explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2456: Types of Scientific Paper

2021-04-28T21:41:38Z

162.158.62.77: "Volunters" misspelling has been corrected. Trivia now notes this.

{{comic
| number = 2456
| date = April 28, 2021
| title = Types of Scientific Paper
| image = types_of_scientific_paper.png
| titletext = Others include "We've incrementally improved the estimate of this coefficient," "Maybe all these categories are wrong," and "We found a way to make student volunters worse at tasks."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a RESEARCH DEPARTMENT ON A LUNCHBREAK. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In this comic, Randall describes categories of scientific papers with somewhat humorous generalized titles.

{| class="wikitable"
|+Breakdown of Papers
|-
|Paper Title
|Explanation
|Article Description
|-
|We put a camera somewhere new
|
|
|-
|Hey, I found a trove of old records! They don't turn out to be particularly useful, but still, cool!
|
|
|-
|My colleague is wrong and I can finally prove it
| This title refers to the occasional rivalries between scientists within a field, which can push them to seek proof that they, and not their colleague, are correct.
|Note the single author listed, and the lack of headers, suggesting an argument more than an explanation of data
|-
|The immune system is at it again
|The human immune system is notoriously complex, and there are countless papers in medical fields just describing its strangeness
|
|-
|We figured out how to make this exotic material, so email us if you need some
|Researchers often attempt to create materials despite there not being any demand, predicting that in the future their material will be game-changing without any actual applications. These researchers have created such a material, and are offering to produce it for anyone who needs it
|
|-
|What are fish even doing down there
|Deep sea marine biology regularly discovers [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7QXdlSBGGY strange lifeforms] in unexpected places, and theories explaining deep sea ecosystems are regularly confounded by new data.
|This paper does not appear to have any headers
|-
|This task I had to do anyway turned out to be hard enough for its own paper
|There is a huge variety in the complexity and importance of subjects studied in scientific papers, and often some supposedly easy task will be sufficiently complicated as to merit its own paper.
|
|-
|Hey, at least we showed that this method can produce results! That's not nothing, right?
|One of the struggles of the scientific method is that many experiments will not produce the results scientists desired or expected. These results are still (sometimes) important, but are often ignored compared to research with important findings
|
|-
|Check out this weird thing one of us saw while out for a walk
|
|
|-
|We are 500 scientists and here's what we've been up to for the last 10 years
| Some papers summarize the work of big research teams, like those working on the [https://repositorio.uc.cl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11534/13948/Observation%20of%20a%20new%20particle%20in%20the%20search%20for%20the%20Standard%20Model%20Higgs%20boson%20with%20the%20ATLAS%20detector%20at%20the%20LHC.pdf Higgs Boson] (list of authors starts at page 17) or LIGO. Since the discoveries which are made are a team effort, the papers have many authors listed.
|A huge portion of the page is taken up by the presumably 500 authors' names, above the main horizontal bar.
|-
|Some thoughts on how everyone else is bad at research
|
|
|-
|We scanned some undergraduates
|Undergraduate students often volunteer to participate in studies, to the point where it has been described in social psychology as WEIRD: White Educated students from Industrialized Rich Democratic societies
|
|}

Trivia: Originally, this comic's title text misspelt volunteers as volunters. This may be intentional (WE might be the volunteers). This was quickly corrected.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Title: Types of Scientific Paper

''An array of scientific papers is shown, with only their titles legible. Titles are as follows:''

We put a camera somewhere new

Hey, I found a trove of old records! They don't turn out to be particularly useful, but still, cool!

My colleague is wrong and I can finally prove it

The immune system is at it again

We figured out how to make this exotic material, so email us if you need some

What are fish even doing down there

This task I had to do anyway turned out to be hard enough for its own paper

Hey, at least we showed that this method can produce results! That's not nothing, right?

Check out this weird thing one of us saw while out for a walk

We are 500 scientists and here's what we've been up to for the last 10 years

Some thoughts on how everyone else is bad at research

We scanned some undergraduates

{{comic discussion}}

2443: Immune Response

2021-03-30T00:34:48Z

162.158.62.77: improved description of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine

{{comic
| number = 2443
| date = March 30, 2021
| title = Immune Response
| image = immune_response.png
| titletext = I don't care whether you win or lose, as long as you have-- ...okay, sorry, I'm being reminded I very much care whether you win or lose. I need you to win, that's very important.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a HEROIC IMMUNE CELL. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Another comic about the COVID-19 vaccine, like [[2425: mRNA Vaccine]].

The vaccine is genetic code to create one of the important proteins of the virus, which the immune system fights as though it were the real thing, thus gaining the knowledge of how to ward off the virus if it ever actually shows up.

In the title text, Cueball starts to give his body a pep talk about how he doesn't care if it wins or loses as long as it doesn't gives up, with the intent of {{tvtropes|WinOneForTheGipper|motivating it enough to win}}, then remembers if his immune system somehow ''lost'' (to such a weak threat as the vaccine), he would die. So he very much does care that it doesn't lose.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Megan is walking toward Cueball, who is holding his arm.]
:Megan: How you feeling?
:Cueball: Not bad. Tired. A little sore.

:[Zoom in on Cueball. He puts his arms out.]
:Cueball: I feel bad for my immune system. It doesn't know this isn't a real virus. It must be freaking out. Hey buddy, don't worry! We're going to be fine. This is just practice!

:[Zoom out. Megan gestures at Cueball, as he holds his arm.]
:Megan: No, don't tell it that. You '''''want''''' it to panic and build defenses that will be able to handle the real thing.
:Cueball: I guess. Okay, let me try that again. *ahem*

:[Cueball dramatically clutches at his chest.]
:Cueball: Woe! My arm is stricken by a dreadful plague! I feel death draw near! My only hope is those heroic immune cells!
:Megan: Perfect.
:Cueball [small text]: ''Psst - you're doing great! I'm so proud of you.''

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2383: Electoral Precedent 2020

2020-11-10T14:55:58Z

162.158.62.77:

Can anyone identify the faded background text in the 2016 panel?

Is there some shadow text behind the main text in the 2016 square? I can barely make it out.
It looks like "No nominee whose first name contains a "k" has lost", which would be the same from the 1122 comic.
[[User:ChunyangD|ChunyangD]] ([[User talk:ChunyangD|talk]]) 00:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It's the alternative text from the 2016 one: "No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost." [[Special:Contributions/172.69.235.143|172.69.235.143]] 00:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that Obama did in fact have a campaign website in 2008 when he was a challenger. See http://www.4president.us/websites/2008/barackobama2008website.htm [[User:Bobjr|Bobjr]] ([[User talk:Bobjr|talk]]) 01:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:I think "challenger" means that they're going against the incumbent. Obama was up against McCain, who wasn't an incumbent. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 01:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

How much do we want the explanation for this one to repeat what is in that of 1122?--[[User:Troy0|Troy0]] ([[User talk:Troy0|talk]]) 01:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:We shouldn't. If the explanation of 1122 is missing something it should be added there. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Didn't Clinton win after being impeached? [[User:Alcatraz ii|Alcatraz ii]] ([[User talk:Alcatraz ii|talk]]) 01:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:Yes, he was impeached during his first term. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 01:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:: No, this is not true, Clinton was impeached during his 2nd term, in 1998, and he was not eligible for a 3rd term. George W. Bush won the following presidential election in 2000. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.42|172.69.34.42]] 01:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

You could also say Joe was the first President with a rescue dog [[User:Squire80513|Squire80513]] ([[User talk:Squire80513|talk]]) 01:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Squire80513
:Does not Lyndon B Johnson's dog, Yuki, count? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.128|162.158.159.128]] 02:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::LBJ's Yuki was a "rescue" (found wandering aimlessly around a gas station) but not a "shelter" dog. Joe's dog is the first first canine from a shelter. It's subtle distinction that many repeating the statistic miss [[User:MAP|MAP]] ([[User talk:MAP|talk]]) 03:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Point of order, why is Biden being referred to as president elect? I was under the impression that the term shouldn't be used until the dispute is resolved. With several pending legal cases and the votes uncertified by the states. -172.69.170.142 3:45 11/10/20 {{template:unsigned IP|172.69.170.142|03:45, 10 November 2020}}
: All major media sources have called the race for Biden as of Saturday, November 8th. XKCD, and this wiki, will follow the lead of the Associated Press or New York Times, both of whom say the race has concluded and Joe Biden is the president elect. -162.158.62.93 4:38 11/10/20 {{template:unsigned IP|162.158.62.93|04:38, 10 November 2020}}
:: Except for one of the most trusted- RealClearPolitics.com still has Pennsylvania up for grabs due to lawsuits and is about to move Michigan back into play after a poll worker claimed that a delivery of Biden-only votes came into a Detroit counting room at 3:30 am on November 4.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::: Your assertion of trust without reason comes across as fake news; however, I checked the web.archive.org history for realclearpolitics.com, and it has over a decade of history. I also visited the site and at a cursor glance it might have rational articles from both political sides, which seems commendable. If it is actually trustworthy, why didn't you explain that it is and why it is, given the current news environment? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.77|162.158.62.77]] 14:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:: Not only that, but A) while "the votes uncertified by the states" may influence the exact total, they can't make Trump win, B) a Trump victory would require that ALL legal cases are resolved in Trump's favor (depending on uncertified votes) and C) the Republican party asked to Trump to concede victory, meaning that nobody with political experience believes those legal cases have a chance of success. The only unknown point is the result of the EC election, but it is naturally assumed they will vote for the elected candidate.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.104|172.69.55.104]] 08:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
: "Presumptive president elect" would be more accurate (and I say this as someone that voted for Biden). --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.72|108.162.219.72]] 10:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand how the statement for 1876 could have been true: if J.Q. Adams won in 1824 without a popular majority, then his opponent won the majority and still lost, so Tilden couldn't have been the first in 1876 to win the majority and lose?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.38|141.101.98.38]] 08:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
: Simple: there were more than two candidates. In 1824, there were four candidates who each got over 10% of the vote. That's how Adams could win without the majority, without one of his opponents then having the majority. (In fact, Jackson had the plurality of the votes, but not the majority, but Adams was elected by the House.) --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.74|141.101.98.74]] 11:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Bad with formatting here, but I updated the bit about precedent to include that Trump's raw vote total (approx 71.5 million, also not yet certified) is ''also'' breaking the precedent set by Obama in 2008. Love them or hate them, in this high-turnout election, both major party candidates had record numbers for their raw vote totals. Trump doesn't make it to first place above Obama because Biden makes it to first place above Trump. I didn't look into whether the percentage of eligible population numbers are different, but higher turnout combined with higher population makes breaking that barrier a little easier.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.5|108.162.238.5]] 13:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:Especially since poll workers were caught on camera in Wisconsin putting Trump Votes upside-down into the scanner, but scanning Biden votes correctly.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::How was this discovered? How can we hunt down more occurrences? Did the machine reject the ballots and the people fix the error? (and what are the ramifications of a camera recording vote ballots?) There is no reason to not suspect the opposite happens too: that anybody's votes could be put in upside down. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.77|162.158.62.77]] 14:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2383: Electoral Precedent 2020

2020-11-10T14:53:06Z

162.158.62.77: