explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:561: Well

2020-09-29T14:20:50Z

162.158.79.113:

s[he] be[lie]ve[d][[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.124|141.101.98.124]] 14:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't we elaborate on the questioned superiority of DVORAK? --[[Special:Contributions/129.206.196.49|129.206.196.49]] 20:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, QUERTY was not designed to avoid jamming keys. It actually seems to be based on morse code mappings - to suit the majority of early users who were morse code operators. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/fact-of-fiction-the-legend-of-the-qwerty-keyboard-49863249/?no-ist {{unsigned ip|103.22.201.159}}

The final two frames appear to be foreshadowed by the title text within Connected (http://xkcd.com/807/) [[User:Lakeside|Lakeside]] ([[User talk:Lakeside|talk]]) 19:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I like how the 'uncomfortable truth' for the man is that he never meant it when he said 'I love you', but for the woman, it's that she always did! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 23:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What is ironic is that I am setting up a keyboard based on [https://github.com/michaeldickens/Typing Michael Dicken's optimizer]. Also, while I prefer vim (light weight!), I also have Xemacs out of my own choice. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 20:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

:The uncomfortable truth is that both emacs and vi are quite difficult to learn, just in different ways.

:Emacs, after you learn it, allows you to write the highly flexible macros for the text processing but requires to type some very long command names to do most things. Being largely written is Lisp, historically Emacs had also been very slow and memory-hungry but with the modern computers it doesn't matter any more. Oh, and Emacs messes up the proper Tab characters, replacing them with spaces.

:Vi doesn't have this flexibility but has a built-in set of commands extremely well suited to editing the programs. Vi is well-suited for the remote administration because it works well even over the very slow and high-latency connections and allows to do everything with just the alphanumeric keys, thus working even when the handling of the function keys (including arrows ans such) was not set up correctly. One of the newer versions of vi, vim, allows to do some very extensive programmable text manipulation, getting closer to Emacs in this respect; and vim can be set up to mess up the Tab characters just like Emacs. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.5|108.162.246.5]] 21:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

::vi is the hell, my keyboard doesn't have a META key... Maybe it's ALT, or ALT+CTRL,... ALT+SHIFT, or ALT+SHIFT+CTRL+ESC+...A hell. But you can rely on vi, it's available on every UNIX based system. So, if you just have a simple Telnet or SSH login you have to figure out how vi does work. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The Firefly explanation is too much, especially with the point about airing out of order. I think with the inclusion of Randall's personal preference for Firefly, and its frequent reference by Randall, it would make a lot more sense. [[User:Flewk|flewk]] ([[User talk:Flewk|talk]]) 08:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The voice in the last panel is clearly coming out of the well, as is the case in Well 2. It's not Megan saying "I love you" unlike the current explanation. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.228|141.101.107.228]] 21:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

"A common myth states that this was done to slow typists down; this was not the case." Is that really a common myth? I've never heard about it. I've only ever heard about the jamming thing which, as pointed out in the explanation, seems to check out. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 08:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

LOL Emacs is anything but "user friendly" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113|162.158.79.113]] 14:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

2362: Volcano Dinosaur

2020-09-23T14:54:31Z

162.158.79.113: Added "being" before word "buried" as it was missing

{{comic
| number = 2362
| date = September 21, 2020
| title = Volcano Dinosaur
| image = volcano_dinosaur.png
| titletext = Phylogeneticists are working on identifying and notifying its next of kin.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SLOWLY RECOVERING DINOSAUR. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is a reference to [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/new-dinosaur-discovered-china-volcano-b511774.html this discovery] of [https://peerj.com/articles/9832/ fossils of dinosaurs that were buried and killed by a volcanic eruption].

Facetiously, Megan asks if the dinosaur was okay. As living things typically don't survive being fossilized in volcano debris{{Citation needed}}, the answer to the question would obviously be "no", but Cueball replies that he is unsure. Even if the dinosaur somehow survived the initial burial, it would be very difficult for it to survive being buried for 125 million years. 2020 wouldn't probably be the best year to dig it up and potentially let it free.

Megan's response is natural and expected in many situations when hearing of a person or creature experiencing misfortune. The humour here comes from the inaptness of asking the question millions of years after the event. Rather than responding to the ridiculousness of Megan's question, Cueball takes it seriously, and deadpans that he can't tell.

The title text suggests contacting its "{{w|next of kin}}", which usually means a nearest living relative, e.g. a brother or a sister. The process of identifying and contacting next of kin is a standard step performed by authorities in the event of a death being discovered. In this case, dinosaurs are extinct{{Citation needed}}, so it is the job of {{w|Phylogenetics|phylogeneticist}}s (those who study evolutionary relationships) to determine which living animal (presumably a bird of some kind) is the "nearest relative" to the deceased dinosaurs.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Megan is standing facing right, talking to Cueball who is sitting at a computer desk and also facing right, looking at a computer screen.]
:Cueball: Oh cool, they just found a dinosaur that was buried by a volcanic eruption 125 million years ago.
:Megan: Wow.

:[Pause. Megan is still facing right. Panel closes in on Megan and Cueball is not shown. This panel has no dialogue.]

:[Megan has stepped closer to Cueball, who is still looking at the screen.]
:Megan: Was it okay?
:Cueball: Hmm, it doesn't say.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Volcanoes]]
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:2329: Universal Rating Scale

2020-07-09T01:16:34Z

162.158.79.113:

There are several things that UNC might stand for, but to me none of them suggests a rating scale. Open to suggestions, of course. [[User:JohnB|JohnB]] ([[User talk:JohnB|talk]]) 00:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
: I think the most likely candidate from {{w|UNC|w:UNC}} is the numismatic code for an {{w|uncirculated coin}}. —[[User:Scs|Scs]] ([[User talk:Scs|talk]]) 00:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
: Unified National Coarse is the name of a scale (not a rating on it) for thread sizes (for screws, nuts, bolts, etc.)[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.187|172.69.68.187]] 02:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think A/AA/AAA are battery sizes, but rather [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating credit rating]. That is also consistent with their positions in the upper half of the scale.--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.235.142|172.69.235.142]] 00:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

A+ reminded me of {{w|European Union energy label}} ratings - but it is also in the credit rating list -- [[User:Bmwiedemann|Bmwiedemann]] ([[User talk:Bmwiedemann|talk]]) 01:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know what "S" is a rating for? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.206|172.69.34.206]] 01:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
: Satisfactory, top marks on USA elementary school report cards (or at least it was in the 1980s) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.124|162.158.63.124]] 02:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the faces are supposed to correspond to a face-based pain scale, which is supported by the fact that they occur at similar places to the pain scale and that the frowny face looks more like the frowny face from one of these charts than any traditional sad face emoji. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.250.44|172.69.250.44]] 02:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This listed F as standing for Fine under the coin grading scale. However, the coin grading scale runs from 0-70, and ordered Poor (P, or About Good, AG, depending on personal preference), Good (G), Very Good (VG), Fine (F), Very Fine (VF), Etremely Fine (XF), About Uncirculated (AU), and Uncirculated (UNC or MS, for Mint State, depending on personal preference). Because Fine is better than Good and Very Good on the coin grading scale, but F is worse than G and VG on Randall's Universal Rating Scale, F probably refers to the letter grade for schoolwork, rather than the coin grade of Fine, so I removed F from the coin grade section. The G might also stand for a movie rating, but whether it is a movie rating or a coin grade, it's position would remain the same, so it's a moot point which it is. [[User:NErDysprosium|NErDysprosium]] ([[User talk:NErDysprosium|talk]]) 05:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I know some video games and fantasy stories contain things that have a letter rating, typically starting a few letters into the alphabet and increasing as it gets closer to A, often with an S above that, but sometimes another rating above S labeled "EX" for "extra". These scales sometimes have additional ratings with a + or - attached, or increasing by repeating the letter 2 or 3 times in a row before going up to the next letter. Thus the same system might have both "AAA" and "S", but normally unlike this chart the S would be higher. In some cases it might end up topping out with something like "SSS+". This sort of thing is particularly common in stories originating in Japan which involve some sort of other world that contain some sort of features similar to a video game with some sort of "Adventurer's Guild" which would often have such a system. In particular there are quite a lot of Japanese novels that are like this, many of which containing strange or unique twists on otherwise common formulaic settings. Some of these both have official English translations or were later adapted into manga or anime, or oddly enough in quite a few cases were a self published thing posted online as a hobbyist before later being picked up by a publisher and being somewhat changed and re-written as a proper book. Many also have people making and posting online fan translations of them.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.35|162.158.74.35]] 06:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

9 was possibly omitted, because 7 8 9 (seven ate nine) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.11|162.158.111.11]] 08:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

: I'd say you are making up your own jokes - however - :-) Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@gmail.com [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.71|162.158.154.71]] 14:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

: neglected again https://xkcd.com/1103/ [[User:Norgaladir|Norgaladir]] ([[User talk:Norgaladir|talk]]) 16:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

: I would point to ''[[Thing Explainer]]'' instead. The number after eight is not one of the ten hundred words people use the most. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.80|172.68.174.80]] 22:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Some comics seems like Randall makes them purely for this website, or in general to make people guess what each of the things mean. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 09:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

When I saw "Category 5" I thought he meant {{w|Category_5_cable}}... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.105|162.158.158.105]] 15:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The explanation had A+ listed as a credit rating, but it's in the wrong spot to be the A+ credit rating, and likely refers to the A+ grade instead. Should I remove it from the credit rating section? Credit scores aren't exactly my area of expertise, unlike coins. [[User:NErDysprosium|NErDysprosium]] ([[User talk:NErDysprosium|talk]]) 16:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please explain what the "curve" in the title text is? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.211|141.101.69.211]] 17:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

: That's how in some school courses they "grade on a curve" where if no one can get a perfect score on a test, they change the score so the highest existing score is changed to 100, and all the other people who took the test also have the same amount added to their score (or at least that's the way I'm most familiar with, it might be possible to do so with a somewhat different method). Thus they can have an unreasonably difficult test without causing abnormally low scores that will cause tons of students to get failing grades.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.134|162.158.75.134]] 17:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

:The "curve" technically refers to a bell curve; that is adjusting the letter grades by organizing the students into bins based on that distribution (the ~68% of students nearest the average grade get a C, then the 14% just above that get a B and the top 2% get an A, and the same pattern going down for D and F). However most instructors who say they "grade on a curve" don't do that since grades rarely fit that curve, and this often unfairly punishes students who performed well but weren't the top score. EG if the scores are all between 90% and 100% correct then the student(s) who got 90% correct will receive an F. Most of my experience with "grading on a curve" has been that the instructor sets the highest score achieved to represent 100%, but I have also had professors who adjust the grading bands so most students get a B or better. The latter method avoids forcing a failing mark on students who just happened to get the lowest score, but unlike adjusting the 100% level down it provides no benefit to someone who did significantly worse than their peers.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.10|162.158.78.10]] 13:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I rate this comic perfect 5/7. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.159|141.101.69.159]] 19:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought that the F was a reference to "pay respects", indicating embarrassing failure

I thought that 9 was omitted because Windows skipped version 9 when doing their version releases (mostly due to the fact that there was Windows 95 and Windows 98 which began with 9).

Am I the only one who would like to see "Safe", "Neutralized", "Esoteric", "Thaumiel", "Euclid", and "Keter", added to this scale?

2328: Space Basketball

2020-07-04T00:40:46Z

162.158.79.113: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2328
| date = July 4, 2020
| title = Space Basketball
| image = space_basketball.png
| titletext = My shooting will improve over the short term, but over the long term the universe will take more shots.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a METEORIC BASKETBALL. Should discuss expected time to make 30 shots in a row at 30% (and other percentages), and odds of meteorite impact, and NBA Jam and Space Jam. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic strip is another one of Randall's [[:Category:My Hobby|strange hobbies]] (released within the same week as his last hobby comic, [[2326: Five Word Jargon]]). Because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, or perhaps just due to his difficulties in making friends (cf. [[1917: How to Make Friends]]), Randall wishes to play basketball but has nobody to play with, and so he chooses to play against {{w|outer space}}. His goal is to make thirty baskets in a row before the universe puts a meteor through his hoop.

Randall estimates that his success rate at {{w|free throw|free-throw shooting}} is approximately 30%. Some of the world's best basketball players have free-throw percentages over 90%, and even professional players with reputations of being "poor" free-throw shooters (e.g. Shaquille O'Neal) are above 50%.

However, the chances of Cueball getting 30 hoops in a row is (0.3)^30, or about 1 in 5 quadrillion. The odds of a meteor killing you(according to one study) are around 1 in 250,000. Assuming the chances of a meteor killing you is equal to the chances of a meteor going through the hoop, Cueball’s free throw percentage would have to be around 66% for the sides to remain even.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[Cueball is standing in front of a basketball hoop, holding a basketball.]

:Cueball: Okay, here are the rules:
:Cueball: I have to make 30 shots in a row before a meteor falls through the hoop.
:Cueball: I'm a 30% free throw shooter so the odds are actually pretty even.
:Cueball: Ready...go!

Caption below panel: My hobby: playing basketball against space

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:My Hobby]]

2328: Space Basketball

2020-07-04T00:39:22Z

162.158.79.113: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2328
| date = July 4, 2020
| title = Space Basketball
| image = space_basketball.png
| titletext = My shooting will improve over the short term, but over the long term the universe will take more shots.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a METEORIC BASKETBALL. Should discuss expected time to make 30 shots in a row at 30% (and other percentages), and odds of meteorite impact, and NBA Jam and Space Jam. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic strip is another one of Randall's [[:Category:My Hobby|strange hobbies]] (released within the same week as his last hobby comic, [[2326: Five Word Jargon]]). Because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, or perhaps just due to his difficulties in making friends (cf. [[1917: How to Make Friends]]), Randall wishes to play basketball but has nobody to play with, and so he chooses to play against {{w|outer space}}. His goal is to make thirty baskets in a row before the universe puts a meteor through his hoop.

Randall estimates that his success rate at {{w|free throw|free-throw shooting}} is approximately 30%. Some of the world's best basketball players have free-throw percentages over 90%, and even professional players with reputations of being "poor" free-throw shooters (e.g. Shaquille O'Neal) are above 50%.

However, the chances of Cueball getting 30 hoops in a row is (0.3)^30, or about 1 in 5 quadrillion. The odds of a meteor killing you(according to one study) are around 1 in 250,000. Therefore, Cueball’s free throw percentage would have to be around 66% for the sides to remain even.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[Cueball is standing in front of a basketball hoop, holding a basketball.]

:Cueball: Okay, here are the rules:
:Cueball: I have to make 30 shots in a row before a meteor falls through the hoop.
:Cueball: I'm a 30% free throw shooter so the odds are actually pretty even.
:Cueball: Ready...go!

Caption below panel: My hobby: playing basketball against space

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:My Hobby]]

2328: Space Basketball

2020-07-04T00:38:40Z

162.158.79.113: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2328
| date = July 4, 2020
| title = Space Basketball
| image = space_basketball.png
| titletext = My shooting will improve over the short term, but over the long term the universe will take more shots.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a METEORIC BASKETBALL. Should discuss expected time to make 30 shots in a row at 30% (and other percentages), and odds of meteorite impact, and NBA Jam and Space Jam. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic strip is another one of Randall's [[:Category:My Hobby|strange hobbies]] (released within the same week as his last hobby comic, [[2326: Five Word Jargon]]). Because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, or perhaps just due to his difficulties in making friends (cf. [[1917: How to Make Friends]]), Randall wishes to play basketball but has nobody to play with, and so he chooses to play against {{w|outer space}}. His goal is to make thirty baskets in a row before the universe puts a meteor through his hoop.

Randall estimates that his success rate at {{w|free throw|free-throw shooting}} is approximately 30%. Some of the world's best basketball players have free-throw percentages over 90%, and even professional players with reputations of being "poor" free-throw shooters (e.g. Shaquille O'Neal) are above 50%.

However, the chances of Cueball getting 30 hoops is (0.3)^30, or about 1 in 5 quadrillion. The odds of a meteor killing you(according to one study) are around 1 in 250,000. Therefore, Cueball’s free throw percentage would have to be around 66% for the sides to remain even.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[Cueball is standing in front of a basketball hoop, holding a basketball.]

:Cueball: Okay, here are the rules:
:Cueball: I have to make 30 shots in a row before a meteor falls through the hoop.
:Cueball: I'm a 30% free throw shooter so the odds are actually pretty even.
:Cueball: Ready...go!

Caption below panel: My hobby: playing basketball against space

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:My Hobby]]

Talk:1811: Best-Tasting Colors

2020-03-11T16:47:22Z

162.158.79.113:

This is obviously wrong because white chocolate is not [[378|real]] chocolate. Let the flamewar begin. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.34|172.68.54.34]] 15:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
:Well, it's not technically chocolate, but it is a derivative -- insert math joke -- and the chart doesn't seem to be concerned with what it is, just with what it's called; after all, that which is called white chocolate by any other name would taste just as sweet, putting some off while others enjoy it. [[User:Nyperold|Nyperold]] ([[User talk:Nyperold|talk]]) 16:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
::As per your request: http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/626:_Newton_and_Leibniz [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.52|172.68.34.52]] 22:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Purple skittles in France taste like blueberry.{{unsigned ip|141.101.69.105}}

Vanilla isn't white.{{unsigned ip|172.68.58.131}}

What are all of the question marks here for? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.251|108.162.246.251]] 15:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I think those question marks at the top are supposed to be bubble gum.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.10|108.162.245.10]] 16:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I suspect this is Randall's take on Fake News™, since it contains verifiably false claims such as coffee and liquorice being bad, and candy floss being better than watermelon

[[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 16:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"In the title text, Randall asserts that his rankings of colors and foods are indisputable (with the exception of chocolate). This is of course ridiculous, as everyone knows that watermelon and strawberry are inherently superior to the likes of Citrus Fruits."...but his rankings of strawberry and of watermelon (x2) are higher than for oranges, lemons, and limes. There is no contradiction here; nothing that is ridiculous. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.118|162.158.78.118]] 16:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
: Liquorice, while an acquired taste certainly doesn't belong that far down, I'd take it over a long list of other things on the chart, but then again ... I'm Scandinavian {{unsigned ip|162.158.134.178}}
:: Sweet liquorice, or salted? I'm pretty sure there should be two dots there. Also, coffee and chocolate are both missing from the right end of the 'black' row. Most of the others, I think I'd flip the line, but keep each line in the same place. I guess taste is variable in weird ways [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.109|162.158.154.109]] 21:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. The selection seems quite diverse compared to a standard bag of jelly beans, but doesn't really cover the range of a gourmet brand. I wonder where root beer falls, or Dr Pepper. And that's not even getting into color classification when the bean has more than one color. Personally, when I used to get gourmet jelly bean brands, I would do the squeeze-and-sniff test on a particular shade of brown, because it was used for both coffee and a flavor I liked. I remember Lore Sjöberg having a similar problem with cinnamon and cherry, but if he ever arrived at my solution, I don't know. [[User:Nyperold|Nyperold]] ([[User talk:Nyperold|talk]]) 16:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

:Interesting theory that he's talking about flavors of jelly beans, though there's really nothing to indicate he is. But I believe every one of those food flavors are included in, for example, Jelly Belly's lineup (with the possible exception of a White Chocolate flavor). [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 17:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

:My take upon reading the comic was that it refers to Jelly Bellies. If you have ever tried a popcorn jelly belly you know how bad they are....[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.72|172.68.65.72]] 23:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
:::I really like the "buttered popcorn" Jelly Bellys [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 17:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
::If you look at https://www.jellybelly.com/flavor-guides webpage though a lot of flavors from the comics are not jelly belly flavors.--[[User:Lul|Lul]] ([[User talk:Lul|talk]]) 11:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I enjoy licorice and white chocolate, and I think strawberry is overrated. Fight me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.16|162.158.126.16]] 17:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
:I don't think its necessarily jelly beans specifically. I think it's any candy that comes with multiple flavors in a pack, including jelly beans but not limited to them. (ie. also fruit snacks, Airheads, Necco Wafers, Jolly Ranchers, Sourpatch Kids, etc.) 16:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If it is jelly beans it is definitely more agreeable then actual food. Because popcorn jelly beans are awful which explains why there a outlier. It also explains why there split by color.{{unsigned ip|172.68.58.89}}
:It could also explain the question marks. They could be jelly beans for which he was not able to identify the flavor, but was able to judge it.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.5|162.158.79.5]] 13:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow. I've seen stupidity, I've seen REAL stupidity, and now there comes this comic. Randall is confirmed for pleb taste. Also quit fucking editing my posts just because I have an objectively better taste than you do and it offends you that someone would call randall out on having shit taste in flavors.{{unsigned ip|173.245.50.96}}

I'm a retard pretending i'm superior by liking certain fruits. {{unsigned ip|162.158.75.52}}

My tastes now rate sweet tastes poorly - as well as sour, so I would down rate candyfloss, but not up rate lemon. The variability of chocolate represents the range from choc flavoured sweet margarine, through to 90% coco solids. My peak preference being about 50-60%. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Patrician taste good sir. Though, I respectfully disagree with your opinion on sour only somewhat: Lemons combined with other flavors make lemons pretty dang tasty.{{unsigned ip|173.245.50.96}}

Has anyone figured out what all the question marks in the graph are for yet? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.59.190|162.158.59.190]] 20:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

All the question marks made me wonder if he accidentally published an early draft again or something. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.90|172.68.133.90]] 20:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

: I'm fairly sure the question marks are related to lewd matters. [[User:KromdarTheAllHungering|KromdarTheAllHungering]] ([[User talk:KromdarTheAllHungering|talk]]) 02:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I added a table. Can somebody fix and fill it as I am not the best at tablework (as you can see). [[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 02:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

: Fixed and partially filled! [[User:Cody Code|Cody Code]] ([[User talk:Cody Code|talk]]) 03:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed the incomplete. The table is completely filled and there is a good explanation. [[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 21:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

;Transcript

As the transcript is for the visually impaired, I think the colored letters should only be used in the explanation and described [pink letters] in the transcript; what do you think? --[[User:LaVe|LaVe]] ([[User talk:LaVe|talk]]) 21:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
:The transcript is not only for visually impaired. Nevertheless those translation programs know colors. Be smart. And a simple bold header is enough at the discussion page.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

“Most people” do not like licorice; Most Americans, you mean. Licorice is extremely popular in Europe in many varieties. But they don’t like root beer. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.227|108.162.246.227]] 06:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
: AFAIR in pretty much every food item common to the US and the UK, the US version had a far larger sugar content. My theory is that salt was more expensive that sugar everywhere but the coastal regions, so preserving with sugar was the way to go and hence the apparent national "sweet tooth" [[User:RoyT|RoyT]] ([[User talk:RoyT|talk]]) 08:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
: Hello. As a european myself, i can assure you that Licorice is not extremly popular here, except among some loners, who are recieved and watched critically by their fellow europeans. Most people in Europe don't like it. Also, most people in Europe heard of rootbeer, but nearly noone ever drank it - i wouldn't even know where to get it here. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.149|162.158.91.149]] 10:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
:: You can't speak for most people in Europe. Tastes are really different according to which countries you speak about. There are lot of European alcohols with licorice flavors and also lot of licorice candies...{{unsigned|Lul}}

Wait, lemons? I like lemons. Anyone with an excess of raw lemons for eating should send me them. I would eat them consistently if it weren't for the fact that doing so makes my gums sore afterwards. I've several times distilled lemon juice into a much, much stronger "lemon syrup" with about 1/10th the volume and the consistency of maple syrup, and my general feeling is that I would eat it like candy if it were widely available, even though it has virtually no sugar in it. Lemon flavor is best flavor! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.132|172.68.133.132]] 07:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
: Lemon juice has plenty of sugar in it. That's why it's used for invisible ink. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.16|198.41.238.16]] 08:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
: I want to try lemon syrup now; bet it would be perfect for pancakes. -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.109|162.158.154.109]] 18:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are those values approximate when they have four significant figures? [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.16|198.41.238.16]] 08:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

How are bananas not included?{{unsigned ip|162.158.78.148}}

The watermelon flavor of Airheads candy is completely green. Also, many watermelon candies partially include a green part to mimic the appearance of watermelon, and even though they taste the same, may elicit a false feeling of tasting better. [[Special:Contributions/76.252.228.30|76.252.228.30]] 12:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

"???" refers to the mystery Dum Dums flavor. I'm pretty sure about this. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.130|108.162.216.130]] 21:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
This is some manchild pleb taste. "EWW COFFY NASTY >:( MOMMY I WANT SWEET :O" seriously.{{unsigned ip|173.245.50.96 }}
:People can have opinions. You don't need to take opinions you disapprove of to be "stupid" and "immature", you.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.224|108.162.216.224]]

The question marks for blue might have to do with George Carlin's lament over the lack of blue food.[[User:CoderLass|CoderLass]] ([[User talk:CoderLass|talk]]) 21:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

So Randall talks about the flavor of colors based on the food they are associated with, but he says "blue" and doesn't mention blueberries and says "black" but doesn't mention blackberries? WHAT? Were they just not good enough? --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|'''JayRules''XKCD''' ]][[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|what's up?]] 15:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I took this as being about artificial colors. That also explains the ??? areas. So, it is a guide for when getting e.g. icecream, bubblegum, yoghurt, etc. to which colour to pick, regardless of their labels... am I really alone with this? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2239: Data Error

2019-12-11T01:34:13Z

162.158.79.113:

Randall's comics are usually relevant to recent events on or near the day comics are posted. I was wondering if this Data Error comic might be referencing some recent event, some data error at NASA or something. Does anyone know what it might be in reference to? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.40|108.162.219.40]] 21:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC) ... Sorry, forgot to sign in. Saibot84 21:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

: I'm not aware of anything in the news. However, this is not the first time Randall has commented on research publication in a comic, so I suspect it's just another in that series. It seems obvious that he feels the first option is the appropriate choice, and the second option is the joke. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 21:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the stickwoman is not "excited" but sarcastic, although you can't be sure in text. It is a joke based on the discrepancy in capabilities between real scientists and fictional mad scientists. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.119|108.162.238.119]] 22:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

:I agree, Megan is being a smart-ass [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.202|108.162.245.202]] 15:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

:For start, "mad scientists" are usually more like mad engineers ... you can't get world domination by researching something and writing paper about it, you need to USE that research, usually by building something. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
::Are you suggesting scientists can't build things? I don't actually know, since I'm an engineer! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 23:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

What is a data error in general? Explain me a term :) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.74|172.69.22.74]] 02:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
:The discovery that the data you used was sampled below the Nyquist frequency pretty much kills your thesis until you can get data that was properly acquired. All your results will be contaminated with artifacts produced by the sampling rate, rather than by variations in the quantity that you imagined you were observing. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.209|173.245.52.209]] 12:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
::I thought I knew what a data error is, but after that reply I'm not sure - although I'm almos sure that it did not help the one asking the question ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
:::Well, that is '''a''' type of data error (bad sampling technique), but not the only type. The data itself could have had corruption problems, such as maybe some rogue second species of algae contaminated the samples, etc. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.46|172.69.62.46]] 21:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
::::Also, malfunctioning or miscalibrated measuring equipment (transducers, cabling, etc.) would be another type of data error. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 22:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
:More about data errors. Yes, I listed just one kind, and a fellow I knew had to re-do his thesis because of that particular error. The careful researcher investigates many possible sources of error. The poor researcher simply throws away the data points that do not match his preconceptions. HERE WE GO, enumerating some errors: (1) Noise from physically sloppy equipment. (2) Lack of calibration of measuring device. (3) Device loses calibration over time. (4) Manually recorded data errors, such as transposed digits. (5) Incorrect assumptions of linearity in the design of measurement. (6) Failure to record crucial environmental parameters. [That's just six minutes of thinking. Surely there are others.]
:Yes, I omitted an important source of error: Sabotage! You're not paranoid, someone really is messing with your data.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113|162.158.79.113]] 01:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2239: Data Error

2019-12-11T01:28:40Z

162.158.79.113:

2119: Video Orientation

2019-03-05T13:14:00Z

162.158.79.113:

{{comic
| number = 2119
| date = March 4, 2019
| title = Video Orientation
| image = video_orientation.png
| titletext = CIRCULAR VIDEO - PROS: Solves aspect ratio problem. CONS: Never trust anyone who talks to you from inside a circle.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This was created by a TRUSTWORTHY CIRCULAR VIDEO. Need to make interpretation of circular text neutral, ideally by enumerating all the interpretations listed in the comments. Is the following relevant? Nothing about Bold and Dynamic. Bad dubious template. Better explanation on horizontal and vertical needed. DO NOT DELETE THIS TOO SOON (It already was once.)}}

This comic compares selected pros and cons of 3 video "orientations" (also known as angling), one of which is entirely made-up. This comic could have been inspired {{Dubious}} by articles like https://mashable.com/2017/12/28/vertical-video-mainstream-year/#GEK.NgJ74mqR, and https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/video-looks-most-natural-horizontally-but-we-hold-our-phones-vertically/, which comment on how videos are now filmed vertically through smartphones.

From Randall's comments on horizontal vs vertical, it seems that he is in favor of horizontal videos. However, he does love a good [[690|compromise]][[Category:Compromise]], so he suggests "Diagonal Orientation" as a third option to equally dissatisfy both types of user. The issue with this is that diagonal angling fails to fully capture the benefits of either horizontal or vertical angling.

'''Horizontal orientation'''
# Good for people not used to phones, and has been used for centuries for capturing video.
# Not the best at capturing a human's entire body, without also capturing much of their surroundings.
# Potentially uncomfortable for the one making the recording to maintain over a long period of time, as most phones were designed for vertical holding.

'''Vertical orientation'''
# The norm for most users capturing video on their smartphone.
# Not ideal for capturing the background, as our world is mostly a "horizontal plane".

'''Diagonal orientation'''
# Not a standard format of video, thus "bold and dynamic". {{Citation needed}}
# Equally annoying to all viewers.
# Flawless, as in perfect in every way.{{Dubious}}

Diagonal angling is commonly known as "oblique angle" or "{{w|Dutch angle}}" in cinema and is often used to portray psychological uneasiness or tension in the subject being filmed.

The title text quip about circular video could be a reference to having a demon trapped inside a summoning circle, or being spoken to by members of a select or secretive circle of people, hence not trusting anything what is said to you due to perhaps lacking evidence of their motivations.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[The image shows three columns by three rows with the following headers:]
:'''Video Orientation'''
:'''Pros'''
:'''Cons'''

:[First row:]
:[A wide picture with a text above:]
:Horizontal
:[Pros are:]
:*Looks normal to old people
:*Format used by a century of cinema
:[Cons are:]
:*Humans are taller than are wide
:*I'm not turning my phone sideways

:[Second row:]
:[A high picture with a text above:]
:Vertical
:[Pros are:]
:*How most normal people shoot and watch video now so we may as well accept it
:[Cons are:]
:*Human world is mostly a horizontal plane

:[Third row:]
:[A picture rotated by 45 degrees with a text above:]
:Diagonal
:[Pros are:]
:*Bold and dynamic
:*Equally annoying to all viewers
:*Good compromise
:[Cons are:]
:*None

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Compromise]]

2119: Video Orientation

2019-03-05T13:09:59Z

162.158.79.113: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2119
| date = March 4, 2019
| title = Video Orientation
| image = video_orientation.png
| titletext = CIRCULAR VIDEO - PROS: Solves aspect ratio problem. CONS: Never trust anyone who talks to you from inside a circle.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This was created by a TRUSTWORTHY CIRCULAR VIDEO. Nothing about Bold and Dynamic. Bad dubious template. Better explanation on horizontal and vertical needed. DO NOT DELETE THIS TOO SOON (It already was once.)}}

This comic compares selected pros and cons of 3 video "orientations" (also known as angling), one of which is entirely made-up. This comic could have been inspired {{Dubious}} by articles like https://mashable.com/2017/12/28/vertical-video-mainstream-year/#GEK.NgJ74mqR, and https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/video-looks-most-natural-horizontally-but-we-hold-our-phones-vertically/, which comment on how videos are now filmed vertically through smartphones.

From Randall's comments on horizontal vs vertical, it seems that he is in favor of horizontal videos. However, he does love a good [[690|compromise]][[Category:Compromise]], so he suggests "Diagonal Orientation" as a third option to equally dissatisfy both types of user. The issue with this is that diagonal angling fails to fully capture the benefits of either horizontal or vertical angling.

'''Horizontal orientation'''
# Good for people not used to phones, and has been used for centuries for capturing video.
# Not the best at capturing a human's entire body, without also capturing much of their surroundings.
# Potentially uncomfortable for the one making the recording to maintain over a long period of time, as most phones were designed for vertical holding.

'''Vertical orientation'''
# The norm for most users capturing video on their smartphone.
# Not ideal for capturing the background, as our world is mostly a "horizontal plane".

'''Diagonal orientation'''
# Not a standard format of video, thus "bold and dynamic". {{Citation needed}}
# Equally annoying to all viewers.
# Flawless, as in perfect in every way.{{Dubious}}

Diagonal angling is commonly known as "oblique angle" or "{{w|Dutch angle}}" in cinema and is often used to portray psychological uneasiness or tension in the subject being filmed.

The title text quip about circular video could be a reference to having a demon trapped inside a summoning circle, or being spoken to by members of a select or secretive circle of people, hence not trusting anything what is said to you due to perhaps lacking evidence of their motivations.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[The image shows three columns by three rows with the following headers:]
:'''Video Orientation'''
:'''Pros'''
:'''Cons'''

:[First row:]
:[A wide picture with a text above:]
:Horizontal
:[Pros are:]
:*Looks normal to old people
:*Format used by a century of cinema
:[Cons are:]
:*Humans are taller than are wide
:*I'm not turning my phone sideways

:[Second row:]
:[A high picture with a text above:]
:Vertical
:[Pros are:]
:*How most normal people shoot and watch video now so we may as well accept it
:[Cons are:]
:*Human world is mostly a horizontal plane

:[Third row:]
:[A picture rotated by 45 degrees with a text above:]
:Diagonal
:[Pros are:]
:*Bold and dynamic
:*Equally annoying to all viewers
:*Good compromise
:[Cons are:]
:*None

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Compromise]]

Talk:2118: Normal Distribution

2019-03-05T13:06:48Z

162.158.79.113:

Is there a statistician in the house? [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 15:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I think they all got annoyed at the graph and left. [[User:Margath|Margath]] ([[User talk:Margath|talk]]) 15:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Of course there is! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.22|162.158.214.22]] 15:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

As an example: When measuring the height of people in the same age bracket, then you'll expect the number of people at each height to look like this graph. There will be a lot of people around the average height, fewer a foot shorter/taller, some (but very few) exceptionally tall people, and some (but very few) exceptionally short people. The x-value represents the height, the y-value essentially represents the amount of population that share that height. When we measure the middle 50% of the population using vertical bars, then people at a certain height are either inside '''OR''' outside the middle. Randall uses horizontal bars here, which means some people at a certain height will be counted in the middle 50%, but other people with the same height won't be. In fact, some people with the exact average height of the whole population would fall outside the middle. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.214|108.162.241.214]] 16:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to rip me apart for referring to it as the "number of people at each height", since y-axis is more complicated than a simple count. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.214|108.162.241.214]] 16:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to say, Randall's horizontal slice isn't entirely meaningless. It's a calculation I've had to do, where I have a series of binned samples of a population (say I knew how many fell in -10..10, how many fell in -5..5, how many fell in -2..2) and wanted to combine them with an appropriate weighting to approximate a Gaussian. I was using it for filtering, but it's logically similar. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 16:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
::Also, the slice sampler for MCMC is a trick for sampling from a distribution by "turning it on its side". But I don't think the 50% figure would be meaningful in that context. (Though the 52.7% number on this graph would be.) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.136|172.68.54.136]] 21:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Pedant: etymologically, there *is* actually a connection between a normal (to a surface or line) and the normal distribution; the former comes from the Latin for a set square (giving you perpendicular), and it later came to mean "standard". The "tangential distribution" certainly fits the etymology of "odd/unusual" though. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 16:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This reminds me of the difference between Riemann(-Stieltjes) and Lebesgue integration. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.160|172.68.54.160]] 20:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

As the axis are not labeled (see comic 833) we could consider this a multivariate distribution where one parameter is uniform and the other is normal. That was my first thought when I saw this. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.88|172.68.34.88]] 18:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there any meaning to midpoint: 52.7%? Maybe that is the arbitrary center he formed the horizontal bounds around? Maybe it relates to data? Is this a reference to something? It's certainly reminiscent of how normal distributions produce statistically meaningful numbers that have weird decimals in them (like the % represented by being within so many standard deviations). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.178|162.158.78.178]] 19:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
::Maybe it's because the meaning of "50% of the chart lies between these lines" specifically becomes roughly useless for discerning error if the lines are not centered around the origin. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.178|162.158.78.178]] 19:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
::I might get it!!! The area between the lines is 52.7% of the total area: which means that 50% is technically included in what lies between them. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.220|162.158.78.220]] 23:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The correct way to do this is to have the topmost vertical line equal to or above the top of the normal plot. Then the bottom-most line would represent the same values as vertical lines would. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.220|162.158.78.220]] 23:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Say I want to build a diverse team or a representative council. And it is more important that the selection is representative of several subpopulations (who should not be voted down by the majority) than that it gives an equal fair chance to anybody. I would cut away the absolute outliers and reduce the weight of the most abundant group - this gives just the area between the two lines. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.70|172.68.110.70]] 23:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
:That's actually... not a horrible idea. Problem is, it's not robust to transformations of the X axis, because of the Jacobian multiplier that comes with such transformations. Which in practice would look like people loudly insisting they have nothing in common with each other ("we wear baseball hats with the brim to the RIGHT while those other completely unrelated people wear them with the brim to the LEFT")[[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.244|162.158.63.244]] 16:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Has somebody measured or calculated (by assuming normal distribution) the areas? It seems that the upper area is way smaller than the lower one, but both having the same 'height' in the middle. Is the 52.7% graphically correct? I tried half of the height at 0: .398942 and integrated, then I get 52,6% for the white area and 47,4% for the gray area. On the y-axis it seems that the three visible ticks are .1, .2, .3, then the gray area would be a bit broader than .2 and centered at .1. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.70|172.68.110.70]] 23:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Got [[356:_Nerd_Sniping|Nerd Sniped]] by the number "52.7%", but failed on an analytic solution and settled for a quick and dirty numerical integration instead, which suggested that the exact number might be somewhere between .5268 and .5269, so I think I'm not far from the truth. As I see it, the shaded area is vertically centered around the vertical midpoint, with a relative vertical width chosen such that the shaded area is exactly 50% of the total area under the curve. Just as usual, only with vertical instead of horizontal binning, which of course is the twist that makes this graph puzzling, funny, and completely useless for meaningful interpretation.
The label "52.7%" is not an addition to the Midpoint label but instead gives the width of the vertical bin, as a percentage of the vertical height of the curve. I read the tics on the vertical axis to indicate just quarters of the curve maximum, which is consistent with my understanding of "Midpoint".
Oh, and you are certainly right in that the marginal distributions at the top and the bottom are asymmetric, as is the gaussian when viewed sideways.
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.64|172.68.110.64]] 23:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
: Feh. You merely have to integrate something like Sqrt[Log[x]] which I'm too lazy for and use Mathematica instead which gives...<covers eyes>...what was #2117 about again? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.2|162.158.94.2]] 11:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
:: There's a way to (attempt to) symbolically integrate functions involving things like e^(-x^2) like you have with the normal distribution (Cherry's extension of the Risch algorithm, see his thesis or his 1985 paper), but I have no idea how to apply it here. It's definitely a very complex procedure. As I understand even Mathematica has not implemented it in full. - [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|talk]]) 03:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

How to annoy a Democratic Liberal Statician- Point out that every identity group that they're trying to make "normal" falls to the far left or the far right of the normal distribution curve.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
:As somebody who happens to be all 3 of those things, I can confirm that your comment annoyed me. But only for bringing politics into a discussion that isn't political, and for misusing "normal" in a way like Randall's alt-text. The actual "edgy" political content of your post I find wrong but not particularly annoying. YMMV. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.244|162.158.63.244]] 16:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
::All statistics are ultimately political, in that they are used to politically argue for predetermined conclusions. Statistics aren't very useful at actually discovering anything not previously determined to be true. And it isn't me has misused the word normal, it's those ~2% of the population identity groups that are now using the courts to claim to be normal, when mathematically, they'll never be normal.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 15:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

'''"Completely meaningless?"''' 
The explanation currently says, "Randall finds the area between two horizontal lines instead, which is mathematically completely meaningless." This doesn't seem right. Each of the two horizontal lines intersect the curve at points and those points have meaningful values on the x axis. I'm not sure if they represent anything interesting (or rather, what their significance might be), but the result is the horizontal lines are not meaningless. I'm a little reluctant to edit it because I'm not sure how meaning to ascribe (and I also haven't measured the or calculated what those points are), but the explanation as-written seems improper. Do I have it wrong? [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 15:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
:Nothing is ever completely meaningless. I think the change to "completely meaningless" may have been added by an annoyed statistician. I wrote the previous phrasing of it rarely being used for anything meaningful, so it seems impolite for me to edit it back. It's notable that implying there is meaning to the horizontal lines could be misleading to those new to statistics. It's also notable that the area between them represents a calculable portion of the samplesets, and that the points of intersection are just as meaningful as with vertical lines, two uses mentioned in comments above. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.245|162.158.79.245]] 15:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The horizontal division is vaguely reminiscent of Lebesgue integration. I wonder if that was intentional. [[User:Dfeuer|Dfeuer]] ([[User talk:Dfeuer|talk]]) 06:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There is now a statistician in the house. I have added two paragraphs that discuss some of the fine points. This is wrong (which, of course, Randall knows) in so many ways! I tried to keep what I said simple, but it may need some expansion. I also don't think we need the graphic in the explanation because, as I say in the text I added, that is the ''wrong way'' to describe a nonsymmetric distribution like the "tangent distribution". [[User:Cjgeyer|Cjgeyer]] ([[User talk:Cjgeyer|talk]]) 22:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

'''Sloppy explanation''' 
What I don't like, are phrases like: "To turn that bar chart into a distribution, you'd get an infinite number of people, put them into age bins that are infinitely narrow, [...]". Infinitely narrow is actually zero or 0. No other interpretation exists.

'''Pictures''' 
Hey @Zom-b, you changed the picture I set and gave the comment "I don't know what that other curve is, but it's not normal. (no) pun intended." The two pictures appear to have exactly the same curve in them. I was wondering what you meant by your comment? This is the first picture I've ever set in a wiki, and I worry I could have made an error. Here are the two pictures: [[File:Empirical_Rule.PNG|64px]] [[File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg|64px]]. I like the first one, mine, because the lines extend beyond the graph as Randall's do. I like the second one, yours, because it includes percentages over the graph as Randall's has. But the curves both appear normal, in both senses, to me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113|162.158.79.113]] 13:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2118: Normal Distribution

2019-03-05T13:05:26Z

162.158.79.113: pictures

Is there a statistician in the house? [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 15:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I think they all got annoyed at the graph and left. [[User:Margath|Margath]] ([[User talk:Margath|talk]]) 15:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Of course there is! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.22|162.158.214.22]] 15:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

As an example: When measuring the height of people in the same age bracket, then you'll expect the number of people at each height to look like this graph. There will be a lot of people around the average height, fewer a foot shorter/taller, some (but very few) exceptionally tall people, and some (but very few) exceptionally short people. The x-value represents the height, the y-value essentially represents the amount of population that share that height. When we measure the middle 50% of the population using vertical bars, then people at a certain height are either inside '''OR''' outside the middle. Randall uses horizontal bars here, which means some people at a certain height will be counted in the middle 50%, but other people with the same height won't be. In fact, some people with the exact average height of the whole population would fall outside the middle. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.214|108.162.241.214]] 16:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to rip me apart for referring to it as the "number of people at each height", since y-axis is more complicated than a simple count. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.214|108.162.241.214]] 16:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to say, Randall's horizontal slice isn't entirely meaningless. It's a calculation I've had to do, where I have a series of binned samples of a population (say I knew how many fell in -10..10, how many fell in -5..5, how many fell in -2..2) and wanted to combine them with an appropriate weighting to approximate a Gaussian. I was using it for filtering, but it's logically similar. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 16:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
::Also, the slice sampler for MCMC is a trick for sampling from a distribution by "turning it on its side". But I don't think the 50% figure would be meaningful in that context. (Though the 52.7% number on this graph would be.) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.136|172.68.54.136]] 21:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Pedant: etymologically, there *is* actually a connection between a normal (to a surface or line) and the normal distribution; the former comes from the Latin for a set square (giving you perpendicular), and it later came to mean "standard". The "tangential distribution" certainly fits the etymology of "odd/unusual" though. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 16:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This reminds me of the difference between Riemann(-Stieltjes) and Lebesgue integration. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.160|172.68.54.160]] 20:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

As the axis are not labeled (see comic 833) we could consider this a multivariate distribution where one parameter is uniform and the other is normal. That was my first thought when I saw this. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.88|172.68.34.88]] 18:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there any meaning to midpoint: 52.7%? Maybe that is the arbitrary center he formed the horizontal bounds around? Maybe it relates to data? Is this a reference to something? It's certainly reminiscent of how normal distributions produce statistically meaningful numbers that have weird decimals in them (like the % represented by being within so many standard deviations). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.178|162.158.78.178]] 19:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
::Maybe it's because the meaning of "50% of the chart lies between these lines" specifically becomes roughly useless for discerning error if the lines are not centered around the origin. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.178|162.158.78.178]] 19:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
::I might get it!!! The area between the lines is 52.7% of the total area: which means that 50% is technically included in what lies between them. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.220|162.158.78.220]] 23:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The correct way to do this is to have the topmost vertical line equal to or above the top of the normal plot. Then the bottom-most line would represent the same values as vertical lines would. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.220|162.158.78.220]] 23:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Say I want to build a diverse team or a representative council. And it is more important that the selection is representative of several subpopulations (who should not be voted down by the majority) than that it gives an equal fair chance to anybody. I would cut away the absolute outliers and reduce the weight of the most abundant group - this gives just the area between the two lines. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.70|172.68.110.70]] 23:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
:That's actually... not a horrible idea. Problem is, it's not robust to transformations of the X axis, because of the Jacobian multiplier that comes with such transformations. Which in practice would look like people loudly insisting they have nothing in common with each other ("we wear baseball hats with the brim to the RIGHT while those other completely unrelated people wear them with the brim to the LEFT")[[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.244|162.158.63.244]] 16:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Has somebody measured or calculated (by assuming normal distribution) the areas? It seems that the upper area is way smaller than the lower one, but both having the same 'height' in the middle. Is the 52.7% graphically correct? I tried half of the height at 0: .398942 and integrated, then I get 52,6% for the white area and 47,4% for the gray area. On the y-axis it seems that the three visible ticks are .1, .2, .3, then the gray area would be a bit broader than .2 and centered at .1. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.70|172.68.110.70]] 23:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Got [[356:_Nerd_Sniping|Nerd Sniped]] by the number "52.7%", but failed on an analytic solution and settled for a quick and dirty numerical integration instead, which suggested that the exact number might be somewhere between .5268 and .5269, so I think I'm not far from the truth. As I see it, the shaded area is vertically centered around the vertical midpoint, with a relative vertical width chosen such that the shaded area is exactly 50% of the total area under the curve. Just as usual, only with vertical instead of horizontal binning, which of course is the twist that makes this graph puzzling, funny, and completely useless for meaningful interpretation.
The label "52.7%" is not an addition to the Midpoint label but instead gives the width of the vertical bin, as a percentage of the vertical height of the curve. I read the tics on the vertical axis to indicate just quarters of the curve maximum, which is consistent with my understanding of "Midpoint".
Oh, and you are certainly right in that the marginal distributions at the top and the bottom are asymmetric, as is the gaussian when viewed sideways.
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.64|172.68.110.64]] 23:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
: Feh. You merely have to integrate something like Sqrt[Log[x]] which I'm too lazy for and use Mathematica instead which gives...<covers eyes>...what was #2117 about again? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.2|162.158.94.2]] 11:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
:: There's a way to (attempt to) symbolically integrate functions involving things like e^(-x^2) like you have with the normal distribution (Cherry's extension of the Risch algorithm, see his thesis or his 1985 paper), but I have no idea how to apply it here. It's definitely a very complex procedure. As I understand even Mathematica has not implemented it in full. - [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|talk]]) 03:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

How to annoy a Democratic Liberal Statician- Point out that every identity group that they're trying to make "normal" falls to the far left or the far right of the normal distribution curve.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
:As somebody who happens to be all 3 of those things, I can confirm that your comment annoyed me. But only for bringing politics into a discussion that isn't political, and for misusing "normal" in a way like Randall's alt-text. The actual "edgy" political content of your post I find wrong but not particularly annoying. YMMV. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.244|162.158.63.244]] 16:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
::All statistics are ultimately political, in that they are used to politically argue for predetermined conclusions. Statistics aren't very useful at actually discovering anything not previously determined to be true. And it isn't me has misused the word normal, it's those ~2% of the population identity groups that are now using the courts to claim to be normal, when mathematically, they'll never be normal.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 15:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

'''"Completely meaningless?"''' 
The explanation currently says, "Randall finds the area between two horizontal lines instead, which is mathematically completely meaningless." This doesn't seem right. Each of the two horizontal lines intersect the curve at points and those points have meaningful values on the x axis. I'm not sure if they represent anything interesting (or rather, what their significance might be), but the result is the horizontal lines are not meaningless. I'm a little reluctant to edit it because I'm not sure how meaning to ascribe (and I also haven't measured the or calculated what those points are), but the explanation as-written seems improper. Do I have it wrong? [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 15:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
:Nothing is ever completely meaningless. I think the change to "completely meaningless" may have been added by an annoyed statistician. I wrote the previous phrasing of it rarely being used for anything meaningful, so it seems impolite for me to edit it back. It's notable that implying there is meaning to the horizontal lines could be misleading to those new to statistics. It's also notable that the area between them represents a calculable portion of the samplesets, and that the points of intersection are just as meaningful as with vertical lines, two uses mentioned in comments above. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.245|162.158.79.245]] 15:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The horizontal division is vaguely reminiscent of Lebesgue integration. I wonder if that was intentional. [[User:Dfeuer|Dfeuer]] ([[User talk:Dfeuer|talk]]) 06:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There is now a statistician in the house. I have added two paragraphs that discuss some of the fine points. This is wrong (which, of course, Randall knows) in so many ways! I tried to keep what I said simple, but it may need some expansion. I also don't think we need the graphic in the explanation because, as I say in the text I added, that is the ''wrong way'' to describe a nonsymmetric distribution like the "tangent distribution". [[User:Cjgeyer|Cjgeyer]] ([[User talk:Cjgeyer|talk]]) 22:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

'''Sloppy explanation''' 
What I don't like, are phrases like: "To turn that bar chart into a distribution, you'd get an infinite number of people, put them into age bins that are infinitely narrow, [...]". Infinitely narrow is actually zero or 0. No other interpretation exists.

Hey @Zom-b, you changed the picture I set and gave the comment "I don't know what that other curve is, but it's not normal. (no) pun intended." The two pictures appear to have exactly the same curve in them. I was wondering what you meant by your comment? This is the first picture I've ever set in a wiki, and I worry I could have made an error. Here are the two pictures: [[File:Empirical_Rule.PNG|64px]] [[File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg|64px]]. I like the first one, mine, because the lines extend beyond the graph as Randall's do. I like the second one, yours, because it includes percentages over the graph as Randall's has. But the curves both appear normal, in both senses, to me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113|162.158.79.113]] 13:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2115: Plutonium

2019-02-28T16:27:30Z

162.158.79.113:

I feel like this is a reference to Kerbal Space Program - the RTG in the game runs on Bluetonium-238, and there is no half-life mechanic, leading to an actual power orb that provides stable power forever.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.144.127|172.68.144.127]] 08:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Even though space is cold, it conducts so poorly that spacecraft would probably have more problems getting rid of heat than keeping heat, considering how isolated they are. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 16:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

:It actually has little to do with conduction; the heat radiates pretty effectively, especially as it gets "hotter" vs the surrounding radiation. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.124|172.69.69.124]] 17:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

::You're right, spacecraft are cooled by radiation. Yet it is far less effective than conductive/convective cooling by blowing the surrounding medium (water, air, whatever) over the hot parts. It's so much easier to cool things down here on Earth! Cooling problems is one of the reasons why nuclear reactors are not very popular in space, they need massive cooling systems.

Reminds me of reddit.com/r/outside [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 16:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I put in how the title text makes a probable reference to game development. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
:It could, with equal probability, be a reference to parallel universes. There's nothing anywhere that says anything about game development.... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.10|162.158.214.10]] 18:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
:”Cool Mechanic” “Unbalanced” and “Join the team” seemed like hints [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 18:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
::It seemed obvious to me it was a reference to episodic story development, as it looks like that happens with shows and comics all the time. Don't understand how it makes sense for parallel universes (except that this kind of happened with star trek and the introduction of the parallel reality) but recommend updating the article to include all interpretations. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.240|172.68.47.240]] 21:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
:::I thought it was more in the line of someone joining a D&D game, doing something crazy with their character then leaving, and the remaining players all have to keep up the story.
:::(Unsigned: Please sign your posts!)
::::Definitely refers to gaming, in my opinion: These phrases are used extensively in gaming circles & almost nowhere else.
::::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 23:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be in the same vein as two other recent comics, Internet Archive and ArkXiv. Perhaps real things that seem unrealistic is a new topic of Randalls? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.4|172.69.247.4]] 17:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
:Nope, it goes back at least to the 331st comic! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.220|162.158.78.220]] 21:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Note that the radioactive material obviously doesn't produce this energy forever, although it can produce it so long the device will break before it gets out of energy." The main problem with Voyager I and Voyager II is not that the devices on board have been broken, exhausted a finite reserve or otherwise failed, but that the power supply can not keep most of the machine powered anymore. In fact, if there was enough electrical power, most of the cameras and other sensors would still work; they might see much that far from the sun and other bodies, but they would work. The plutonium power source undergoes exponential decay, producing proportionally less power each year and each year, the NASA scientists have to decide which devices on the spacecraft need to power-down, never to turn on again, or maybe a device is so important, but needs so much power that they will turn it on for less and less time, sort of like rotating brown-outs. I think the Pioneer probes are in the same boat. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 04:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
:Also because of the many restrictions on use of highly radioactive material, plus the basic weight factor, you would only use just the amount of plutonium required to power the craft fully over it's expected lifetime. After that lifetime you no longer have full power due to decay.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.146.20|172.68.146.20]] 05:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
::Actually, the half-life of the plutonium has a relatively small effect on the loss of power, the degradation of the thermocouples is a more significant cause of the power loss of RTGs on long term spacecraft missions. Plutonium loses about 0.79% of the available energy every year due to decay. [[User:TimO|TimO]] ([[User talk:TimO|talk]]) 09:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Could someone perhaps expand on the term "implementing a mechanic"? In New Zealand English at least, a mechanic is a person who works with machines. I thought this was maybe a synonym for "implementing a mechanism", but it seems to have a specific meaning in the team episode writing sense discussed here. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.210|103.22.200.210]] 23:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
:As a non-native speaker, I am familiar with the word "mechanic" on a gameplay level. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_mechanics. I am fairly certain that is what Randal is refering to. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.18.142|162.158.18.142]] 07:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
:This use of the word "mechanic" is extremely confusing. To most English speakers it means someone who fixes machines, usually cars. Either remove it or explain the unusual jargon meaning in this context
::In the US, we also call that a mechanic, or a repairman. But in this context, mechanic is referring to mechanics of a story or game, a synonym to feature. Hope that helps, and sign your comments. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 15:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
:::Tried to explain "implementing the mechanic" (which is actual game developers' jargon) but had to edit out the references to TV shows, comic series and whatever was there before - I have no knowledge how these are created and discussed in their own jargon. The explanation is rather long but the topic is a bit convoluted indeed and hard to explain in plain words (for me at least). Thanks, Netherin5, for trying to fix it up. -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.59|162.158.91.59]] 18:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
: Mechanic in this case is short for "mechanical function", a method used in games (either physical or video) to allow changes to the game state. For example, a board game may use dice for the purpose of moving a token a number of spaces. That would be referred to as a movement mechanic. In a video game, mechanics might include movement (walking, jumping) or crafting (combining multiple items to produce a new one). --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113|162.158.79.113]] 16:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The explanation of the title text regarding computer games could be expanded to just games in general. This could also refer to a table top Role Playing Game where the game master who runs the universe through a series of narrative follows the game engine's mechanic. Some guest GM came in and introduced a bunch of stuff but left. The rest of the players continue to play with the current dynamic even if its unbalanced and should not make sense. Long stretch, the character in the comics are playing an role playing game (hence the questions) where the engine requires them to stick to reality. When Cueball suggested the power orb, everyone dismissed it as an unobtanium that Cueball made up and didn't realize that one of such thing exist in real life too.

Talk:2116: .NORM Normal File Format

2019-02-25T19:01:24Z

162.158.79.113:

Oh man, I don’t know whether to laugh or passive aggressively link people this comic. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 16:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

At the moment I'm seeing " https://twitter.com/openelex/status/853977391747801088 " as the title text [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.82|108.162.216.82]] 17:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
:That’s because the comic is a link, and clicking on it will take you there. The title text is correct, though. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Reminds me of [https://thedailywtf.com/articles/Web_0_0x2e_1 Web 0.1 at TheDailyWTF].[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113|162.158.79.113]] 19:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2113: Physics Suppression

2019-02-18T17:20:57Z

162.158.79.113: Hmm

That's how mafia works. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.111|172.69.134.111]] 16:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
But White Hat didn't mention anything about a Mafia...? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.153|162.158.74.153]] 14:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
:No, but to suppress people publishing their results, a body like the mafia would be needed, is what Megan jokes about. And then takes an example (and one more in title text) about annoying results that did not get suppressed. Her example turned out to win a noble prize, the title text was later shown to be an error. But a mafia might have stopped both sets of results to have not been published. Basically proving that you can not suppress such results wether relevant or not. If White Hat's model is not taken serious it is probably because he has no data to back it up. Wild claims demands extraordinary well documentation. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
::A "mafia" isn't the only candiate. "Inquistions" have also worked well for suppression, but (AFAIK) have less of a history of intramural violence. I think the image of a cabal of cloaked physics monks torturing dark energy heretics into recantation would have been striking enough, but RMMV (Randall's Mileage May Vary). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.23|172.69.70.23]] 17:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
:::if you need to spell out your initialism in full, you may not realize they're intended as shorthand.

2113: Physics Suppression

2019-02-18T17:20:55Z

162.158.79.113: it's to its

{{comic
| number = 2113
| date = February 18, 2019
| title = Physics Suppression
| image = physics_suppression.png
| titletext = If physics had a mafia, I'm pretty sure the BICEP2 mess would have ended in bloodshed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by the Physics Mafia. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[White Hat]] is mad at physicists in general and directs his fury at [[Megan]], a physicist. He has a theory and blames physicists for suppressing it. He believes that no one takes it seriously because his theory would disrupt the standard model in physics. He believes they do this because his theory would be inconvenient to accept, causing them to have to change their current models.

Megan is not taking him seriously (or is she?) and instead states that she did not know that physicists had a Mafia that was able to suppress anyone from publishing annoying results. She continues that if such a group were there to do so, then why were they not there to stop the people who published results about dark energy?

Although she must admit that they (physicists) later gave them a {{w|Nobel Prize}} (in {{w|List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Physics#Laureates|2011}}), she's still mad at them for the "trouble" this new concept caused for other physicists, including her.

{{w|Dark energy}} is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe. Even though "dark energy" is a direct consequence of {{w|Albert Einstein|Albert Einstein's}} "{{w|cosmological constant}}" in the field equations of {{w|general relativity}}, its actual discovery was still seen as a surprise within the physics community. Even Einstein had great trouble accepting it, calling it his "greatest blunder"{{Citation needed}}. In the comic, Megan says that if scientists were able to suppress inconvenient ideas, dark energy would likely have been such a case.

She also indirectly says to White Hat that if he actually had some results, not just a theory that contradicts known physics, then the results would not have been suppressed. The reason the "dark energy people" got a nobel prize is that the experiments and measurements show that they were onto something real. It seems like White Hat currently only has a model, and not data, to back his theory up. This is the real joke.

The title text mentions {{w|BICEP2}} (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization) which was part of a series of instruments used to measure the polarization of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). On 17 March 2014, it was announced, to much fanfare, that BICEP2 had detected B-modes from gravitational waves in the early universe (called primordial gravitational waves). A few years later, this announcement had to be backtracked as it was found that most, if not all, of the reported signal was actually due to interstellar dust within the Milky Way.{{Citation needed}}

The title text notes that if there had been a physics mafia, then those results would have ended in bloodshed due to the controversy they caused.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat, with his hands balled into fist and held up above him, is talking with Megan.]
:White Hat: You physicists are suppressing my theory because it's inconvenient for your models!
:Megan: Wait, we have a mafia that can suppress annoying results?
:Megan: ''Why didn't they do something about the dark energy people?!''
:Megan: We gave them a Nobel prize but I'm still mad at them!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]

2113: Physics Suppression

2019-02-18T17:16:55Z

162.158.79.113: still not a proper noun

{{comic
| number = 2113
| date = February 18, 2019
| title = Physics Suppression
| image = physics_suppression.png
| titletext = If physics had a mafia, I'm pretty sure the BICEP2 mess would have ended in bloodshed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by the Physics Mafia. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[White Hat]] is mad at physicists in general and directs his fury at [[Megan]], a physicist. He has a theory and blames physicists for suppressing it. He believes that no one takes it seriously because his theory would disrupt the standard model in physics. He believes they do this because his theory would be inconvenient to accept, causing them to have to change their current models.

Megan is not taking him seriously (or is she?) and instead states that she did not know that physicists had a Mafia that was able to suppress anyone from publishing annoying results. She continues that if such a group were there to do so, then why were they not there to stop the people who published results about dark energy?

Although she must admit that they (physicists) later gave them a {{w|Nobel Prize}} (in {{w|List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Physics#Laureates|2011}}), she's still mad at them for the "trouble" this new concept caused for other physicists, including her.

{{w|Dark energy}} is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe. Even though "dark energy" is a direct consequence of {{w|Albert Einstein|Albert Einstein's}} "{{w|cosmological constant}}" in the field equations of {{w|general relativity}}, it's actual discovery was still seen as a surprise within the physics community. Even Einstein had great trouble accepting it, calling it his "greatest blunder"{{Citation needed}}. In the comic, Megan says that if scientists were able to suppress inconvenient ideas, dark energy would likely have been such a case.

She also indirectly says to White Hat that if he actually had some results, not just a theory that contradicts known physics, then the results would not have been suppressed. The reason the "dark energy people" got a nobel prize is that the experiments and measurements show that they were onto something real. It seems like White Hat currently only has a model, and not data, to back his theory up. This is the real joke.

The title text mentions {{w|BICEP2}} (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization) which was part of a series of instruments used to measure the polarization of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). On 17 March 2014, it was announced, to much fanfare, that BICEP2 had detected B-modes from gravitational waves in the early universe (called primordial gravitational waves). A few years later, this announcement had to be backtracked as it was found that most, if not all, of the reported signal was actually due to interstellar dust within the Milky Way.{{Citation needed}}

The title text notes that if there had been a physics mafia, then those results would have ended in bloodshed due to the controversy they caused.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat, with his hands balled into fist and held up above him, is talking with Megan.]
:White Hat: You physicists are suppressing my theory because it's inconvenient for your models!
:Megan: Wait, we have a mafia that can suppress annoying results?
:Megan: ''Why didn't they do something about the dark energy people?!''
:Megan: We gave them a Nobel prize but I'm still mad at them!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]

2113: Physics Suppression

2019-02-18T17:15:12Z

162.158.79.113: Not a proper noun

{{comic
| number = 2113
| date = February 18, 2019
| title = Physics Suppression
| image = physics_suppression.png
| titletext = If physics had a mafia, I'm pretty sure the BICEP2 mess would have ended in bloodshed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by the Physics Mafia. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[White Hat]] is mad at physicists in general and directs his fury at [[Megan]], a physicist. He has a theory and blames physicists for suppressing it. He believes that no one takes it seriously because his theory would disrupt the standard model in physics. He believes they do this because his theory would be inconvenient to accept, causing them to have to change their current models.

Megan is not taking him seriously (or is she?) and instead states that she did not know that physicists had a Mafia that was able to suppress anyone from publishing annoying results. She continues that if such a group were there to do so, then why were they not there to stop the people who published results about dark energy?

Although she must admit that they (physicists) later gave them a {{w|Nobel Prize}} (in {{w|List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Physics#Laureates|2011}}), she's still mad at them for the "trouble" this new concept caused for other physicists, including her.

{{w|Dark energy}} is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe. Even though "dark energy" is a direct consequence of {{w|Albert Einstein|Albert Einstein's}} "{{w|cosmological constant}}" in the field equations of {{w|general relativity}}, it's actual discovery was still seen as a surprise within the physics community. Even Einstein had great trouble accepting it, calling it his "greatest blunder"{{Citation needed}}. In the comic, Megan says that if scientists were able to suppress inconvenient ideas, dark energy would likely have been such a case.

She also indirectly says to White Hat that if he actually had some results, not just a theory that contradicts known physics, then the results would not have been suppressed. The reason the "Dark energy people" got a nobel prize is that the experiments and measurements show that they were onto something real. It seems like White Hat currently only has a model, and not data, to back his theory up. This is the real joke.

The title text mentions {{w|BICEP2}} (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization) which was part of a series of instruments used to measure the polarization of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). On 17 March 2014, it was announced, to much fanfare, that BICEP2 had detected B-modes from gravitational waves in the early universe (called primordial gravitational waves). A few years later, this announcement had to be backtracked as it was found that most, if not all, of the reported signal was actually due to interstellar dust within the Milky Way.{{Citation needed}}

The title text notes that if there had been a physics mafia, then those results would have ended in bloodshed due to the controversy they caused.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat, with his hands balled into fist and held up above him, is talking with Megan.]
:White Hat: You physicists are suppressing my theory because it's inconvenient for your models!
:Megan: Wait, we have a mafia that can suppress annoying results?
:Megan: ''Why didn't they do something about the dark energy people?!''
:Megan: We gave them a Nobel prize but I'm still mad at them!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]

Talk:2112: Night Shift

2019-02-18T10:33:47Z

162.158.79.113:

Lot of vandals, lately... :( {{unsigned ip|162.158.75.10}}
:Yeah, like you! Stop deleting my edits![[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.215|108.162.246.215]] 17:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
::I think you're doing it wrong. That or your IP address changed between your edits & your comment here. There are no edits from your IP address in the history for this page. If you sign your posts by finishing with "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>" it's easier to track the changes & know for sure if someone's messing with you.
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 18:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
:::The user's IP is very similar to the one that posted "(This mode also causes your phone to broadcast EM radiation at the frequency of human thought, allowing Jewish interests control over your brain and psyche)". Statements like that should really be couched in phrasing that indicates they are contested beliefs rather than agreed-upon facts. I really feel marketing interests are of all variety of religious persuasions. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.178|162.158.78.178]]
::::Agreed; This site is a reference document, & as such should strive to provide verifiable facts (not opinion) & to include citations when providing contested information. Also, the user seems to be accusing Jewish peoples in particular, which could easily cross the line into hate-speech. In my opinion, ''any'' business has a financial interest in deception, manipulation &\or obfuscation; I believe the most plausible conspiracy is one motivated by greed, not religious affiliation. At the very least, the claim that electronic devices contain circuits specifically designed to emit electromagnetic waves which influence our behavior, should be accompanied by citations of a peer-reviewed journal or other appropriate source. It would be pretty hard to hide such a design completely, since 1) electronic devices must register their circuit diagrams prior to approval for sale & 2) such designs would require significant numbers of people involved in order to reach full production, much less widespread production via numerous brands manufactured all over the world. Most conspiracy theories of this type fall apart under the simple challenge of "how many people would have to be keeping it a secret?" In this case, people from all variety of commercial organizations, religions, locations, & lifestyles would have to be in on it; seems unlikely in the extreme, before even getting into the technical challenges such a plan would face.[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 19:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::I think if an opinion is common, it could be relevant to mention, especially if it's something Randall may have been exposed to as the comic could be referencing it. But it shouldn't be stated as fact if it's controversial. I don't think this site usually requires peer-reviewed citations, although links that support things are always nice. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.47|162.158.79.47]] 23:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
::I don't see lots of vandals or many deleted edits. But if critical things happen please mention it in the [[explain xkcd:Community portal/Admin requests|Admin requests]] section at the Community portal. And please don't forget to sign your comments. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
::Please stop this chaotic discussion and do not move earlier replies like mine to the bottom! And please understand that all anonymous IP addresses just belong to a proxy, even you can appear by this IP when not signed in. Vandalism happens, look at Wikipedia, but it always turns out that it's better just to revert those edits rather than try to talk to those editors. They don't listen. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This one in particular also falls apart on the “why would they do it that way?” front. If people ''did'' build mind-control circuitry into phones, why would they tie that feature to white balance? All three of the pixel colors (red, green, and blue) are still in use in both modes, just in different amounts. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.29|172.68.142.29]] 20:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The new phrasing of altering one's neurochemistry is technically correct, as the pixels of an electronic display do project the EM radiation that is responsible for the light we see. The joke could use some context that this is technically true of displays, although many believe there are interests that wirelessly alter their thoughts, and that this view is generally heavily disregarded. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.178|162.158.78.178]] 18:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

As a jew, i have to say. We didn't put the mind control stuff into your phone. That was the WASPS. We put the mind control stuff into physics itself. 02:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC) {{unsigned ip|172.68.59.84}}

Maybe, instead of actually mindcontrolling people, it just alters their text to make it appear that they're being less opinionated? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.30|162.158.167.30]] 09:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

:I'd say that's pretty obviously the intended method, yes. The idea that there is some kind of reference to mind control in this seems a bit... paranoid. Which isn't really to say that your phone/news feed doesn't affect your behaviour and emotional state. That's been demonstrated to be true a few times. But a tin-foil hat isn't going to help anything like as much as shutting it off will.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.228|172.68.65.228]] 06:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't ''believe'' that for comic #2112 there is not a single [https://www.rush.com/albums/2112/ Rush reference.] {{unsigned ip|172.68.59.84}}

:I blame the priests. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 05:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
:That's cuz no one knows who they are.
::They are the priests of the temples of Syrinx...(oh, wait, you mean that no one knows who *Rush* are; see below)
:And yet comic #1984 doesn't have any reference to <cite>1984</cite>. I haven't heard of Rush and I had only seen any reference to the number 2112 in <cite>Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock</cite>'s quest mode...
::So you claim to not know who Rush are, yet you know the Guitar Hero quest based on Rush’s seminal 2112 album. If true, then the image of someone sufficiently sheltered in their musical exposure to have had their first brush with the greatness of Rush come through a game brings me joy at knowing the game is introducing even more people to the musical brilliance of Getty Lee, Alex Lifeson, and Neil Peart. In keeping with the subject of this comic, “Night Shift Mode”, since I’m typing this due to insomnia that has me awake at 5am, I will resist the temptation to scream and rant at the comments of others and say simply that while Rush is indeed a very well know band (inducted into both Canadian and US Rock and Roll Halls of Fame) it is likely that Randal didn’t notice the connection between comic 2112 and the Rush album of the same title, or if he did, didn’t think it worth including in this comic. When the 2112 album was released Randal was a teenager (at the oldest; I’m guessing here, not bothering to look up trivia) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113|162.158.79.113]] 10:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Is it talking about politics and privilege, maybe? Politics could be intensity between blue and red; privilege could be balance between white and non-white . . . . [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.82|108.162.216.82]] 11:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
:I agree that the intensity and often lack of civility in racial discussions is very much apropos. Have added it to the explanation (white suppremacy, angry white men, etc.). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.6|162.158.106.6]] 23:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The value of brevity and directness is very much a cultural one. Women in American culture are discouraged from giving direct answers. Similarly, in Japanese culture, indirectness is more polite, e.g. [https://leo.stcloudstate.edu/kaleidoscope/volume3/direct.html American Directness and the Japanese] So the observation, which was in the explanation, that "In short, on the internet, we probably talk too much and don't cut to the chase enough." Probably originated from somebody coming from a culture that values directness (e.g. an American male.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.6|162.158.106.6]] 23:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2110: Error Bars

2019-02-11T17:45:04Z

162.158.79.113: different understanding of "propagating error"

I put in a little thing about fractals and Cantor sets, seemed relevant. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Would the series have a limit or would it continue on until the error bars go from infinity to +infinity?

That's not my understanding of "propagating error". I understand that phrase to mean that you're taking a measured value (that has uncertainty) and plugging it into a formula / using it calculate another value. Because of the way this works, the (absolute & relative) error on the newly calculated value is likely to be larger or smaller than the error in the original value (the overall size of the error bars changes). Randall's joke is that, instead of calculating the new error bars, he calculates error bars on the ends of his existing bars. I also agree with Netherin5 that there's a clear fractal reference here.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113|162.158.79.113]] 17:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC) hagmanti

Talk:2106: Sharing Options

2019-02-01T17:17:18Z

162.158.79.113:

Certainly true for Twitter where it's either public or private. (Nothing about 300, but the amount of requests one can accept over a lifetime is finite.) As for the "friends-of-friends" option, it's possible that Randall only has ~300 within that wider circle.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113|162.158.79.113]] 17:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:1789: Phone Numbers

2017-01-24T12:09:09Z

162.158.79.113:

Shouldn't this explanation mention the reason for this comic? Google updating Google Voice for the first time in 5 years? [https://blog.google/products/google-voice/ringing-2017-updates-our-google-voice-apps/] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.226|108.162.216.226]] 22:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I've definitely seen this comic before. Deja vu? [[User:OfftheRails|OfftheRails]] ([[User talk:OfftheRails|talk]]) 20:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
[http://www.xkcd.com/1254 #1254] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.219|162.158.74.219]] 21:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

“Also White Hat never actually answers the question originally posed by Cueball.” – AFAIS he should use the #2 (the Google voice one). --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 20:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

He sort of does answer the question: The Google voice number should be used. This is number 2, since 1 is cell, 3 doesn't do texts (Google voice does), 4 is obsolete, and 5 is work.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.46|162.158.214.46]] 06:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"Another reason I never call people." I can't remember any previous reason given, can anyone else? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.68|162.158.88.68]] 10:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The statement in the explanation that most cell phones can't save such detailed information is incorrect. Android and iOS both allow setting custom types for phone numbers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113|162.158.79.113]] 12:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)