explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2633: Astronomer Hotline

2022-06-15T14:14:34Z

162.158.62.67: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2633
| date = June 15, 2022
| title = Astronomer Hotline
| image = Astronomer Hotline.png
| titletext = Employment statistics have to correct for the fact that the Weird Bug Hotline hires a bunch of extra temporary staff every 17 years.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by 17 YEAR CICADA TRYING TO LOOK LIKE A FIREFLY - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is a joke about {{w|Helpline|helplines}}, and how people sometimes call helplines for non-significant reason.

The comic starts with someone having called the "Astronomer hotline", hence the title. Judging by the way the helpline employee, [[Cueball]], starts the call, by asking for a description of the weird lights, it is implied that this is the main/only purpose of the helpline.

The caller is in panic, and don't know how to describe the light. But Cueball is used to this and asks the caller to stay calm. And then goes through his check list, asking them if it is day time. Because then he would assume they have just noticed the Sun. This could be seemed very condescending, but it is like when the employee at a tech support hot-line asks if the computer is turned on, or if the caller tried to restart the computer, see [[806: Tech Support]].

The caller is not affronted, but tells that the Sun set, and when Cueball asks if they are stars, and thus stationary, the caller says they are zipping around in the bushes.

At this point Cueball realizes that the the caller just have seen {{w|Fireflies}}. He describes them for the caller as lightning bugs, tree blinkers or ground stars, and tell the caller he is fine, so the caller is now relived.

However, Cueball must admit that astronomers do not know much about fireflies, since they are too fast for the astronomers' telescopes (in general, astronomers don't study terrestrial phenomena {{citation needed}}). And he thus transfers the caller to the "Weird Bug Hotline."

Before the call ends, at Cueball's end, he hears the first question from the new hotline: Is it currently biting you.
Again going directly to the most important part, is there any immediate danger...

Some people (Often {{w|Unidentified flying object|UFO}} enthusiasts) tend to get a little over-excited about calling every light in the sky they don't expect a UFO. This comic takes this to the extreme, where someone calls a helpline because they saw fireflies, and thought they were UFOs. While UFOs are not mentioned by name, they are heavily implied.

The title text is a reference to bugs that have several years between emerging from their larva state. Most famously are the {{w|Periodical cicadas}}, 13- and 17-year cicadas, that only emerge every 13 or 17 years depending on species. The 17 years in the title text, thus refers to the 17-year cicadas. Every 17 years the bug hotline hires a bunch of temporary staff. Either because there will be more callers due to the unexpected new bug, no one has seen for 17 years, (or it could be because they just like to emulate nature and thus do this every 17 years). However, not all broods emerge in the same year. Extra staff is likely only hired for the emergence of the largest brood, Brood X, which last occurred in 2021.

The joke in the title text is that the employment statistics for the weird hotline have to correct for this fact.

The reasons that it is 13 and 17 years are a bit {{w|Periodical_cicadas#Predator_satiation_survival_strategy|uncertain}}, but it is quite certain that it is because those numbers are prime numbers, that they have ended up on those numbers of years. Because it is thus unlikely that they will emerge in great numbers the same year as some other cyclic population is at a maximum every time they emerge. Because it they have any other cycle than those prime numbers, it will take al long time before they synchronize again, . Many animals and plants have delayed cycles like these to as to engage the cycles of others in ways that change; for example, oak trees give more acorns every other year, as their reproductive cycle is in symbiosis with how much squirrels bury but do not dig up to eat.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript}}

:[Cueball is working at a helpline. He is sat at a desk, with a headset on and a screen in front of him. There is a caller, but they are not shown]
:Cueball:Hello, Emergency Astronomer Hotline. How would you describe the lights in the sky?
:Caller:I don't know! Help!
:Cueball: Stay calm. Is it day? If so, that's The Sun.
:Caller: No, the sun set and then the light appeared!
:Cueball: Hmm, could be stars. Are they stationary?
:Caller: No, they're all zipping around bushes.
:Cueball: ''Aha!'' Fireflies!
:Caller: "Fireflies"?
:Cueball: Lightning bugs. Tree blinkers. Ground stars.
:Cueball: They're fine.
:Caller: ''Phew!''
:Cueball: We don't know much about them as they're too fast for our telescopes, but I can transfer you to the Wierd Bug Hotline.
:Caller: Sure, thanks.
:[Something, most likely a mouse, goes "*''Click''*"
:Wierd Bug Hotline [Offscreen]: Hi, Weird Bug Hotline, is it currently biting you?
Caller:

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2133: EHT Black Hole Picture

2019-04-07T14:16:37Z

162.158.62.67:

...someone edited the page to describe the EHT as "This comic references the non-existent "Event Horizon Telescope", an international project dedicated to deceiving the masses into thinking that black holes are real, in accordance with the whims of the Zionist conspiracy." wot? [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 17:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:Seems like there are a lot of vandals nowadays... I don't think I would be against requiring registration to edit pages. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 19:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::I totally agree. It doesn't really detract from the ability to edit a page, it's still easy, but it just adds an extra step for vandals. [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 19:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::I am also in favor of a registration requirement. I don't see a great proportion of helpful edits from users who aren't logged in. Requiring registration to edit seems like it could potentially be more effective & easier to implement than other moderation tactics. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::::As someone who has made a half dozen or so edits (including once writing the first draft of a description of a comic) and probably two dozen comments over the past 5 years without ever creating an account I won’t say you are wrong, but there will be fewer people editing and making comments if registration is required. Will registering keep vandals from vandalism? I very much doubt it. Who will enforce the termination of accounts?and what’s to stop vandals from creating multiple accounts? Again, I’m not saying you are wrong, but I will suggest that registration isn’t the panacea you might hope it to be... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.82|162.158.78.82]] 04:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::I'm honestly surprised it isn't a requirement already...--[[User:Jlc|Jlc]] ([[User talk:Jlc|talk]]) 21:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
::I probably wouldn't register but I do like to make the occasional comment. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.28|162.158.214.28]] 11:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:It's true, and you know that it's true, fucking shill. {{unsigned|108.162.246.215}}
::I know that it exists, and I'm not going to argue it. Oh, also not signing a post doesn't hide your IP. You can literally see the IPs of anyone who edits the page, Mr. 108.162.246.215 [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 17:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::The IPs are irrelevant anyway, they're CloudFlare's -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.36|162.158.90.36]] 18:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::"Shill" implies that someone's paying us to correct these fallacious & bigoted statements. Do you really think any of us get paid to remove these blatantly offensive & frankly ridiculous assertions that space exploration is somehow a worldwide Jewish deception? Personally, I just enjoy accuracy. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::Couldn't "shill" also mean somebody acting as if they weren't part of the group, to test that somebody was loyal and obedient? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.210|172.68.65.210]] 22:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:It seems like many of these vandals are using IPs associated with generally good-willed editors in the past, e.g. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.215]]. Are they just connecting from places with public wifi? --[[User:Youforgotthisthing|Youforgotthisthing]] ([[User talk:Youforgotthisthing|talk]]) 02:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
In the transcript, Cueball is described as standing behind a podium. He may be standing /on/ a podium, but he is standing /behind/ a lectern.
[[User:Seezee|Seezee]] ([[User talk:Seezee|talk]]) 17:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:Arent podiums and lecterns the same thing? [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 17:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::No - https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-lectern-and-vs-podium/
::No. Podium (from the Latin root meaning "foot") is the thing you stand on, a raised platform or dais. Lectern (from Latin "to read") is the stand that provides a place for notes or other written prompts, from which a speaker may read during a lecture or presentation. It's not uncommon for people to conflate them. [[User:Seezee|Seezee]] ([[User talk:Seezee|talk]]) 18:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::If enough people conflate them, it's not a mistake any more, it becomes another definition. And lexicographers often use written uses as confirmation, so anyone who wants to see podium get this sense should forward this URL to all the dictionary publishers.[[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::::What's the threshold for "enough people" (itself a grammatically incorrect phrase; see https://grammarist.com/usage/amount-number/)? In any case, I'm not getting into a debate about prescriptive vs. descriptive lexicography as it's off-topic and trollish. Besides, the transcript has been updated. [[User:Seezee|Seezee]] ([[User talk:Seezee|talk]]) 18:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
"Enough people" is fine grammatically because "enough" can refer to either an amount or a number; it the case of "enough people" it's referring to a number of people. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.28|162.158.214.28]] 02:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
::[[1661: Podium]] [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 19:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::Heh. I'd forgotten that. Thanks, Jacky720! [[User:Seezee|Seezee]] ([[User talk:Seezee|talk]]) 19:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::Totally forgot! Awesome [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 20:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:Thank ''goodness'' someone corrected that. A million people using the wrong word doesn't mean it's the right word (especially when the root words have obviously different meanings); It just means a million people are using unclear\inaccurate language. Common usage ≠ correct usage. It's utility that matters: In this case, if a lectern is also a podium, what is the thing you stand on??? Podium is a common error, but it's still an error. Popularity doesn't equal truth. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::That is very incorrect. Language is not a natural resource; it can't be measured or described outside of how it is used. If podium commonly used and understood to mean the thing you stand behind, and it's been used that way by many people for a long tome, the thing you stand behind is a podium. You can disagree with that usage all you like, it isn't any less correct. [[User:HisHighestMinion|HisHighestMinion]] ([[User talk:HisHighestMinion|talk]]) 13:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:I would call that a stool. Also, FWIW, words have different meanings from their roots all the time. Incredible originally meant unreliabe. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.67|162.158.62.67]] 14:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there really anything else we need to add to the explanation? It seems complete.[[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 19:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, Pinterest. That website where you have to create an account to view pictures. And then once you do that and get to the post you want, you discover the original “pinner” literally just posted a photo from somewhere with zero indication of where it came from or how to find it so now you’re back to square one but have wasted a bunch of time, been spammed to death by emails and sold your soul to Pinterest. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 06:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Tha's why whenever I do a Google search I add -pinterest . . . . [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.28|162.158.214.28]] 11:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2129: 1921 Fact Checker

2019-03-31T14:50:21Z

162.158.62.67:

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)
::: Off topic, but oldnewspapers are interesting. Especially the notices and lawsuit notifications, it's interesting to see that the newspaper notifications was considered enough notice that a judgement could be rendered. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.215|172.68.46.215]] 17:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
::::This is still the case. For certain types of civil actions where the respondent's address is unknown and personal service is otherwise unavailable, notice through newspaper publication is sufficient. Larger cities in the US even have specialist legal newspapers that are primarily funded by payments for publishing these and other public notices.
::: I think the explanation needs to clarify the dates here. There appear to be two different Kansas City Suns, one in Kansas, the other in Missouri. The Missouri one was a published from 1908-1924 and targeted the black community. The Kansas one was published at least from 1892 to 1924, and possibly longer (digitized issues up to 1924 are available online, which is also about when things start being still under copyright. Coincidence?). This fact check is in the Kansas paper. [[User:Blaisepascal|Blaisepascal]] ([[User talk:Blaisepascal|talk]]) 18:13, 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)
: By 1620 there should've been plenty of time to establish some growing of maize in England. I don't know the real truth, but it's plausible. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.82|162.158.214.82]] 16:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
: Historically, "corn" was a general term for grain, usually the local grain. It also referred to things which where grain-sized, like the large grains of salt used to make "corned beef" or hard warts on the feet. It was only in North America where the predominant local grain was maize that "corn" came to have the narrower meaning of maize. If there really was a requirement to bring a supply of "cornmeal" in the early 1600's from England to the Americas, I'd expect it to be ground wheat, barleycorn, or rye, not maize. [[User:Blaisepascal|Blaisepascal]] ([[User talk:Blaisepascal|talk]]) 16:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
:: It's there any more information/sources on this? I find this interesting. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.215|172.68.46.215]] 17:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
::: Source: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corn#Noun wiktionary], [https://www.google.com/search?q=dictionary+corn google's dictionary], and presumably any other English dictionary you might prefer. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 18:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
:::: Anyone interested in this kind of things? Well the angel-saxons which came from Germany to England (or Angelland, as it was called , after them). They brought many agricultural (and other) stuff and their german names for it. even though the spelling and/or pronounciation has developed differnetly often, there are still many parallels. Especially to older English. A German female pig is a "Sau", pronounced just as "sow", the german word for grain? "Korn", cow? "Kuh" (pronounced similarily). There are many more examples, but this are the ones coming to my mind instantly. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 14:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
:: Is this related to the corn mazes that I see on TV shows? Some kind of pun about maize mazes? I don't live in the US, I don't know a lot about that; I have only seen those in TV shows [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.58|162.158.78.58]] 03:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
::: Oh, they really exist. I've encountered them in both New York and Maryland. We use to go to one as a "mandatory fun" day at my former employer. In fact, when I left my old job, my boss asked me if I wanted to stay an extra week to participate in the annual employee event. I asked him, "Does it involve corn?" and when I got a yes, I said no thanks. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.191|162.158.79.191]] 14:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Blaisepascal is arguing that the article (or incomplete template) was, in fact, created by a BOT. Before starting an edit war, can I check the consensus on what we do with the created by? I always use the [relevant item]. [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 19:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
: I've seen it both ways, although keeping the BOT part would be less common. It works as is; I wouldn't change it. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.141.148|172.68.141.148]] 07:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I was looking at http://mayflowerhistory.com/provision-lists that discusses some lists of items that the pilgrims were to take with them. This sounds related to what was discussed in the text from the newspaper. 14:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

In this age of fanatism and factionism of all kinds, Randall could't be more wrong. Ask Swift's Endians. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.54.87|172.69.54.87]] 23:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
:Fact check: Mostly False! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.67|162.158.62.67]] 14:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:1086: Eyelash Wish Log

2019-03-13T00:50:16Z

162.158.62.67:

This is one of my favorite xkcd comics ever. I can't stop laughing. -- #TEBOWTIME 17:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
: i know right?? feb. 27th is by far the best... --[[User:Douglasadams472|Douglasadams472]] ([[User talk:Douglasadams472|talk]]) 03:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

: It seems to me that February 6th's wish implies that, as a result of the previous day's wish, he now has an absurdly large number of eyelashes. Opinions? --[[User:Bobidou23|Bobidou23]] ([[User talk:Bobidou23|talk]]) 02:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
:i thought they were absurdly long eyelashes, like his wings in infinite wings (sry cant make links) {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.5}}
::Actually, the guy with unlimited wings is Beret Guy.. (as seen in the "strange powers of beret guy" category on this site).. Black Hat's the "classhole". --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 11:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

: I thought of Black Hat having a crazy number of eyelashes, but not attached to him, so he can't pull them for a wish. They're just in a pile on the floor or something. {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.187}}

I feel that each wish should be thoroughly explained, or at least briefly mentioned. {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.193}}
: +1, Marking this 'incomplete' [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 20:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

March 15 may reference a painting of M.C. Escher so named "House of Stairs" [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.79|199.27.128.79]] 08:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

:"Revocation of rules" and especially "meta-wishes" must be references to [http://amberbaldet.com/uploads/little-harmonic-labrynth.html "Typeless Wish" scene in Göedel, Escher, Bach]. "banish people into the TV show they're talking about" might(?) also reference the plot there where Achiles and Tortoise enter Escher's Convex and Concave painting after discussing it. Surpsingly to me, that episode's only Escher illustrations are Concave and Convex & Reptiles; House of Stairs does not appear anywhere in the book. [[User:Cben|Cben]] ([[User talk:Cben|talk]]) 00:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What did "zero wishes" mean? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.86|173.245.48.86]] 18:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:Often when configuring software (especially regarding limits) 0 is taken to mean infinite, for example in a mail server's config file there may be an entry that looks like "Max number of connections: (enter 0 for unlimited)" [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.170|141.101.98.170]] 19:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

:My take on "zero wishes", is that it is a bit of black hattery. He wants to abuse any system he finds, by asking for zero wishes he wants to cause the eyelash wish system to crash in some way. Its not an attempt to gain more wishes, its an attempt to bring the wish system down.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.165|141.101.98.165]] 21:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

My take on the title text was that Black Hat wanted to alter friction for his own amusement, rather than to affect the outcome of a sporting event as the current explanation seems to lean towards.--[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 12:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It is very in-characcter for Black Hat to simply want to mess with people, and would be very out of place to care about such trivialities as points. Ima change the mouseover description now.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.97|173.245.48.97]] 16:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I took the April 22 wish to mean that Black Hat would have a Pokeball that works in real life, allowing him to steal the pets of random strangers on the street.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.124|173.245.52.124]] 23:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
:"Hey! No stealing another Trainer's Pokémon!". Also, talk of changing friction coefficients reminds me of the GTA "Carmageddon" videos, where the wheel friction on all the cars was set to -1, leading to most of the game being filled with cars flying through the air and exploding. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 23:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
::I may have used my Masterball trying to catch another trainer's Pokemon. I cracked up after it failed, but now I have no Masterball. :( {{unsigned ip|198.41.239.34}}
:::You know, there was a side series of Pokemon games that let you capture another trainer's Pokemon. It was kind of required if you wanted more than one or two Pokemon on your team. And on that day, Black Hat was mailed a copy of Pokemon Colosseum... --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.65|162.158.79.65]] 23:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The first wish is an example of bootstrapping. I love it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.76|108.162.238.76]] 23:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the title text is a reference to the comics where he talks about Pole vaul's record involving that some records where obtain because they were nearest of equators[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.112|108.162.229.112]] 11:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It would appear, for March 7th, that this came true... [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.96|173.245.52.96]] 00:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I got rickrolled. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.67|162.158.62.67]] 00:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:1086: Eyelash Wish Log

2019-03-13T00:49:43Z

162.158.62.67:

Talk:2119: Video Orientation

2019-03-04T18:17:14Z

162.158.62.67:

[IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/2co1zio.png[/IMG]
More readable:I think this could be done with text too.
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.154.64|172.68.154.64]] 13:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Obligatory prior art in this commentary space: [https://vimeo.com/313458699 Glove and Boots: Vertical Video Syndrome] (apparently they decamped from Youtube to Vimeo last month, the original c. 2013 video was Bt9zSfinwFA). [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 14:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The title text seems to be a reference to AL, the A.I in ''2001 : A Space Odyssey'' which cause a few problems to the crew and mainly communicate through a round lens. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.226.171|172.69.226.171]] 14:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:Or 2002 movie The Ring [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.221|141.101.96.221]] 14:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
::I presumed it was a reference to summoning circles. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.160|172.69.62.160]] 15:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:::My first thought was a reference to Matt Parker of standupmaths and his spherical camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgyI8aPctaI [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.67|162.158.62.67]] 18:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:It was HAL, not AL in Space Odyssey. Move the letters forward one, and it's IBM. Deliberate Easter egg.

A circular screen is great for that retro-look, like a [https://picclick.com/1950s-ZENITH-PORTHOLE-Television-18-Circular-TV-Screen-113317154719.html 1950's Zenith Porthole TV]. I seem to remember seeing circular screens on some really old sci-fi shows as well. As well as one use of a [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/ThisIslandEarth triangular screen]. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 14:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Fails in the obvious- Horizontal is better because you can send the video in to the TV news for your 15 seconds of fame without looking like a douche who doesn't know how to rotate their phone. And why isn't there a setting for "always landscape" anyway?[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

:I have to agree... the fact that most non-mobile screens are oriented horizontally being left out was kind of a big miss. A vertical video looks like crap on a TV or Computer Monitor (Ironically unless it's an old 3:4 one, where the difference is a lot more minor.) -Graptor [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.220|172.69.62.220]] 15:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, when I first read the comic on my phone (portrait), I did not realise there was a third "CONS" column. [[User:ColinHogben|ColinHogben]] ([[User talk:ColinHogben|talk]]) 15:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Not that good of an explanation, even if I wrote some of it. Actually, especially since I wrote some of it. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 16:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks 90.10 [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

== Anti-Semitic trolling ==
Edited to remove the anti-Semitic tag and content. (Sign your post with four tildes/~)
:Dealing with the same thing. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

2117: Differentiation and Integration

2019-03-03T17:00:16Z

162.158.62.67: /* Explanation */ explain that symbolic integration evokes symbolic acts in rituals

{{comic
| number = 2117
| date = February 27, 2019
| title = Differentiation and Integration
| image = differentiation_and_integration.png
| titletext = "Symbolic integration" is when you theatrically go through the motions of finding integrals, but the actual result you get doesn't matter because it's purely symbolic.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BESSEL FUNCTION? Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic provides a {{w|flowchart}} purporting to show the process of differentiation, and another for integration.

{{w|Derivative|Differentiation}} and {{w|Antiderivative|Integration}} are two major components of {{w|calculus}}. As many Calculus 2 students are painfully aware, integration is much more complicated than the differentiation it undoes.

However, Randall dramatically overstates this point here. After the first step of integration, Randall assumes that any integration can not be solved so simply, and then dives into a step named "????", suggesting that it is unknowable how to proceed. The rest of the flowchart is (we can assume deliberately) even harder to follow, and does not reach a conclusion. This is in contrast to the simple, straightforward flowchart for differentiation. The fact that the arrows in the bottom of the integration part leads to nowhere indicates that "Phone calls to mathematicians", "Oh no" and "Burn the evidence" are not final steps in the difficult journey. The flowchart could be extended by Randall to God-know-where extents.

It should be noted that Randall slightly undermines his point by providing four different methods, and an "etc", and a "No"-branch for attempting differentiation with no guidelines for selecting between them.

===Differentiation===
'''{{w|Chain rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}(f(g(x)))=f'(g(x))*g'(x)</math>.

'''{{w|Power Rule}}'''

For any <math> f(x)=x^a </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=a*x^{a-1} </math>.

'''{{w|Quotient rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)}=\frac{f'(x)g(x)-f(x)g'(x)}{(g(x))^2}</math> if <math>g(x)\ne 0</math>.

'''{{w|Product rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}(f(x)*g(x))=f'(x)*g(x)+f(x)*g'(x)</math>.

===Integration===
'''{{w|Integration by parts}}'''

The "product rule" run backwards. Since <math>(uv)' = uv' + u'v</math>, it follows that by integrating both sides you get <math> uv = \int u dv + \int v du</math>, which is more commonly written as <math>\int u dv = uv - \int v du</math>. By finding appropriate values for functions <math>u, v</math> such that your problem is in the form <math>\int u dv</math>, your problem ''may'' be simplified. The catch is, there exists no algorithm for determining what functions they might possibly be, so this approach quickly devolves into a guessing game - this has been the topic of an earlier comic, [[1201: Integration by Parts]].

'''{{w|Integration by substitution|Substitution}}'''

The "chain rule" run backwards. Since <math> d(f(u)) = (df(u))du</math>, it follows that <math>f(u) = \int df(u) du</math>. By finding appropriate values for functions <math>f, u</math> such that your problem is in the form <math>\int df(u) du</math> your problem ''may'' be simplified.

'''{{w|Cauchy's integral formula|Cauchy's Formula}}'''

Cauchy's Integral formula is a result in complex analysis that relates the value of a contour integral in the complex plane to properties of the singularities in the interior of the contour. It is often used to compute integrals on the real line by extending the path of the integral from the real line into the complex plane to apply the formula, then proving that the integral from the parts of the contour not on the real line has value zero.

'''{{w|Partial_fraction_decomposition#Application_to_symbolic_integration|Partial Fractions}}'''

Partial fractions is a technique for breaking up a function that comprises one polynomial divided by another into a sum of functions comprising constants over the factors of the original denominator, which can easily be integrated into logarithms.

'''Install {{w|Mathematica}}'''

Mathematica is a modern technical computing system spanning most areas. One of its features is to compute mathematical functions. This step in the flowchart is to install and use Mathematica to do the integration for you. Here is a description about the [https://reference.wolfram.com/language/tutorial/IntegralsThatCanAndCannotBeDone.html intricacies of integration and how Mathematica handles those] (It would be quicker to try [https://www.wolframalpha.com Wolfram Alpha] instead of installing Mathematica, which uses the same backend for mathematical calculations.)

'''{{w|Riemann integral|Riemann Integration}}'''

The Riemann integral is a definition of definite integration. <math>\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} f(t_i) \left(x_{i+1}-x_i\right).</math> Elementary textbooks on calculus sometimes present finding a definite integral as a process of approximating an area by strips of equal width and then taking the limit as the strips become narrower. Riemann integration removes the requirement that the strips have equal width, and so is a more flexible definition. However there are still many functions for which the Riemann integral doesn't converge, and consideration of these functions leads to the {{w|Lebesgue integration|Lebesgue integral}}. Riemann integration is not a method of calculus appropriate for finding the anti-derivative of an elementary function.

'''{{w|Stokes' Theorem}}'''

Stokes' theorem is a statement about the integration of differential forms on manifolds. <math>\int_{\partial \Omega}\omega=\int_\Omega d\omega\,.</math> It is invoked in science and engineering during control volume analysis (that is, to track the rate of change of a quantity within a control volume, it suffices to track the fluxes in and out of the control volume boundary), but is rarely used directly (and even when it is used directly, the functions that are most frequently used in science and engineering are well-behaved, like sinusoids and polynomials).

'''{{w|Risch Algorithm}}'''

The Risch algorithm is a notoriously complex procedure that, given a certain class of symbolic integrand, either finds a symbolic integral or proves that no elementary integral exists. (Technically it is only a semi-algorithm, and cannot produce an answer unless it can determine if a certain symbolic expression is {{w|Constant problem|equal to 0}} or not.) Many computer algebra systems have chosen to implement only the simpler Risch-Norman algorithm, which does not come with the same guarantee. A series of extensions to the Risch algorithm extend the class of allowable functions to include (at least) the error function and the logarithmic integral. A human would have to be pretty desperate to attempt this (presumably) by hand.

'''{{w|Bessel function}}'''

Bessel functions are the solution to the differential equation <math> x^2 \frac{dy^2}{dx^2}+x \frac{dy}{dx}+(x^2-n^2)*y=0</math>, where n is the order of Bessel function. Though they do show up in some engineering, physics, and abstract mathematics, in lower levels of calculus they are often a sign that the integration was not set up properly before someone put them into a symbolic algebra solver.

'''Phone calls to mathematicians'''

This step would indicate that the flowchart user, desperate from failed attempts to solve the problem, contacts some more skilled mathematicians by phone, and presumably asks them for help. The connected steps of "Oh no" and "Burn the evidence" may suggest the possibility that this interaction might not play out very well and could even get the caller in trouble.
Specialists and renowned experts being bothered - not to their amusement - by strangers, often at highly inconvenient times or locations, is a common comedic trope, also previously utilized by xkcd (for example in [[163: Donald Knuth]]).

'''Burn the evidence'''

This phrase parodies a common trope in detective fiction, where characters burn notes, receipts, passports, etc. to maintain secrecy. This may refer to the burning of one's work to avoid the shame of being associated w/ such a badly failed attempt to solve the given integration problem. Alternatively, it could be an ironic hint to the fact that in order to find the integral, it may even be necessary to break the law or upset higher powers, so that the negative consequences of a persecution can only be avoided by destroying the evidence.

'''{{w|Symbolic integration}}'''

Symbolic algebra is the basic process of finding an antiderivative function (defined with symbols), as opposed to numerically integrating a function. The title text is a pun that defines the term not as integration that works with symbols, but rather as integration as a symbolic act, as if it were a component of a ritual. A symbolic act in a ritual is an act meant to evoke something else, such as burning a wooden figurine of a person to represent one’s hatred of that person. Alternatively, the reference could be seen as a joke that integration might as well be a symbol, like in a novel, because Randall can't get any meaningful results from his analysis.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Two flow charts are shown.]

:[The first flow chart has four steps in simple order, one with multiple recommendations.]
:DIFFERENTIATION
:Start
:Try applying
::Chain Rule
::Power Rule
::Quotient Rule
::Product Rule
::Etc.
:Done?
::No [Arrow returns to "Try applying" step.]
::Yes
:Done!

[The second flow chart begins like the first, then descends into chaos.]
:INTEGRATION
:Start
:Try applying
::Integration by Parts
::Substitution
:Done?
:Haha, Nope!

:[Chaos, Roughly from left to right, top to bottom, direction arrows not included.]
::Cauchy's Formula
::????
::???!?
::???
::???
::?
::Partial Fractions
::??
::?
::Install Mathematica
::?
::Riemann Integration
::Stokes' Theorem
::???
::?
::Risch Algorithm
::???
::[Sad face.]
::?????
::???
::What the heck is a Bessel Function??
::Phone calls to mathematicians
::Oh No
::Burn the Evidence
::[More arrows pointing out of the image to suggest more steps.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Analysis]]
[[Category:Flowcharts]]

2117: Differentiation and Integration

2019-03-03T16:53:16Z

162.158.62.67: /* Explanation */ improve wording, move title text explanation to end

{{comic
| number = 2117
| date = February 27, 2019
| title = Differentiation and Integration
| image = differentiation_and_integration.png
| titletext = "Symbolic integration" is when you theatrically go through the motions of finding integrals, but the actual result you get doesn't matter because it's purely symbolic.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BESSEL FUNCTION? Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic provides a {{w|flowchart}} purporting to show the process of differentiation, and another for integration.

{{w|Derivative|Differentiation}} and {{w|Antiderivative|Integration}} are two major components of {{w|calculus}}. As many Calculus 2 students are painfully aware, integration is much more complicated than the differentiation it undoes.

However, Randall dramatically overstates this point here. After the first step of integration, Randall assumes that any integration can not be solved so simply, and then dives into a step named "????", suggesting that it is unknowable how to proceed. The rest of the flowchart is (we can assume deliberately) even harder to follow, and does not reach a conclusion. This is in contrast to the simple, straightforward flowchart for differentiation. The fact that the arrows in the bottom of the integration part leads to nowhere indicates that "Phone calls to mathematicians", "Oh no" and "Burn the evidence" are not final steps in the difficult journey. The flowchart could be extended by Randall to God-know-where extents.

It should be noted that Randall slightly undermines his point by providing four different methods, and an "etc", and a "No"-branch for attempting differentiation with no guidelines for selecting between them.

===Differentiation===
'''{{w|Chain rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}(f(g(x)))=f'(g(x))*g'(x)</math>.

'''{{w|Power Rule}}'''

For any <math> f(x)=x^a </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=a*x^{a-1} </math>.

'''{{w|Quotient rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)}=\frac{f'(x)g(x)-f(x)g'(x)}{(g(x))^2}</math> if <math>g(x)\ne 0</math>.

'''{{w|Product rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}(f(x)*g(x))=f'(x)*g(x)+f(x)*g'(x)</math>.

===Integration===
'''{{w|Integration by parts}}'''

The "product rule" run backwards. Since <math>(uv)' = uv' + u'v</math>, it follows that by integrating both sides you get <math> uv = \int u dv + \int v du</math>, which is more commonly written as <math>\int u dv = uv - \int v du</math>. By finding appropriate values for functions <math>u, v</math> such that your problem is in the form <math>\int u dv</math>, your problem ''may'' be simplified. The catch is, there exists no algorithm for determining what functions they might possibly be, so this approach quickly devolves into a guessing game - this has been the topic of an earlier comic, [[1201: Integration by Parts]].

'''{{w|Integration by substitution|Substitution}}'''

The "chain rule" run backwards. Since <math> d(f(u)) = (df(u))du</math>, it follows that <math>f(u) = \int df(u) du</math>. By finding appropriate values for functions <math>f, u</math> such that your problem is in the form <math>\int df(u) du</math> your problem ''may'' be simplified.

'''{{w|Cauchy's integral formula|Cauchy's Formula}}'''

Cauchy's Integral formula is a result in complex analysis that relates the value of a contour integral in the complex plane to properties of the singularities in the interior of the contour. It is often used to compute integrals on the real line by extending the path of the integral from the real line into the complex plane to apply the formula, then proving that the integral from the parts of the contour not on the real line has value zero.

'''{{w|Partial_fraction_decomposition#Application_to_symbolic_integration|Partial Fractions}}'''

Partial fractions is a technique for breaking up a function that comprises one polynomial divided by another into a sum of functions comprising constants over the factors of the original denominator, which can easily be integrated into logarithms.

'''Install {{w|Mathematica}}'''

Mathematica is a modern technical computing system spanning most areas. One of its features is to compute mathematical functions. This step in the flowchart is to install and use Mathematica to do the integration for you. Here is a description about the [https://reference.wolfram.com/language/tutorial/IntegralsThatCanAndCannotBeDone.html intricacies of integration and how Mathematica handles those] (It would be quicker to try [https://www.wolframalpha.com Wolfram Alpha] instead of installing Mathematica, which uses the same backend for mathematical calculations.)

'''{{w|Riemann integral|Riemann Integration}}'''

The Riemann integral is a definition of definite integration. <math>\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} f(t_i) \left(x_{i+1}-x_i\right).</math> Elementary textbooks on calculus sometimes present finding a definite integral as a process of approximating an area by strips of equal width and then taking the limit as the strips become narrower. Riemann integration removes the requirement that the strips have equal width, and so is a more flexible definition. However there are still many functions for which the Riemann integral doesn't converge, and consideration of these functions leads to the {{w|Lebesgue integration|Lebesgue integral}}. Riemann integration is not a method of calculus appropriate for finding the anti-derivative of an elementary function.

'''{{w|Stokes' Theorem}}'''

Stokes' theorem is a statement about the integration of differential forms on manifolds. <math>\int_{\partial \Omega}\omega=\int_\Omega d\omega\,.</math> It is invoked in science and engineering during control volume analysis (that is, to track the rate of change of a quantity within a control volume, it suffices to track the fluxes in and out of the control volume boundary), but is rarely used directly (and even when it is used directly, the functions that are most frequently used in science and engineering are well-behaved, like sinusoids and polynomials).

'''{{w|Risch Algorithm}}'''

The Risch algorithm is a notoriously complex procedure that, given a certain class of symbolic integrand, either finds a symbolic integral or proves that no elementary integral exists. (Technically it is only a semi-algorithm, and cannot produce an answer unless it can determine if a certain symbolic expression is {{w|Constant problem|equal to 0}} or not.) Many computer algebra systems have chosen to implement only the simpler Risch-Norman algorithm, which does not come with the same guarantee. A series of extensions to the Risch algorithm extend the class of allowable functions to include (at least) the error function and the logarithmic integral. A human would have to be pretty desperate to attempt this (presumably) by hand.

'''{{w|Bessel function}}'''

Bessel functions are the solution to the differential equation <math> x^2 \frac{dy^2}{dx^2}+x \frac{dy}{dx}+(x^2-n^2)*y=0</math>, where n is the order of Bessel function. Though they do show up in some engineering, physics, and abstract mathematics, in lower levels of calculus they are often a sign that the integration was not set up properly before someone put them into a symbolic algebra solver.

'''Phone calls to mathematicians'''

This step would indicate that the flowchart user, desperate from failed attempts to solve the problem, contacts some more skilled mathematicians by phone, and presumably asks them for help. The connected steps of "Oh no" and "Burn the evidence" may suggest the possibility that this interaction might not play out very well and could even get the caller in trouble.
Specialists and renowned experts being bothered - not to their amusement - by strangers, often at highly inconvenient times or locations, is a common comedic trope, also previously utilized by xkcd (for example in [[163: Donald Knuth]]).

'''Burn the evidence'''

This phrase parodies a common trope in detective fiction, where characters burn notes, receipts, passports, etc. to maintain secrecy. This may refer to the burning of one's work to avoid the shame of being associated w/ such a badly failed attempt to solve the given integration problem. Alternatively, it could be an ironic hint to the fact that in order to find the integral, it may even be necessary to break the law or upset higher powers, so that the negative consequences of a persecution can only be avoided by destroying the evidence.

'''{{w|Symbolic integration}}'''

Symbolic algebra is the basic process of finding an antiderivative, as opposed to numerically integrating a function. Randall plays off the joke that integration might as well be a symbol, like in a novel, because he can't get any meaningful results from his analysis.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Two flow charts are shown.]

:[The first flow chart has four steps in simple order, one with multiple recommendations.]
:DIFFERENTIATION
:Start
:Try applying
::Chain Rule
::Power Rule
::Quotient Rule
::Product Rule
::Etc.
:Done?
::No [Arrow returns to "Try applying" step.]
::Yes
:Done!

[The second flow chart begins like the first, then descends into chaos.]
:INTEGRATION
:Start
:Try applying
::Integration by Parts
::Substitution
:Done?
:Haha, Nope!

:[Chaos, Roughly from left to right, top to bottom, direction arrows not included.]
::Cauchy's Formula
::????
::???!?
::???
::???
::?
::Partial Fractions
::??
::?
::Install Mathematica
::?
::Riemann Integration
::Stokes' Theorem
::???
::?
::Risch Algorithm
::???
::[Sad face.]
::?????
::???
::What the heck is a Bessel Function??
::Phone calls to mathematicians
::Oh No
::Burn the Evidence
::[More arrows pointing out of the image to suggest more steps.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Analysis]]
[[Category:Flowcharts]]