebrate favors the same adaptations. In lieu of genetic analysis, or even of sufficient observation of them in the wild, the main progress in understanding differences among marine animals was often in dissecting the corpses of creatures found stranded or caught in nets, or reconstructing them from skeletal remains. Together with fossil evidence, insights were developed about their origins and differences from others' origins.

The title text conflates the now-extinct {{w|Steller's sea cow}}, an aquatic mammal related to manatees and named after explorer/zoologist Georg Steller [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Georg-W-Steller (also extinct)], with the adjective "stellar", which means being of a star or stars, such as inter-stellar space or stellar masses. While this conflation is often done accidentally, due to the name Steller being much rarer than the adjective "stellar," in this case it is probably an intentional pun.

One might expect that the idea for this comic may have come from the recent California Supreme Court ruling that [https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-is-a-bumblebee-a-fish-when-a-california-court-says-so-11654611927?st=umo4uckleempt0e&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink bumblebees are considered fish] under a law which categorized several other invertebrates as part of a broad colloquial category of fish (as in "Fish and Game Department" designations.) However, given the short time between the ruling and the comic's release, it is likely that this was a coincidence.

The comic also prominently conflates biology with artifice, a budding and controversial concept in these times of rapid AI use and research.

==Transcript==
:[In the upper right part of the panel there is a small drawing of the Space Shuttle as seen from above. Beneath it, and to its left, is a much larger drawing with the same outline as the Shuttle. But this time the outer layers have been removed to reveal the inside. This has revealed a skeleton taking up the entire space inside. The head is in the front, and legs and tail at the rear, with arms and fingers in the wings, looking somewhat like a bat's "hand/wings". The bones are white with the frame of the shuttle gray or black. Some of the lines outlining the design of the shuttle are both on the small and the large drawing, along the wings and rear engines. Both feet and arms have five fingers/toes. There seem to be 24 ribs in the very long rib-cage.]

:[Caption beneath the panel:]
:The Space Shuttle was long assumed to be a type of fish or shark, but after it was decommissioned in 2011, analysis of its skeleton determined that it was actually a mammal.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Space]]

Talk:2620: Health Data

2022-05-17T09:25:47Z

162.158.50.68: suggested linking another comic

Did a basefor the setup[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.34|108.162.246.34]] 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)a

"Cure for Causality" sounds like a pretty good band name. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.4|141.101.104.4]] 07:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Panel 1 reminds me of a conversation I had with one of my docs. I'd had some blood work done and the doc said, "The numbers look good. For a man your age." I mean, really; for a man my age? I didn't think we'd been talking about some teenager . . . . [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.161|172.70.130.161]] 08:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Is poisoning other than drug overdoses that rare? The linked source states:
"1. Poisoning
Due in large part to the opioid epidemic, poisoning has overtaken car crashes as the country’s leading cause of accidental death, with 64,795 poisoning deaths in 2017, 22,000 of them from opioid painkillers. Additionally, people can be poisoned by common household substances, including:

Carbon monoxide
Pesticides and cleaning products
Lead"

even without the 22,000 opoid painkiller deaths posioning would still be number 1.

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.50.68|162.158.50.68]] 09:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Should we also link 1471 Gut Fauna wich shows another ewemple of Dr Ponytail practicing a weird form of medicine ?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.50.68|162.158.50.68]] 09:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2610: Assigning Numbers

2022-04-24T08:49:24Z

162.158.50.68:

Does this imply that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem] isn't correct? And that it's method is bunk? Please help! -Seer [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.230|162.158.107.230]] 02:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I believe the intention is that the theorem is not part of the set of bad data science, just that they share this one feature.

Isn't the Gödel number for a theorem calculated by multiplying the numbers of the components together, so complicated theorems would have larger numbers? If so, the current explanation that this isn't a good way to judge fields is wrong. I'm not too sure though. [[User:MrCandela|MrCandela]] ([[User talk:MrCandela|talk]]) 05:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

:I do not believe that the title suggests renumbering theorems with Gödel numbers, but averaging the existing theorem numbers. Or otherwise, MrCandela's suggestion would be the way to go: Complicated Theorems have larger numbers. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.133|172.68.110.133]] 08:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

:Yeah a quick look at some magazines like [https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-godels-incompleteness-theorems-work-20200714/#jump2/ this one] and I think Randall has a point [[User:MrCandela|MrCandela]] ([[User talk:MrCandela|talk]]) 09:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I wish I'd started the explanation off when I first saw it (somone posted the first Transcript whilst I was pondering, so I left off). I think there's some serious re-editing to be done, but basically it points to someone (Cueball, a dabbling armchair mathematician faced with some not directly mathematically-based problem) thinking that 'all' it takes is to encode the whatever-it-is, arbitrarily, and then with a few easy equations something useful cannbe derived. When, in reality, even if this is possible (ignoring the "takes the age of the universe to permute things to find the right answer" sort of sticking-block) it depends upon a ''good'' numerical encoding (enough attention to detail, but not too much, and in the right sort of way) and possibly quite a lot of data-demunging and filtration (again, just the right amount and in the correct manner) to pop out the "answer" being looked for. For some things, this can be easy, though there are always statistical pitfalls/etc. For others ("life, the universe and everything", say) the task is far more complex and the result ("42"?) might not seem to be a very useful result for various reasons. And, on top this, there's Gödel. But that's an additional punchline, not the whole scope of the original joke. ...Anyway, this long comment is why I held back from writing the original Explanation, but I might yet wrangle my thoughts into what's since been put there. While trying not to tread upon too many toes and alternate explanations. Which is the hardest bit, I think... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64|172.70.86.64]] 15:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a comment about the technicalities of Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem: The 'third' possibility presented [http://dstoner.net/Math_Science/godel.html here] misunderstands the term 'true but unprovable'. When mathematicians say 'true but unprovable' in the context of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, what they mean is 'true in the standard model but unprovable in the formal system'. The Gödel sentence is certainly true for the standard natural numbers, by contradiction: assume that the Gödel sentence is false for the standard naturals, which means that there exists a standard natural number which is the Gödel number for the proof of the Gödel sentence. Then we could decode the Gödel number into a proof (of the formal system) proving the Gödel sentence true; a contradiction. (Note that the preceding proof by contradiction can be formalised in ZFC, but not in the formal system under study.) The reason why the Gödel sentence is unprovable in the formal system is because, from the point of view of the formal system, there might be a non-standard natural number which is the Gödel number for the proof of the Gödel sentence (and non-standard numbers cannot be decoded into a proof); or there might not be. --[[User:Underbase|Underbase]] ([[User talk:Underbase|talk]]) 04:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

:Regarding this, I know that the policy on this site is to include every possible interpretation, but the page mentioned is an html page (and not a [https://xkcd.com/2304/ pdf]) that was not [https://xkcd.com/1847/ peer reviewed] (thus not recognized by the community), and as mentioned by the user above it fails understand the concepts it is talking about. I do not think this site should be spreading this kind of idea. I believe Randall Monroe himself would be against this.