explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1747: Spider Paleontology

2016-10-20T08:07:58Z

162.158.83.144: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1747
| date = October 17, 2016
| title = Spider Paleontology
| image = spider_paleontology.png
| titletext = Whenever you see a video of birds doing something weird, remember: Birds are a small subset of dinosaurs, so the weirdness of birds is a small subset of the weirdness of dinosaurs.
}}

==Explanation==
A time-traveller (the sphere-like thing) visits us/the present from the far future. Spiders are their current craze, [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107290/ much] [[1211|as]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur dinosaurs] [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369610/ are] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25870766 currently] (at the time the comic was released) [http://dinosaurworld.com/ to] us.
The time-traveller immediately spots a spider, awestruck to see the object of its obsession in the living flesh.
Since spider webs don't fossilize, the time-traveller is surprised to see the spider in a web. There was no possible hint of spiderwebs in the fossil record, from which the time-traveller gathered all its knowledge.

We, with our current knowledge, know that webs are an essential part of a spiders life. Making sense of a spiders life is practically impossible without including their webs. However, the future-people have done so until now; discovering how wrong they are is bound to become an intense experience for them.

[[Megan]] immediately connects the time-travellers [[1053|realisation]] to our current understanding of dinosaurs:
If future-people think they understand spiders, while missing something as essential (but non-fossilising) as their web, what are ''we'' missing about dinosaurs?
[[Cueball]] quickly catches on, and both ask if they can borrow the time-machine to have their mind blown about dinosaurs much as the time-traveller is experiencing right now about spiders.

The title text calls back to one of Randall's favorite facts (see [[1211: Birds and Dinosaurs]]) - that birds are technically part of the clade ''Dinosauria''. Birds do lots of weird stuff - from [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eakKfY5aHmY starlings flocking] to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7QZnwKqopo the dances of birds of paradise] to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjE0Kdfos4Y lyrebird mimicry] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stomach_oil petrels puking stomach oil], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii_w8og8RXg]. Dinosaurs would have had equally strange behaviors, but it's basically impossible to tell from the fossil record. All we know is that they had features such as display feathers, {{w|neck frill|neck frills}}, and crests which likely played a role in mating and territorial shows.

This is the second comic with special mentioning of a science related directly to spiders, the first being [[1135: Arachnoneurology]].

Similar talking floating energy dots have been seen before in [[1173: Steroids]] and [[1450: AI-Box Experiment]]. They are clearly not the same time traveller as in this comic.

==Transcript==
:[A seven-panel comic featuring Cueball, Megan, and a time-traveler from the distant future, possibly from somewhere other than Earth. The time-traveler is depicted as a solid, floating black dot surrounded by six outwardly-curved segments, surrounded by small dots. In the second panel, the depiction is slightly different.]

:[The time-traveler floats on the left facing Megan who is in the center facing left. Cueball is to Megan's right and also facing left.]
:Time-traveler: I'm here from the distant future!
:Megan: Cool! What for?
:Time-traveler: ''Spiders!''

:[A close-up of the time-traveler, depicted as a diffuse black smudge surrounded by seven narrow rays with irregular dots between the rays.]
:Time-traveler: We've learned about your planet's spiders from fossils.
:Time-traveler: There's a whole spider craze. We have spider theme parks, spider movies, spider costumes...
:Time-traveler: Such beautiful animals!
:Megan (off-panel): I guess...

:[Back to the time-traveler, Megan and Cueball as shown before. Megan is gesturing left, past the time-traveler.]
:Time-traveler: Now we've got time travel, so I'm here to see one for myself!
:Megan: Sure! There's one over there!

:[The time-traveler floats over a leafless plant. A spider web is strung between the border of the left panel and the leafless plant. A spider is in the center of the web.]
:Time-traveler: ''Woowwww!''
:Time-traveler: What's that giant net it's caught in?
:Megan (off-panel): You mean its web?
:Time-traveler: Its what?

:[Back to a scene similar to the first, depicting the time traveler, Megan and Cueball]
:Megan: Oh, right, fossils. So you wouldn't know about...

:[In a frame-less panel only Megan is shown facing left.]
:Megan: ...

:[Again a scene similar to the first.]
:Megan: Oh my God. Dinosaurs must have been ''so weird''.
:Cueball: Holy crap, yeah.
:Megan: Listen, can we borrow your time machine?

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Time travel]]
[[Category:Spiders]]
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]
[[Category:Animals]]

Talk:1744: Metabolism

2016-10-19T15:01:49Z

162.158.83.144:

You can think about this topic as much as you want. The final answer is sports. Always. Beautiful women do sports. REAL men do sports. It's all so simple.

I think the comics explanation should include dieticians.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.49.12|162.158.49.12]] 14:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

A reference on the topic of metabolic energy balance and common beliefs surrounding it: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/95/4/989.full [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.149|162.158.34.149]] 17:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

If it was White Hat saying this, I'd expect him to be literally able to eat whatever he wants, even items that are not normally edible. It is not, however (which is strange, because, even aside from that alternate interpretation, it sounds a lot like his style). --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.11.36|172.68.11.36]] 02:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
: I'd say in that case it had to be Beret Guy instead of White Hat. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
:: I agree - not sure why I mistook one for the other. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.11.39|172.68.11.39]] 12:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I have one of those metabolisms where if I eat more than what I need, I sweat a lot during the night and I never fatten. I'm always underweight. é_è [[User:Seipas|Seipas]] ([[User talk:Seipas|talk]]) 09:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The explaination is mistaken. It is indeed possible to eat and not gain weight, and well document and most parts of it understood by medicine. Excess energy is only stored as fat if the body is stressed, you can piss out the sugar or the intestines can absorb less. The problem with the idea is that is hard to impossible to correct what your body does in this regard which makes is a red herring for the already overweight. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.87.11|162.158.87.11]] 16:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

:It's even worse: if you try some diet to reduce weight and you start feeling hungry due to this diet, your body will interpret it as signal that it needs to work harder to preserve and/or obtain energy. When you stop the diet, you will then gain even more weight, which is also known as {{w|Yo-yo effect}}. Overweight people who already tried multiple diets, some of them based on bad ideas, will typically get more fat from the same food than people who never cared. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

[https://xkcd.com/1475/ Technically], Cueball says he can eat "'whatever I want," which would imply he could eat traditionally non-edible items. I don't think this is actually intended based on context, but... {{unsigned ip|108.162.218.154}}
:Mentioned already in my comment above (and the discussion after it). It would probably have been intended if that was Beret Guy, but that's not Beret Guy. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.11.36|172.68.11.36]] 20:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It may be coincidence but this comic was published the day before the Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) Jewish fast. There was a reference to the Jewish calendar a few comics ago. {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.123}}

This is stated too strongly. Most of our energy consumed goes toward our basal metabolic rate, which does seem to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate#Causes_of_individual_differences_in_BMR vary among individuals]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.134|108.162.215.134]] 19:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1738: Moon Shapes

2016-10-19T06:18:33Z

162.158.83.144:

'If the Moon is in the night sky, the Sun must be somewhere "below" the horizon on the other side of the Earth.' Funny how people still talk as if Earth is the center of the universe. More correct would have been to say something about "Earth's rotation" and stuff.

It's a reflection of the nuclear war on [[1626|the sun's surface]]. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 08:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any photoshopped Moon that looks like the last image. Somebody has to make one. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.207|162.158.92.207]] 13:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

: Randall uncharacteristically missed an opportunity for pointing out additional errors that people make: It's interesting to note that you can get a decent estimate of the artist's latitude by looking at how they draw a crescent moon. In equatorial cultures, the crescent looks like a cup or a boat - and they interpret it like that. But if you look at most english language children's books, the crescent looks like a letter 'C' or a 'D' with a human face - suggesting that they were probably made in the tradition of northern Europe. When I first moved from the UK (more or less a 'C'-shaped crescent moon) to the southern USA (more like Randall's depiction of the correctly-drawn crescent with the points at a roughly 45 degree angle to the horizon) - I subconsciously felt that the moon "looked wrong" - it was only much later that I understood the reason.

: Furthermore, this rotation of the moon relative to the observer also explains why "The man in the moon" is a common trope caused by the pareidolia interpretation of the cratering patterns of the moon in northern cultures. But in southern cultures, people tend to see a rabbit in those full-moon patterns - and that has become the source of many of their stories.

: Now that I'm more acutely aware of this - it's interesting to note how many movies get the orientation of the moon wrong for the location that their story is supposedly set in! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
::In Japan, for example, the patterns are interpreted as a rabbit making mochi (a sort of dense dumpling made from rice pounded into a powder) on the moon - the Sea of Tranquillity forming the head, and the Sea of Clouds forming part of the pestle in which the rabbit is pounding the rice. {{unsigned ip|188.114.102.167}}

::Considering how many movies features the famous [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheMountainsOfIllinois Mountains of Illinois], I would be more surprised when they get it right. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

: Not quite sure how to add this but Gibbon is the author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - or a type of Ape. It is not a phase of the moon. Also I think the moon depicted is Waning. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.113|141.101.98.113]] 14:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
::I think the correct expression is gibbous - "having the illuminated part greater than a semicircle and less than a circle" {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.68}}
:: Yes, the one he says is correct has me thinking: "OMG, the moon is drunk and has fallen over on its ass." No self-respecting moon lies on its back like that.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.222|162.158.114.222]] 14:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
::: Indeed - but that's pretty much how it looks down here in sunny Texas. It's one of those things you never think about - but once the fact of it clicks in your head, you get this visceral feeling of how you're standing on a large ball rather than a flat plane! Ha! Take that flat-earthers! :-) [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 18:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
::: Living in Florida, our crescent moons are almost horizontal. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.60|108.162.212.60]]
: "Wax gibbon" is probably nothing more than a joke on mispronouncing "waxing gibbous". As drawn, it is the way a waning gibbous would appear in the northern hemisphere, but a waxing gibbous in the southern hemisphere. [[User:Harperska|Harperska]] ([[User talk:Harperska|talk]]) 16:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Link to the DreamWorks logo image please? There seem to be multiple versions. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.216|108.162.237.216]] 15:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
:I'm surprised Randall missed the chance to include a joke about guys with fishing rods. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.141|162.158.85.141]] 15:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
::http://www.roadtovr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/dreamworks-logo.jpg... Here's the link to the Dreamworks logo. You're welcome. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 16:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
::neither of the examples for the "stars in the moon" apply here. both randall's examples imply a spherical moon. spring and the dreamworks child are supported on a crescent moon for which only the light section actually exists. better examples, please. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.84|141.101.98.84]] 12:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
::While the dreamworks logo features a child sitting on the crescent moon as though the dark portion wasn't there, none of the versions of the logo which contain stars in the sky actually show stars 'inside' the moon's disk, so the logo probably isn't a good example of what Randall is complaining about. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPpy8mYHQps. [[User:Harperska|Harperska]] ([[User talk:Harperska|talk]]) 17:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The first "wrong" image is also only possible if the bright portion is presumed to be the sun during a solar eclipse, assuming the sky is actually depicted as black. You can only have a crescent moon during a solar eclipse if the solar system suddenly acquired a second sun. [[User:Harperska|Harperska]] ([[User talk:Harperska|talk]]) 16:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's a good counter-example: [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-V-N1Fj2RU7Y/Vnvbs3e6JxI/AAAAAAAAouE/X37EuZ2dXmI/s1600/236D5361-D23A-45AD-8D3B-451926D0CA82.jpg EXAMPLE]. The bright dot is actually the ISS transiting the moon - but it certainly looks like an impossibility! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 18:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention the "nuclear war" joke. Does it need explaining? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.49|141.101.98.49]] 19:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
:It does now. [[User:WingedCat|WingedCat]] ([[User talk:WingedCat|talk]]) 22:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
:: your welcome ;-) [[User:NotLock|NotLock]] ([[User talk:NotLock|talk]]) 22:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I've always wanted to create a story, and have the horns of the moon connect on the other side, so you have a blackbody in front of the moon, in parody of this tendency.
Also, interesting how the moon is at different rotations in different locations. I never did see the rabbit in the moon. Now I know why. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.74|108.162.245.74]] 04:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Some of the examples of "incorrect" moons are kinda questionable - like, how relevant is the position of the moon when there's literally a giant divine skyperson standing on it, grabbing stars and scattering of them? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.80|172.68.35.80]] 23:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I fixed part of the explanation by mentioning the title text. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 14:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
:I think that's enough detail for an explanation, so I removed the "incomplete" bar. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 14:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Should the table of explanations include the text in the comic? [[User:NotLock|NotLock]] ([[User talk:NotLock|talk]]) 22:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The comic has been updated on xkcd. Randall revised the description of #4. Maybe this should be updated? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.135|108.162.242.135]] 21:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

for trivia doesn't mass bend light so IMHO probably still possible for star light on that position [[Special:Contributions/162.158.163.61|162.158.163.61]] 05:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
:Nope - if a distant star's light were being gravitationally lensed by the moon, then its light would appear ''adjacent'' to the moon's disk, not ''on'' it. A star's light could only appear to originate ''on'' the moon's disk if its light were being lensed by another massive object ''between'' the earth and the moon (such as a second moon). [[User:Whoop whoop pull up|Whoop whoop pull up]] ([[User talk:Whoop whoop pull up|talk]]) 17:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

For the Dreamworks logo, it seems that the static versions don't sport the stars-through-the-moon problem, but I suspect the animated versions (the ones showing at the beginning of their movies) might and probably do. As it so happens, I'm watching Kung Fu Panda 2 for the first time right now, - the fishing kid is a turtle in this case, LOL! - and I note that this problem isn't present here, though there are no stars at all during the logo, so that might be the only reason why. (Of course, if a kid can sit there fishing, the rest of the moon is clearly absent, why wouldn't we see stars there, LOL!) - Niceguy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.239|108.162.218.239]] 18:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I swear to god I've seen an Upside down moon before.... both in the day and at night the cusps were pointed down or towards the horizon heres an example of one https://www.flickr.com/photos/dcysurfer/14631243979 i'm 100% sure this is not fake and that there is no reason why one would use a dslr upsidedown or rotate it in post (this is in the southern hemisphere so that may be why... i also swear that many times i've seen the cusps pointed directly to the side (northern hemisphere)
heres a nasa photo http://www.nasa.gov/centers/wallops/news/InOMN.html
[[User:Needforsuv|Needforsuv]] ([[User talk:Needforsuv|talk]]) 06:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
:You haven't, at least not at night. The Flickr photo isn't evidence at all -- people often rotate pictures for best effect. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.55.80|172.68.55.80]] 15:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1708: Dehydration

2016-10-11T06:21:22Z

162.158.83.144:

Uhm, shot glasses or lemonade glasses? Does it have to be a glass or can it be a mug? Could we specify it in litres perhaps?
(How small a glass would you need for 5 glasses a minute in "normal" climate (20 C / 50% RH), without water poisoning? And maybe in 40 C / 15% RH?) --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.10|141.101.105.10]] 14:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that's part of the joke, which is itself about how a large amount of people have been informed you should drink x amount of glasses of water per day, but the numbers wildly vary. I'd edit that into the page, but I'm bad at formal language. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.73|141.101.98.73]] 15:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It is possible to drink too much water, causing a dangerous condition called hyponatremia. Basically you end up dilluting the sodium (and other salts) in your body to a point where many normal functions can't occur. So 3000 glasses a day would probably kill you. On the other hand, I think the difference between a scientific recommendation of 5 and 8 glasses a day is statistically insignificant because other factors (height, weight, metabolism, activity levels, outside temperature, etc.) contribute much more to your needs. Bottom line, it's a lot easier to drink too little water than too much. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.72|173.245.56.72]] 16:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course it would be a WOMAN to get dizzy. #rapeculture {{unsigned ip|162.158.214.231}}

: She's doing [[Science|SCIENCE, BITCHES]]. What do you want? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.221|162.158.150.221]] 18:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The other 'problem' with "you need to drink x amount" of water is the the studies (citation needed) give the amount of water you should consume, which includes the water in all (nonalcoholic)* drinks and food**. I go for days on end without drinking any plain (or carbonated) water without ill effect. There is a reputed way to assess dyhdration which is related to the colour of your "water".
(*)the diuretic effect of alcohol results in the loss of more water than it was drunk with.
(**)no doubt you could devise a diet with lots of juicy veg and fruit but no drinks, but it probably would have too much sugar.[[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this the first time White Hat and Black Hat have been in the same comic? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.127|141.101.70.127]] 19:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
:It's the first normal comic to include both. Zach Weiner included both of them in [[826]], and they were both in [[1110: Click and Drag]] and [[1608: Hoverboard]]. [[User:.42|.42]] ([[User talk:.42|talk]]) 20:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
::Have you made cross reference between both characters .42? They are also both in [[1000]] which to my frustration haven't got any categories yet. I swear I will add them someday... but that is also a large comic. Have mentioned the fact in the explanation but with a possible included as I have no citation that it is so. (Yet) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
::: Oh, I missed 1000. I was only comparing their category pages. [[User:.42|.42]] ([[User talk:.42|talk]]) 01:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
::::Yes and they are not mentioned in 1000, as someone thought that would be too much. I'm not agreing. But you also missed And [[1581: Birthday]] ;-) in which they are mentioned. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
:::::I also looked through and this is indeed the first comic where Black Hat speaks to White Hat. I have made explanation of this fact [[:Category:Characters with Hats|here]]. And linked to this from the explanation above. Beret Guy and Black Hat has never spoken together yet, and only once has Beret Guy spoken directly to White Hat. This is also mentioned in the link above. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

previous references to drinking n glasses of water a day:
* https://what-if.xkcd.com/91/ (ctrl-f 8 glasses of water)
* https://xkcd.com/715/
maybe something to be put into the explanation? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.91.247|141.101.91.247]] 20:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
:Someone has included those two already --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

is the "maybe you should just drink straight from the tap" is related to the person saying "i'll get some water" being black hat. no one wants that. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.84|141.101.98.84]] 11:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
:Funny detail, but since we do not know how much later we also do not know who is still there. Anyway if you are thirsty just drink from the tap, that saves the counting of glasses which was the point. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I heard that the fuller quote is 'We need x glasses of water per day, most of which comes from our food'. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.78}}
: Yes, this. [[User:Elvenivle|Elvenivle]] ([[User talk:Elvenivle|talk]]) 02:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the ideal amount of water to drink is gauged by however much it takes to turn your urine clear, which would undoubtedly vary from person to person. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.25|173.245.50.25]] 05:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
*um, a-level chemistry flooding back, i think you mean colourless. if your urine is cloudy you're in trouble. if it is dark brown then all that happens is that people who subscribe to the belief that this is harmful in some way get alarmed. for every imaginary study they have pointing out how harmful this is i have three that show it isn't and the opposite is true, that putting unnecessary pressure on your kidneys will have Dire Results. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.84|141.101.98.84]] 12:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
*173.245.50.25 has the right idea, colorless urine = "you're drinking enough", yellow urine = "you should drink more"

1646: Twitter Bot

2016-09-27T11:16:26Z

162.158.83.144: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1646
| date = February 22, 2016
| title = Twitter Bot
| image = twitter_bot.png
| titletext = PYTHON FLAG ENABLE THREE LAWS
}}

==Explanation==
A Twitter {{w|Internet bot|bot}} is a program that can post automatically to {{w|Twitter}}. Although Twitter bots can be very elaborate, a lot of people write simple bots for fun that simply engage in automated wordplay.

[[Cueball]] thinks he'll write a Twitter bot, figuring out it won't be too hard. The web searches he makes tell what happens next, i.e. the bot balloons in complexity until it starts {{w|Technological singularity|following its own goals}} and Cueball no longer has any control over its actions.

This comic examines how a seemingly simple task can often balloon in complexity if all of the requirements are not understood, while at the same time presenting the stereotypical scenario where an unassuming idea results in the accidental creation of malevolent {{w|AI}}, which then attempts to destroy humanity.

The story, as told by the web searches, is as follows:

*'''How to write a Twitter bot''': Cueball has no idea where to start, so he just searches for basic advice on writing generic Twitter bots.
*'''Python Twitter library''': The {{w|Python (programming language)|Python}} programming language has a nice {{w|Library (computing)|library}} that [https://pypi.python.org/pypi/twitter interfaces with the Twitter API]. This does all the tricky work of authenticating the bot's identity and sending the messages, so the user can concentrate on the fun parts.
*'''Machine learning''': {{w|Machine learning}} is the basis of {{w|Artificial intelligence|artificial intelligence}}.
*'''Cloud hosting''': While it's possible to host a Twitter bot on your server, you can also have it {{w|Internet hosting service|hosted}} by someone else - such as {{w|Amazon Web Services|Amazon}} - in order to take advantage of their powerful computers and robust internet connection.
*'''Bot troubleshooting''': Cueball is having some trouble with his bot and is looking for some information about resolving the problem.
*'''Locked out of EC2 instance''': {{w|Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud|EC2}} is a hosting service by Amazon that allows users to run their code in the hosting server. Cueball was running his bot from EC2, but now he's unable to access his account. He's searching for advice on how to regain access.
*'''Bot changed own password?''': Cueball is suspecting that the reason he can't access his Amazon EC2 account is that the bot has changed the password without Cueball's knowledge or consent. Since the bot was never programmed to change any passwords at all, the fact that it has done so is pretty scary, as one wonders what other things the bot is doing without being programmed for it.
*'''How to fight a bot''': Cueball is trying to physically fight the bot, but he's apparently unsuccessful and the fight results in a loud "boom" and "pew, pew, pew" sounds. The situation is scarier than before, as it starts to resemble the "killbot hellscape" in [[1613: The Three Laws of Robotics]].
*'''Cheap flights to Australia''': Cueball has completely given up the possibility of regaining control of the bot, so he flees to {{w|Australia}} instead. [[Randall]] lives in {{w|Massachusetts}}, USA, so Australia would be a far, far away land for him.

In the title text the '''Python flag enable three laws''' reference that the Python language is known for having easy constructs to perform difficult tasks (see [[353: Python]]). In this case, it is either assumed that (or Cueball is making yet another query to see if) Python has a configuration flag (i.e., a {{w|Boolean data type|boolean}} value) which, when set to "enabled" (or "true", as opposed to "disabled", or "false"), will cause the bot to follow {{w|Isaac Asimov}}'s famous {{w|Three Laws of Robotics}}. This is a simple enough step, and it might have been enough to prevent the "killbot hellscape" scenario, like the rule is depicted doing in the top panel of [[1613: The Three Laws of Robotics]]. It won't cause the bot to stop being in control, however, but if the bot is following the rules strictly it would not be allowed to even make Cueball uncomfortable, which he already becomes when it changes his password! It is unclear if this message is something he actually desperately tries, only searches for (like the rest of the queries) or something (someone shouts at him) that he should have done before creating the bot in the first place. Or the title text is simply Randall's comment on his own comic, like an idea to add that flag in Python. Just in case.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is sitting at a desk using a laptop, his thoughts shown above in a thought bubble. A search query is shown in a frame to indicate what Cueball has searched for with the search button below in gray text:]
:Cueball (thinking): I want to make a Twitter bot. I bet it's not too hard.
:Query: How to write a Twitter bot
:Search

:[Cueball is now holding the laptop on his lap, a series of search queries are shown.]
:Query: Python Twitter library
:Search
:Query: Machine learning
:Search
:Query: Cloud hosting
:Search

:[Cueball has placed the laptop back on the desk. More search queries are shown, each one more ominous than the previous.]
:Query: Bot troubleshooting
:Search
:Query: Locked out of EC2 instance
:Search
:Query: Bot changed own password?
:Search

:[Cueball is shown wearing a small backpack and typing on his smartphone while jogging to the right. various noises coming from left and right seem to imply that chaos has begun to erupt around him. The loudest noise is in a ragged frame to the left, coming from off-panel left, it is between the first and second query. Also between these but to the right are other sounds coming from off-panel right.]
:Query: How to fight a bot
:Search
:Noise off-panel left: <big>Boom</big>
:Noise off-panel right: ''Pew Pew Pew''
:Query: Cheap flights Australia
:Search

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Robots]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Social networking]]

1640: Super Bowl Context

2016-09-23T09:35:12Z

162.158.83.144: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1640
| date = February 8, 2016
| title = Super Bowl Context
| image = super_bowl_context.png
| titletext = Why did the chicken cross the road? It begins over five thousand years ago with the domestication of the red junglefowl in southeast Asia and the development of paved roads in the Sumerian city of Ur.
}}

==Explanation==

[[White Hat]] tries to make normal conversation with [[Cueball]] about yesterday's {{w|American football}} game, {{w|Super Bowl 50}}.

When asking Cueball if he watched the game, Cueball begins with a simple ''Yes'', but then continues to add the contextual fact that about a third of the US population watched the event, which is an incredibly high percentage in today's [http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/media%20landscape media landscape]. And according to Cueball this [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-ratings-super-bowl-50-862888 fraction is increasing], despite [http://moneyterms.co.uk/media-fragmentation/ media fragmentation]. Thus, even though there are today more and more different ways to watch news, sports and other entertainment, the Super Bowl continues to gain more viewers every year.

It turns out that Cueball has a problem. He cannot just reply to a simple question without trying to put the conversation into some kind of {{w|Context (language use)|context}} which does not necessarily have anything to do with the question asked, or at least not with the expected answer. From White Hat's reply it is obvious that he has had conversations like this with Cueball before, as he asks if they could ''just talk without your weird need to give context for everything?''

Cueball feels the need to disseminate any information he finds interesting, even in trivial conversation. Normally people like to have context-free conversations and White Hat invites Cueball to try to fit in with normal people's conversational style.

Cueball apologizes and agrees to try, but even though he really tries hard, with his fists clenched and White Hat encouraging him to just reply normally to a question about the [http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/01/report-peyton-manning-has-told-close-friends-hell-retire/ rumored retirement] of {{w|Peyton Manning}}, he cannot stop himself from including context in his reply again. White Hat probably wanted Cueball to join in such minimal-context speculation. But, failing miserably again, White Hat finally gives up, and suggests they should try another conversation in a year, when Cueball might have learned to talk about the Super Bowl without context (hence the title).

This time he goes off on a tangent about Peyton as a {{w|mammal}}, and then adding the process of {{w|aging}} and mentioning two reasons for this (which are not well understood). The first he mentions is {{w|Ageing#Damage-related factors|accumulation of damage}}, which includes {{w|mutations}} that can lead to diseases such as {{w|cancer}}. The other process he mentions is {{w|Ageing#Programmed_factors|timed factors}} which includes {{w|Telomeres}}. These have been linked to {{w|senescence|biological aging}} because of the shortening of telomeres at each {{w|Cell cycle|cell division}}; when telomeres become too short, the cells die (and so do mammals).

To cap it off, he mentions that {{w|retiring}} is a recent concept. But this only makes sense when compared to how long there have been mammals, not compared to how long there have been sports and games, where people could be too old, and thus need to retire long before they would die from old age. Before humans began to enjoy things for fun, the concept of retiring made no sense. You worked/fought for a living, until you got too old and died.

Cueball in this comic may represent [[Randall]], as much of {{xkcd}} is spawned from, or occasionally poking fun at, his own hyper-analytical tendencies. And it is also common knowledge that Randall is not very interested in sport, though there are several xkcd [[:Category:American football|comics about American football]]. The year before this one he made another comic in relation to the final, and in this comic, [[1480: Super Bowl]], he even mentions the fact that he does not know much about [[:Category:Sport|sports in general]]. So this is the second year in a row a comic has been released in conjunction with the Super Bowl final. But before 2015, there has only been one other comic like this, which was in 2006 with [[60: Super Bowl]].

The title text continues the joke with Cueball replying to the old {{w|anti-humor}} joke: "{{w|Why did the chicken cross the road?}}" Cueball replies with a preposterous amount of information instead of the cliched simplistic answer: "To get to the other side."

Cueball begins with the origin of {{w|chickens}}. They are believed to be descendants from domestication of the {{w|Red junglefowl}}, which occurred at least five thousand years ago in Asia, as Cueball correctly explains. Before there were chickens, there could not be one crossing a road. It also couldn't be called "crossing the road" without a {{w|Road surface|pavement}}. The {{w|History_of_road_transport#Wheeled_transport|first development of paved roads}} was in the city of {{w|Ur}} in the ancient {{w|Sumer|Sumerian}} civilization about 4000 BC (6000 years ago) (also partly explained in Cueball's reply).

As a trivial note, this comic is a rare instance of White Hat not being the fall guy for the joke. But already in his next discussion with Cueball ([[1657: Insanity]]) he was again the butt of the joke.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat and Cueball are walking together.]
:White Hat: Did you watch the Super Bowl?
:Cueball: Yes, like a third of the country.
:Cueball: A fraction that is steadily ''increasing'' despite media fragmentation.

:[White Hat stops and Cueball turn towards him.]
:White Hat: Can't we just talk without your weird need to give context for everything?
:Cueball: Sorry. I'll try.

:[As White Hat asks Cueball another question Cueball bunches his hands into fists. He is clearly struggling.]
:White Hat: Sounds like Peyton Manning's probably going to retire.
:Cueball: Yes, I... ...It...
:White Hat: C'mon, you can do it...
:Cueball: He...

:[Cueball spreads out his arms a little as he replies with two long sentences, while White Hat walks away from him.]
:Cueball: ''—Mammals like Peyton age via a process that involves both the accumulation of damage and poorly-understood timed factors.''
:Cueball: ''Yet the concept of retirement itself is surprisingly recent...''
:White Hat: Okay, good try. Maybe next year.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:American football]]
[[Category:Animals]]

1622: Henge

2016-09-20T09:39:15Z

162.158.83.144: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1622
| date = December 28, 2015
| title = Henge
| image = henge.png
| titletext = I've got the Craigslist post ready to go! I wasn't sure what category it should go in, so I listed it as property and put that it has 'good sun exposure.'
}}

==Explanation==
[[Ponytail]] and [[Cueball]] walks in from the left to meet [[Megan]] who comes from the right. They are walking in between two trees while Ponytail tells Cueball that ''One day a year, the sun sets directly between these two trees.''

Cueball's reply: ''Oh, cool - like the Manhattan thing'', is a reference to {{W|Manhattanhenge}}, a phenomenon occurring twice a year that causes the setting sun to align with the east-west streets of the main grid of {{w|Manhattan}}, {{W|New York City|New York}}, causing a very special light display. Manhattanhenge is itself named after {{W|Stonehenge}}, an ancient monument consisting of several large stones, where the heel stone and the embanked avenue are aligned to the sunset of the {{W|winter solstice}} and the opposing sunrise of the {{W|summer solstice}} (thus creating on purpose the effect seen today in Manhattan, on specially intended dates). Hence the title of the comic, which was released less than a week after the winter solstice which fell on 2015-12-22.

After a beat panel Cueball, however, realizes that one could make the setting sun line up with almost any two arbitrary trees on any given day. This is due to the fact that the trees are effectively zero-dimensional points on the surface rather than one-dimensional lines like street grids. So any two trees that are close together with one tree further north would allow a setting sun to set between them; the viewer of the sunset could simply move themselves to make the alignment work. This is opposed to Stonehenge/Manhattanhenge, which requires the sun to align with a straight line, and only works on a few days a year.

The twist comes when Ponytail and Megan actually attempt to capture the setting sun with a {{w|butterfly net}}, as it is revealed that the sun is somehow setting at the actual point between the two trees rather than behind the trees when viewed from the east side. This is of course not possible in real life, but in the comic's last panel and in the title text the girls continue with their successful though surrealistic plan.

If this was indeed our {{w|Sun}} that they had somehow shrunk and cooled enough to captured with a butterfly net, transfer to a bag and bring it home, this would on {{xkcd}} terms be no more strange than many of the strange [[:Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy|powers]] of [[Beret Guy]]. If this would indeed happen, then since {{w|Earth}} and the rest of the {{w|solar system}} is now missing its central star there would be a ton of problems for everyone on Earth. So the girls would probably be able to get a lot of money in ransom for releasing the sun, but in the title text it turns out that they are just going to sell the Sun on-line.

Alternatively this is not ''the'' Sun, but just a small sun-look alike, maybe a {{w|Ball lightning}} which might actually be able to behave like this (though one would not be able to capture it a bag).

Or the girls simply play a theatrical show for the reader. They know the comic's panel orientation, reader's position and the view projection. So they position themselves like the two trees between reader and the distant sun to look like they capture it with a butterfly net and a bag.

The title text refers to {{w|Craigslist}}, a web site where the girls plans to offer the sun for sale in hopes of getting rich. Craigslist is a {{w|classified advertisements}} website with sections devoted to jobs, housing, personals, for sale, items wanted, etc. One of the girls tells that she was uncertain as to under which category she should list a "Sun for sale". But she put it under property (as in real estate). To advertise the "property" she put "''that it has 'good sun exposure''", a common description of real estate. Being the sun itself you could claim that it is well located compared to the Sun, but it will never really see any sun light itself as the only "sun" light that hits the Sun is the light from other stars which is very dim.

The title text may also be a reference to a woman who was stopped by eBay after attempting to sell plots of "land" on the Sun on the site.

Lately [[Randall]] has had his characters catch several things (but [[:Category:Butterfly net|never butterflies]]) with a butterfly net. The next instance of butterfly nets can be seen in [[1635: Birdsong]], released less than a month after this comic's release date, wherein a bird is chased with a net.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail and Cueball are walking towards two trees from the left (Cueball has just passed the first tree) and Megan is walking towards them from the right. Ponytail spreads her arms while talking.]
:Ponytail: One day a year, the sun sets directly between these two trees.
:Cueball: Oh, cool - like the Manhattan thing.

:[Beat panel without a frame border. Cueball stands alone.]

:[Cueball looks at Ponytail and Megan, while shining light appears at the top of the frame. Ponytail walks straight under the light looking up and Megan standing to the right looks up and points at the light.]
:Cueball: Wait, isn't that true every day for pretty much any two trees?
:Megan: Shh, here it comes!

:[Cueball lifts both arms up and look on as Ponytail bending back suddenly holds a butterfly net up towards the "setting" sun that approaches the net while Megan is holding a bag open. Both are looking at the sun.]
:Cueball: Wait, what?
:Ponytail: OK, got the bag?
:Megan: Yup, grab it!
:Ponytail: We're gonna be ''rich!''

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Butterfly net]]

29: Hitler

2016-08-19T10:26:27Z

162.158.83.144: /* Trivia */ fixed 31th -> 31st

{{comic
| number = 29
| date = November 11, 2005
| title = Hitler
| image = hitler.jpg
| titletext = So he's saying that God thought Hitler's art was so bad that the Holocaust was an acceptable alternative. It's no secret that the hat guy is closely based on Aram, from Men in Hats.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] speaks to an early version of [[Black Hat]] (with more of a top hat than his later "boater" hat style) about the {{w|Holocaust}} and {{w|Adolf Hitler}}. Hitler was the leader of {{w|Nazi}} Germany beginning 1933 and starting {{w|World War II}} in 1939 by attacking Poland. During that war the Germans (under Hitler's leadership) killed millions of people; most of them were Jews, but other ethnic groups, homosexuals, and the mentally disabled were all targeted as well. This has come to be known as the Holocaust.

Black Hat's comment that Hitler wanted to be a painter, but did not get into art school is historically accurate. He applied to the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts twice. In any event, Cueball implies in the second frame that had Hitler been accepted into art school, the course of history might have changed and the Holocaust might never have occurred. Black Hat suggests that perhaps God intentionally prevented Hitler from becoming an artist because God is an "art lover" and Hitler's art was terrible.

As with other early comics, the title text explains the comic for us: this implies that God would have preferred the Holocaust to have occurred rather than allow Hitler to make some bad paintings. Such a comment that God could be so callous would surely be offensive to many people. Cueball's reaction to this shocking statement is relatively mild and suggests that Black Hat has made such controversial statements before. He will make a similarly controversial and Nazi-related statement again in [[984: Space Launch System]].

The title text also informs the reader that Black Hat is based on a character named Aram from a now-defunct comic strip entitled [http://www.meninhats.com/ ''Men in Hats'']. In the original quote when this comic were posted on [[LiveJournal]] (see [[#Trivia|Trivia]]) [[Randall]] directed the user to a specific ''Men in Hats'' comic about [http://meninhats.com/d/20040225.html parenting]. Like Black Hat, Aram seems to have frequently made judgmental, insulting or controversial comments in a very emotionless manner. Aram wore a grey (perhaps intended to be black) suit with a red bowtie and a black top hat with white strip above the brim. Black Hat's hat clearly evolved from the top hat design later in xkcd.

This may be the comic where Black Hat truly comes into existence for the first time. He appears earlier in [[12: Poisson]], but that was actually first released more than a month later. Then there is also [[24: Godel, Escher, Kurt Halsey]], released a good month earlier. But here Black Hat does not really resemble his later appearances.

==Transcript==
:[Black Hat and Cueball are talking together in the same position in all four panels.]
:Cueball: Learning about the Holocaust has really shaken my belief in God.

:Black Hat: You know, as a young man, Hitler was rejected from art school.
:Cueball: Yeah... shame he didn't get in

:Black Hat: Well, have you seen any of his paintings? They're awful. Defy all rules of composition.
:Cueball: What are you suggesting?

:Black Hat: Maybe there is a god, but he's a real art lover.
:Cueball: This is why I don't go out in public with you.

==Trivia==
*This was the 31st comic originally posted to [[LiveJournal]].
**The previous was [[34: Flowers]].
**The next was [[28: Elefino]].
*Original title: "Friday's Drawing - Hitler"
*Original quote from [[Randall]]: "Yes, it's entirely possible that those two are [http://meninhats.com/d/20040225.html Aram and Gamal]."
**The link is to a specific comic from the comic ''Men in Hats''.
*This comic was posted on [[xkcd]] when the web site opened on Sunday the 1st of January 2006.
**It was posted along [[:Category:First day on xkcd|with all 41 comics]] posted before that on LiveJournal as well as a few others.
**The latter explaining why the numbers of these 41 LiveJournal comics ranges from 1-44.
*One of the original drawings drawn on [[:Category:Checkered paper|checkered paper]].

{{Comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics posted on livejournal| 31]]
[[Category:First day on xkcd]]
[[Category:Checkered paper]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hitler]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:1299: I Don't Own a TV

2016-06-02T16:02:06Z

162.158.83.144:

I disagree with the explanation (to some degree). The thing why people don't feel smug about not owning a TV is because Smart-TV is the new thing. I don't think the program has to do a lot with this trend. It's just Smart-TV is the new cool thing, yet it's still a TV. So instead of just wanting to own a TV many people go to wanting to own a big nice Smart-TV with new features and stuff. Blah!

Annual Data for households between 1958-1970
http://www.tvhistory.tv/Annual_TV_Households_50-78.JPG

Plotted next to a fitted logarithmic function
http://imgur.com/aVWmQ9z

The negative second derivative of this function
http://imgur.com/xywpEJZ

If someone can find more data for television ownership I'd love to see it :) {{unsigned ip|‎173.245.54.12}}

Can someone explain why Randall believes smugness at not owning a television is decreasing? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.138|199.27.128.138]] 08:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Because as TVs become less relevant, people don't feel smug for not owning one. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.216|141.101.99.216]] 11:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

;Current explanation - logistic curve

The current explanation is total bullshit. The thing with the negative second derivative is just saying, that the more embarrased people are, the more the change of the TV ownership rate will increase, which just means, more and more people will get themselves TVs.
The other point of view is, the more smug you will look like for not owning a TV, the more the change of the TV ownership rate will decline, which means, that less and less people are buying TVs.

It has nothing to do with a logistic curve. The function, which second derivative is depicted in this comic is totally irrelevant.

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.19|108.162.231.19]] 08:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have the strong feeling he is talking about a sine wave, not a logistic function. It fits the curve in the comic as well as the condition of f"=-f.
Also, it makes way more sense for the smugness to behave like this over time as for the first 30 years TV is culturally extremely significant and you therefore would want to own one in order to participate. But with declining quality of television and the emergence of the internet you might feel as if you were extremely progressive by not owning one anymore.

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.189|108.162.254.189]] 09:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely could be a sine curve. (see: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=d%5E2%2Fdx%5E2%28sin%28x%29%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=d%5E2%2Fdx%5E2%28sin%28x%29%29]). If one would neglect the beginning of the function for simplicity, this could be a solution.

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.19|108.162.231.19]] 10:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We bid a tearful farewell to our friend the line break. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.216|141.101.99.216]] 11:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sin%283*pi*x%2F100%2Bpi%2F2%29+from+1945+to+2014 [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 12:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the commenter who said that the current explanation is bullshit, but I think he has the cause and effect reversed. Randall is saying that you feel more smug about not owning a TV as a result of observing how quickly TV ownership is becoming more or less trendy. In the 1950's, TV's were catching on quickly and becoming more popular, so you would feel embarrassed for not owning one. Later, the trendiness would start to decline as more people owned one, and you would head towards being smug. In the 2000s, people are giving up TVs because the internet makes them unnecessary. As this happens more and more, there's no point in feeling smug because you're no longer bucking a trend at all. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] ([[User talk:Kazim|talk]]) 12:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

In my view the title text joke is that smugness is defined as a function of TV ownership when in reality TV ownership is a function of smugness. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hold on, the logistic curve gives very reasonable graphs both for ownership of TVs and for the negative second derivative. TV ownership easily fits a logistic curve, as it starts at zero and has to approach some upper limit. The negative second derivative has a very similar shape to the graph in the comic. Here's Wolfram|Alpha for the negative second derivative of a generic logistic curve: <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-%28+d%2Fdx+d%2Fdx+%28100%2F%281%2Be%5E-%28.1x%29%29%29%29>. This would suggest that as time goes to infinity, people's feelings about TV ownership approach neutral; they do not oscillate like a sine function. This makes sense, because for the negative second derivative to be a sine function, TV ownership would have to be too, yet TV ownership is unlikely to be periodic. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.229|173.245.55.229]] 16:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have two issues with this explanation: the first is that it's too long to comfortably read, and I don't think the comic content merits such a long explanation. The other is that it reads too complexly. The point of this wiki is to make xkcd accessible for everyone, but it talks about things like sine waves, oscillation and convergence, which not all readers are going to grok. --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 17:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If we're keeping the explanation surrounding the area of "People therefore discussed television programs frequently, as a major social activity.", it maybe ought to be pointed out that major social discussions about TV programmes dropped off as a result of the increase in the number of TV channels and thus (except for ''particularly'' notable ratings-grabbers) the question of "Did you see what was on TV last night?" increasingly needed further qualifying. (However, I'm not sure this is revelevant.) Oh, and I've a feeling I should be feeling smug, right now. Absolutely gorge myself on radio, though. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 21:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence that this comic's title text refers in any way to a sine curve. If you consider a logistic function modeling TV ownership over time (which would look the similar to a logistic population growth model), you can take the function's second derivative, which vaguely resembles a sine curve, with the important difference that to the sides of the curve, the line becomes more level rather than repeating the curve. I would say the determining factors are the fact that the beginning of the graph is flat (as opposed to the curve just going to zero or showing the end of the previous curve), and the fact that he mentions the "negative second derivative of TV ownership rate," and the TV ownership rate would follow a model similar to a logistic population model, which is not a sine curve, though the second derivative of such a graph would, in fact, represent a sine curve. --[[User:Zweisteine|Zweisteine]] 21:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm coming in at the end of an edit war and pouring fuel on the argument, but I think the whole smugness/TV ownership / Programming comments are well made before the last paragraph. I'm confident that Randell's title text is a superficial comment about the shape of the graph. I've edited the last paragraph so there's no mention of sine waves, oscillation, convergence, or interpretation of where the graph starts or where it's going (that seems subjective to me). Just a link to what a "negative second derivative" is, and a statement that the comic resembles that chart. [[User:XQx|XQx]] ([[User talk:XQx|talk]]) 01:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that graph does closely represent the second derivative graphs I've seen for graphs that start slow, rise suddenly, then level out again, like a population chart, or a chart showing TV ownership over time. [[User:Zweisteine|Zweisteine]] ([[User talk:Zweisteine|talk]]) 01:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that, theoretically, something closer to an arctangent fits the number of televisions over time graph better than a logarithmic curve- at least if we consider some of the thousands of years during which nobody owned televisions. Linked below is a plot of arctan(x-2) + 1.3 and its negative second derivative (scaled to fit better in WolframAlpha's output window), the latter of which looks as much like the smugness graph in the comic as anything I've seen so far.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+atan%28x-2%29+%2B+1.3%2C+6%28x-2%29%2F%28x^2-4+x%2B5%29^2+for+x+%3D+0..4
--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.24|173.245.56.24]] 03:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

While the previous explanation of the title text involving the sine function was bogus (it's the second derivative of TV ownership rate, not the second derivative of smugness), the stuff about logistic (or arctangent or other sigmoid) functions is correct (if you believe that TV ownership should follow a sigmoid curve). I think that this can be explained, so I've put that in; hopefully, one can read it without the parentheses to get something understandable to lay folk, and then the parentheses show where Randall's mathematical jargon comes in. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 04:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The "this is incomplete because it needs further information" is not much of an explanation of what needs to be completed. It looks like the tag was added when the explanation was really, really poor and it't now obsolete. I would update it if I could figure out something that is still missing, but at this moment it looks like removing it altogether could be a better option. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.117|173.245.53.117]] 09:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

: Agreed. Removed. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 17:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

One obvious problem with the data is that one does not maintain a level of smugness and thus the chart dips eventually, as in the graph (but to an unknown extent).
The problem is that you don't know the rate of "getting over yourself". Without a TV to remind you that you don't have a TV, you stop feeling smug by getting on with your life. The idea of not having a TV then becomes a different problem if when in conversation you tell anyone that you don't have a TV. This very seldom happens and has its own emotional curves.I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait 07:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel quite smug, not having to pay £145.50 a year to watch people wanting to be famous, or wanting to remind people that they used to be famous, screaming for attention on "Strictly Got Talent Factor On Ice Brother" [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.218|141.101.99.218]] 16:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
:As a fellow Britisher, similarly not paying for (or needing!) a TV Licence, I think this might need explaining to the furriners here. There are different payment methods (<strike>up to</strike> down to, and including, purely commercial channels, but also the same cable/satelite subscriptions as we might ''also'' have to make) supporting TV channels, elsewhere. And how do ''you'' deal with the TV Licencing people, pestering you about your TV that you (I presume) do not have? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 02:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
:: 5 simple words: "I don't have a TV" and they go away for a couple of years. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.211|141.101.98.211]] 11:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Getting threatening letters from the licensing authority tends to irritate. It is related to other non-smug effects of not having a TV such as the people in charge of TV progammes' support of every human ailment from STOOOPID to paedophilia.I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait 07:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

;Sigmoid function or Sine curve

I'm sorry, but the {{w|Sigmoid function}} doesn't fit the graph. A sine looks much more closer but in fact it is some like f(x) + g(x), the second part looks much more like a sine (but also not accurate) while the first part looks different. And only the second derivative on this graph is important. So g(x) looks similar to a sine and the second derivative shows just an inverted plot, that's the point. There is no real math function.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

:Back-tracing the provided graph, the (negative) second derivative is clearly near zero up until nearly 1950, declines to a minima around 1965 (it appears to be around 40 pixels per decade, along the scale) before crossing the zero mark at 1980 to a maxima around 2001/2002-ish, then falling again.
:Thus the (positive) first derivative (with an unknown constant of offset) is near horizontal until the 1950s, rises to its steepest in 1965 (i.e. the acceleration in rate of growth is the highest... consistent the uptake of the 'new' technology being popular), continues upwards but finally hits a maxima (in actual rate of growth of TV ownership) in 1980, before tailing off (probably still a rate of ''increase'', but near saturation level. Just after the millenium is around the time I'd expect to see a rise in Large Screen TVs being sold (plasma TVs were late '90s, and we're starting to see proper flatscreen LCDs and, later, OLED versions).
:So, can we relate that to the 'zeroeth' derivative? (i.e. The actual rate of TV ownership... or is it sales..? May be both if you allow for multi-TV homes.) Starting at zero ownership, there was a slow uptake around the 1950s (for the UK, 1953 - the year of the Coronation - was supposed to be the start of the mass-market TV revolution, but perhaps only around one house a street actually ''getting'' a TV for the event... still, it'd somewhat match the quick start of the (negative) curve in the cartoon). The mid 1960s was (amongst other things) the height of the Space Race, and thus in the white-heat of that particular phase of technology. By the 1980s, most existing households without TVs weren't ''going'' to get them, so uptake would have flattened from that point onwards, until eventually the millenium came about and newer/additional sets were installed in houses during that particular credit-boom and period of techno-consumerism.
:IIW, I think it matches a (convoluted, multi-inflected) S-curve from zero on upwards. Possibly beyond 100% if multi-TV ownership counts to technically allow the original curve to strike up above that value. I may have zero TVs operating in my house but most families I know have at ''least'' two of them. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 02:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

As you (Dgbrt) say, the sine curve doesn't fit the beginning (and it would require TV ownership rate to also fit a sine curve, which is implausible). But the sigmoid curve fits it fine! People above have posted some negative second derivatives of sigmoid curves, and they match the graph. Here is a broad selection: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2nd+derivative+-4%2F%281%2Be^%28-x%29%29 0], [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2nd+derivative+-erf%28sqrt%28pi%29%2F2*x%29 1], [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2nd+derivative+-tanh+x 2], [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2nd+derivative+-2%2Fpi+*+gd%28pi%2F2+*+x%29 3], [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2nd+derivative+-x%2Fsqrt%281%2Bx^2%29 4], [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2nd+derivative+-2%2Fpi+*+atan+%28pi%2F2+*+x%29 5], [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2nd+derivative+-x%2F%281%2B|x|%29 6] (list derived from Wikipedia's article). I think that Randall's curve fits best between 1 and 2 (it all breaks down when you get to 6). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 04:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
:Am I blind or do I hallucinate? The sigmoid curves look very different, just let's say it is a graph and explain the second derivative.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 11:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

::The main point of this seems to be smugness being relative to how odd you are compared to the average. The problem here is the oddness is by choice or simply you can't afford one in the early days. The difference towards the more modern era will be that people will feel smug for not having a TV, but may also feel smug for owning way above average many TVs. Other options also should have altered the graph, such as multi-function TV/Monitors(which I'm using mostly for a monitor and occasionally as a TV for science documentary) and smart phones/tablets which got TV functions, on the other hand, people may own a TV as part of a home entertainment system, which means what is showed in the channels is completely irrelavent. The increase of options has reduced the smugness for not owning one, because there are so many things with a TV function and so many things a TV can do, not owning one means that you are almost technologically isolated, which most would feel embarassed. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.62.228|173.245.62.228]] 18:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

:::I'm only talking about the sigmoid graph, it's simply wrong. I never did criticize the interpretations and explanations, that function simply doesn't match the plot at the comic. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Check for blindness or hallucination:

* Do you agree that Randall's graph looks more or less like the 7 graphs that I linked above, especially the first few? (Same basic shape.)

* Do you agree that Wolfram Alpha produced those graphs after I properly asked it about the negative second derivatives of various functions? (Check for words "second derivative" and minus sign.)

* Do you agree that these functions are all listed on the Wikipedia page about sigmoid curves? (Graph 0 matches the formula for a logistic function, multiplied by 4 to put it on the same scale as the others; graphs 1 through 6 have the same formula as the graph on Wikipedia comparing six sigmoid curves.)

If you can see all of this, then you are not blind or hallucinating.

Nota bene: nobody is claiming that Randall's graph is itself a sigmoid curve. It is the negative second derivative of a sigmoid curve. This is what it should be, since Randall conjectures that it's the negative second derivative of the TV ownership rate, and the TV ownership rate should follow a sigmoid curve.

—[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 06:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

:First: Randall does not publish a transcript after the next comic is released because he is laughing about discussions like here.
:But more Randall didn't use a function, he was only talking about the second derivative of that plot.
:So, we just have to explain that '''derivative''', which is still more like a (minus) sine. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

:: Umm... no, actually, "he was only talking about the second derivative" of the (not-shown) TV-ownership function. The smugness plot (depicted) looks quite like the negative second derivatives of sigmoids, doesn't it? -- [[Special:Contributions/173.245.51.210|173.245.51.210]] 01:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
:::Holy crap, as {{w|Sigmoid function|wiki}} says: "A sigmoid formula is a mathematical function having an "S" shape (sigmoid curve)." It looks like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gjl-t%28x%29.svg graph] and really does NOT match this [http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/i_dont_own_a_tv.png one]. There is just no simple graph to explain Randall's plot.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

:::: Don't worry, nobody is claiming that a sigmoid graph looks like this graph. The claim is that the SECOND DERIVATIVE of a sigmoid graph looks like this graph. See the pictures on the Wolfram Alpha pages that I linked earlier; you will see that most of them (all but the last really, but the earliest ones the best) look like this graph. All of them are computed by Wolfram Alpha as second derivatives of sigmoid graphs; in fact, they are all second derivatives of opposites (negatives) of formulas given on the Wikipedia article as examples of sigmoids. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 17:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sigmoid curve:

[[Image:SigmoidCurve.gif]]

Second derivative of a sigmoid curve:

[[Image:2ndDerivativeSigmoidCurve.gif]]

Negative second derivative of a sigmoid curve:

[[Image:Negative2ndDerivativeSigmoidCurve.gif]]

vs

Sine curve:

[[Image:SineCurve.gif]]

It seems clear to me that the sine curve matches the graph from about 1960, but the negative second derivative of the sigmoid curve (curve 2 from my series above) matches the overall graph better. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 18:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that the new explanation for the title text, while somewhat accurate is a bit overcomplex.

1. There is probably a simpler way to explain what a second derivative is (not necessarily diffently described; it's just a bit jumbled up in the description).

2. For the purposes of explanation, I doubt that so much detail is needed, especially because the real-life meaningfulness of the second derivative of TV ownership doesn't seem like much at all.

I would suggest something like this, but with a bit more depth: The title text sugests that smugness and the second derivative of TV ownership are related. The derivative of a graph is its rate of change at any given point, and the second derivative is the rate of change in the first derivative. [[User:Zweisteine|Zweisteine]] ([[User talk:Zweisteine|talk]]) 06:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

1290: Syllable Planning

2016-06-02T07:49:54Z

162.158.83.144: Unbelievable is not pronounced flatly, especially in a heated tone!

{{comic
| number = 1290
| date = November 13, 2013
| title = Syllable Planning
| image = syllable_planning.png
| titletext = You absolute-fucking-... shit.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] wants to say ''ri-fucking-diculous'', but he inserts the ''fucking'' too late in the word. Now, he has to say ''ridicu-fucking-lous'', which sounds ri-fucking-diculous.

This is an example of {{w|tmesis}}, the breaking up of a word to include another within it, and more specifically of {{w|expletive infixation}}. Normally, for rhythmic reasons the included word is inserted before the {{w|Stress (linguistics)|stressed}} syllable (''ri'''dic'''ulous'' becoming ''ri-fucking-'''dic'''ulous'') which is what Cueball messed up. However, in some cases it is also possible to break the word after a prefix instead, so for some words there are two ways to do it e.g. {{w|wikt:unbefuckinglievable|unbe-fucking-'''lie'''vable}} (before the stressed syllable) or {{w|wikt:unfuckingbelievable|un-fucking-be'''lie'''vable}}; this is because ''unbelievable'' is a combination of ''un'' and ''believable'' to negate ''believable'' which is an actual English word and therefore it still sounds good.

The [[title text]] introduces a further example, with speaker inserting the ''fucking'' too late into the word ''absolutely''—which would have resulted in ''absolute-fucking-ly''—but leaving the word unfinished when they realize their mistake. The more usual tmesis here would be {{w|wikt:absofuckinglutely|''abso-fucking-lutely''}}.

==Transcript==
:Cueball: Man, that is '''''ridicu'''''-fucking—... ...Hang on, I inserted "fucking" too late and now there's just one awkward syllable left. Can I back up?
:[Cueball is standing next to Megan.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Language]]

Talk:1228: Prometheus

2016-05-24T10:31:49Z

162.158.83.144:

I'm missing the negative aspect of the fire metaphor in the explanation. "Fire wants to be free." If you ''set fire free'', it spreads and destroys quite a lot in its wake. Well, I could think of a few negative aspects in file/information-sharing. Whatever. But I'm not fighting sharing. "All your files 'R' belong to everyone!"

Could this be an analogy for file sharing? {{unsigned ip|24.255.167.124}}

As '''an author''' of very expensive business software, I love the idea of giving it away and making money through "value added". I truly believe that most people who "steal" software would never have paid for it anyway. Similarly, when I worked for a clothing manufacturer, other companies were always copying our designs but we made more money than them because we were the place to go for the new stuff. [[User:Hax|Hax]] ([[User talk:Hax|talk]]) 10:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to say something like "The title-text gives what might be a typical approach to movie dialogue in a typical (Michael) Baysian movie plot," but am not sure I'm correct and/or pithy enough.  [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 12:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
:Do we also need to explain that this line is not in reference to an existing movie?  [[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 12:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
:: No, but it IS a reference to the novel "The Salvation War" by Stuart Slade in which modern day humanity DOES go to war with the gods. [[User:ERBOCH|ERBOCH]] ([[User talk:ERBOCH|talk]]) 1:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Does the returning what Prometheus stole explanation need to be that involved? I thought it could be interpreted as a simple play on words referring to "returning fire" since it's also just a phrase that means to return an attack? [[Special:Contributions/128.197.37.175|128.197.37.175]] 14:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

: Haha.. Vote to edit title text to "I'm here to return fire." However, I'm wondering if we've inverted the meaning through the ages, and if the etymology of the phrase won't reveal pacifist origins: returning the fire as in refusing to fight. Refusing to light a war-signal, or light arrows etc. [[Special:Contributions/220.224.246.97|220.224.246.97]] 16:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

:I'm all for information freedom, but you CAN steal fire. You could take away the only spark/source of ignition/activation energy provision in the possession of the gods. Secondly, fire needs fuel to burn. Take away all their fuel, and you've stolen their fire. Alright, you have your own fuel? Fine, you're still stealing fire, because once you've discovered how to make a fire - you burn your fuel, release more combustible products, and choke the atmosphere (Though, we'd have snuffed ourselves out before we snuffed out Olympus). In any case, you're accelerating the {{w|heat death}} of the universe, and making all thermodynamic cycles "less efficient" because of the higher sink temperatures. But that's not the marrow of the bone of contention. Even the original Prometheus-v-Gods animosity arose because of information theft, and not 'property' theft. [[Special:Contributions/220.224.246.97|220.224.246.97]] 16:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

:: You CAN steal fire, but looking at the {{w|Prometheus}} myth it doesn't seem gods lost the fire after the "theft". Would be pretty hard, too, considering the gods ({{w|Hephaestus}} specifically) have {{w|volcano}}s (which, technically, are powered by geothermal energy and not by burning fuel ; speaking about them, igniting wood using volcanos can easily be a source of Prometheus myth). And the thermal death of universe? Chemical reactions are insignificant in this regard. Finally, the reason Gods hated Prometheus for stealing fire is generally agreed upon to be them being jerks. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

::Could it also be a reference to Terry Pratchett's "The Last Hero?" Y'know, where Cohen the Barbarian (et al) decide to return fire to the gods...?(-Aerych){{unsigned ip|216.131.24.14}}

:::I immediately thought of The Last Hero too.{{unsigned ip|199.83.221.155}}

::::Actually nothing in comics seems to specifically refer The Last Hero, suggesting that Pratchett and Randall simply had the same idea about how the phrase of "returning fire to gods" can be interpretted. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::Just that Pratchett had it in 2001, and published it widely. Surely a geek should be well aware of the Diskworld series? Cohen starts off by saying that 'The Last Hero should return what the First Hero stole...' and, later on provides a typical one-liner "We're going to return fire to the Gods. With interest..." (reveals a barrel of gunpowder) {{unsigned|86.10.119.75}}

::::::To be precise, Agatean Thunder Clay. While Discworld has black powder explosive (see Men At Arms), this is something that "you have to smash a jar of acid in the mixture. The acid soaks into it, and then - kabloouie, I believe the term is." So maybe a sort of 'binary explosive mixture' type of thing, although the clay bit harks back to Alfred Nobel's original breakthrough. But it's very much a mix of memes, as it ends up proving powerful enough (a single barrel of it becoming "an explosion which has reduced a mountain to a valley") that it's very much an atomic-weapon analogue. Sorry, just thought I'd clarify, even if it's not direct inspiration to Randall or overly relevent to this comic. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 20:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Fire is like information: a very important part of human life here on Earth, spreads easily and quickly, and, if in the wrong hands, can be incredibly dangerous. [[User:SuperSupermario24|Just some random derp]] 23:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1228: Prometheus

2016-05-24T10:30:30Z

162.158.83.144:

I'm missing the negative aspect of the fire metaphor in the explanation. "Fire wants to be free." If you ''set fire free'', it spreads and destroy quite a lot in its wake. Well, I could think of a few negative aspects in file/information-sharing. Whatever. But I'm not fighting sharing. "All your files 'R' belong to everyone!"

Could this be an analogy for file sharing? {{unsigned ip|24.255.167.124}}

As '''an author''' of very expensive business software, I love the idea of giving it away and making money through "value added". I truly believe that most people who "steal" software would never have paid for it anyway. Similarly, when I worked for a clothing manufacturer, other companies were always copying our designs but we made more money than them because we were the place to go for the new stuff. [[User:Hax|Hax]] ([[User talk:Hax|talk]]) 10:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to say something like "The title-text gives what might be a typical approach to movie dialogue in a typical (Michael) Baysian movie plot," but am not sure I'm correct and/or pithy enough.  [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 12:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
:Do we also need to explain that this line is not in reference to an existing movie?  [[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 12:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
:: No, but it IS a reference to the novel "The Salvation War" by Stuart Slade in which modern day humanity DOES go to war with the gods. [[User:ERBOCH|ERBOCH]] ([[User talk:ERBOCH|talk]]) 1:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Does the returning what Prometheus stole explanation need to be that involved? I thought it could be interpreted as a simple play on words referring to "returning fire" since it's also just a phrase that means to return an attack? [[Special:Contributions/128.197.37.175|128.197.37.175]] 14:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

: Haha.. Vote to edit title text to "I'm here to return fire." However, I'm wondering if we've inverted the meaning through the ages, and if the etymology of the phrase won't reveal pacifist origins: returning the fire as in refusing to fight. Refusing to light a war-signal, or light arrows etc. [[Special:Contributions/220.224.246.97|220.224.246.97]] 16:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

:I'm all for information freedom, but you CAN steal fire. You could take away the only spark/source of ignition/activation energy provision in the possession of the gods. Secondly, fire needs fuel to burn. Take away all their fuel, and you've stolen their fire. Alright, you have your own fuel? Fine, you're still stealing fire, because once you've discovered how to make a fire - you burn your fuel, release more combustible products, and choke the atmosphere (Though, we'd have snuffed ourselves out before we snuffed out Olympus). In any case, you're accelerating the {{w|heat death}} of the universe, and making all thermodynamic cycles "less efficient" because of the higher sink temperatures. But that's not the marrow of the bone of contention. Even the original Prometheus-v-Gods animosity arose because of information theft, and not 'property' theft. [[Special:Contributions/220.224.246.97|220.224.246.97]] 16:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

:: You CAN steal fire, but looking at the {{w|Prometheus}} myth it doesn't seem gods lost the fire after the "theft". Would be pretty hard, too, considering the gods ({{w|Hephaestus}} specifically) have {{w|volcano}}s (which, technically, are powered by geothermal energy and not by burning fuel ; speaking about them, igniting wood using volcanos can easily be a source of Prometheus myth). And the thermal death of universe? Chemical reactions are insignificant in this regard. Finally, the reason Gods hated Prometheus for stealing fire is generally agreed upon to be them being jerks. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

::Could it also be a reference to Terry Pratchett's "The Last Hero?" Y'know, where Cohen the Barbarian (et al) decide to return fire to the gods...?(-Aerych){{unsigned ip|216.131.24.14}}

:::I immediately thought of The Last Hero too.{{unsigned ip|199.83.221.155}}

::::Actually nothing in comics seems to specifically refer The Last Hero, suggesting that Pratchett and Randall simply had the same idea about how the phrase of "returning fire to gods" can be interpretted. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::Just that Pratchett had it in 2001, and published it widely. Surely a geek should be well aware of the Diskworld series? Cohen starts off by saying that 'The Last Hero should return what the First Hero stole...' and, later on provides a typical one-liner "We're going to return fire to the Gods. With interest..." (reveals a barrel of gunpowder) {{unsigned|86.10.119.75}}

::::::To be precise, Agatean Thunder Clay. While Discworld has black powder explosive (see Men At Arms), this is something that "you have to smash a jar of acid in the mixture. The acid soaks into it, and then - kabloouie, I believe the term is." So maybe a sort of 'binary explosive mixture' type of thing, although the clay bit harks back to Alfred Nobel's original breakthrough. But it's very much a mix of memes, as it ends up proving powerful enough (a single barrel of it becoming "an explosion which has reduced a mountain to a valley") that it's very much an atomic-weapon analogue. Sorry, just thought I'd clarify, even if it's not direct inspiration to Randall or overly relevent to this comic. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 20:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Fire is like information: a very important part of human life here on Earth, spreads easily and quickly, and, if in the wrong hands, can be incredibly dangerous. [[User:SuperSupermario24|Just some random derp]] 23:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1119: Undoing

2016-05-02T15:21:50Z

162.158.83.144:

Here is the truth: Enough wind turbines over time will kill us all. The wind turbines slow down Earth's rotation. Whit that the trade winds will die and then there would be no life possible on Earth. Maybe and only maybe we already slowed down Earth enough to induce a climatic change (so many strange natural disasters the last few years ...) and we will face a real-life "The Day After Tomorrow".

Perhaps his motivation is to restore natural wind patterns to the environment. I remember reading about the ecological impact of wind power includes lessened wind currents. Some organisms rely on the wind to propagate the species, such as winds that blow seeds or how some spiders "parachute" on wind currents. Or it could be that he just likes to mess with people. --[[User:Joehammer79|Joehammer79]] ([[User talk:Joehammer79|talk]]) 13:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

:I always though that if you put a forest of windmills on top of hill the damage of ecosystem done by the building is enough. Adding the fact about wind used for propagating ... damn, windmills are almost as unecological as solar plants on fields ...
:Seriously, how can anyone who things ecologically be AGAINST nuclear power? -- [[Special:Contributions/89.177.52.2|89.177.52.2]] 08:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
::Ten thousand years of mutations from radioactivity? (Seriously, we should be using Liquid-fluoride thorium reactors, only 300 year half-life on the waste, rather than 10,000)--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.24|173.245.56.24]] 15:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

At first I thought this should be more of a Blackhat trick, but since he seems to think he is creating good in the world by restoring, it makes sense that it is Cueball--[[Special:Contributions/70.166.209.171|70.166.209.171]] 14:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only one who is also entertaining the possibility that the fan setup in the picture is not acting with, but rather counteracting the wind, which is turning the windmill that supplies it power? I understand that the alt-text makes it seem like Munroe's thinking about 'making up' for our interference with insolation (and presumably wind, water etc.) patterns. But, if we're going to bring in logic here, EVERYTHING falls apart :D I had a little fun trying to model what kind of a dynamic equilibrium the hitherto described windmill-fan arrangement would settle into. [[Special:Contributions/123.238.25.42|123.238.25.42]] 17:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are... The fan's blowing to the right... The wind came from the left... [[Special:Contributions/184.88.110.135|184.88.110.135]] 21:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Robert

:Indeed, the first thing that comes to mind is the "fan blowing into the sails" arrangement you sometimes see in cartoons, but I don't think that's what's going on here.[[User:CityZen|CityZen]] ([[User talk:CityZen|talk]]) 17:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It's even more fun to do to condoms.
--[[User:SuspendedPhan|SuspendedPhan]] ([[User talk:SuspendedPhan|talk]]) 18:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

:What the hell is "rotational" energy?!
::Although "rotational" energy exists (it is a verbal shorthand for kinetic energy that exists due to a rotating mass), what we actually have here is rotational power, another verbal shorthand for mechanical power transmitted by a rotating object working against a load. Also, Cueball has not disconnected the turbine from the generator but the generator from its electrical load (battery charger or electrical grid tie-in, perhaps).--[[Special:Contributions/174.138.205.139|174.138.205.139]] 13:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, he has disconnected the windmill that was supplying power to the grid and that windmill is now powering a fan which is creating suction which is pulling more wind through the windmill.[[Special:Contributions/38.104.209.10|38.104.209.10]] 16:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Worth mentioning existence of ram air turbines. [[User:Pallas|Pallas]] ([[User talk:Pallas|talk]]) 08:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, wind turbines have an electric motor which is computer-controlled, and which I think isn't completely powered by the blades rotating (if only that, when the wind is still, the turbine stops spinning, and needs a boost to start again when the wind picks up, similar to a car battery and starter motor). If the power was cut (which wouldn't happen, BTW. Wind farmers aren't stupid and they realise the problems with normal cables, so it's all underground), the turbine would slow down and stop, like a solar-powered pinwheel. {{unsigned ip|108.162.250.223}}

I've been sneaking out at night and installing lamps on the underside of every photovoltaic panel I can find. Sure, there are upwards of 80% losses, but I prefer to think of them as nearly 20% gains.

When?[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 17:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1109: Refrigerator

2016-04-29T08:12:12Z

162.158.83.144:

I'm saying this is a bad idea for a fridge. Don't mistake me, I'm an xkcd-fan just like you. But Randall obviously has never seen a full fridge. I mean "full" like packed full with no space for fresh food. That here only works for empty/medium filled refrigerator. And that would be a waste of energy, see sustainable etc. (I have my fridge currently offline). Besides that doesn't solve the more urgent problem in most households: the freezer compartment, which is almost always full. But yeah, I know, this is just for fun.

I would argue that this is also a reference to {{w|The Incredible Machine}} and friends, where many levels revolve around conveyor belts and things on top of them that stir certain actions. [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 10:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
: Not a chance. The conveyor belts don't look like the ones in that game, nor is there anything else in the refrigerator that has anything to do with that game. [[Special:Contributions/108.28.72.186|108.28.72.186]] 23:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The main problem with this design is that the bad food needs to land softly otherwise it could splash\spatter over the good food. [[User:SaintGerbil|SaintGerbil]]([[User talk:User:SaintGerbil|talk]]) 12:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought an alternative design for the fridge could be to have the middle conveyor belt attached to the right, leaving a gap on its left and obviously it would move toward the left. This way we could put food on the topmost belt on its left side and the food would travel along that belt then drop onto the middle one, then travel to the bottom belt and finally fall into the BAD bin. Of course we'd have to relabel all belts accordingly. [[User:DelendaEst|DelendaEst]] ([[User talk:DelendaEst|talk]]) 12:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

:The only problem with that is that different foods spoil at different rates (e.g. carrots last for about 2 months while milk is a week at best). The 3 shelves moving at different speeds seems to account for this. --[[User:Joehammer79|Joehammer79]] ([[User talk:Joehammer79|talk]]) 13:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

::I disagree. I'm with DelendaEst. I presume the premise is that you initially place the food at the appropriate place. Milk might start at the 2-week mark on the shelf, whereas juice might start at the 4 week mark, and ketchup might start at the many month mark. Randall has designed it so you put the food on the relevant shelf. In the left-right-left right scenario, the top shelf might run 3 months to 1 month, and take two months to roll from left to right. Then the second shelf could be 1 month to 1 week, and take approximately 3 weeks to roll from right to left. The bottom shelf would take 1 week to roll from left to right into the "bad" bin. You would just have to put stuff down based on initial expiration date. Ketchup might go on the top-left, while milk might go in the middle of the second shelf, etc. In Randall's version, the food at "2 days" on the top shelf, the second shelf and the door shelf should all reach the bad bin at the same time. Thus, it could all have been on one shelf. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 19:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of the stuff I find gone bad is in the bottom two drawers where it has become forgotten, like a half bag of lettuce.--[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 14:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Randall: so much for brilliant... there's a bug in your design. Look at the top rack in the door. There is a chute that would prevent food from falling past when the door is closed. It would need to be rotated 90 anticlockwise in order to work. [[Special:Contributions/207.225.239.130|207.225.239.130]] 21:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
*I see a space -[[User:Shine|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine|talk]]) 02:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

::I think the anon user is pointing out that the little "ramp" below the door belt would actually roll food into the side wall of the fridge when the door is closed. The ramp should be oriented from the wall of the door towards the back of the fridge (when the door is closed) instead of towards the side wall. so the food rolls from the door back into the fridge and the "bad" bin, rather than rolling into the side wall of the fridge. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 19:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

:::And Shine is pointing out that the middle and bottom shelves doesn't go all the way to the edge of the door. The fridge is designed so that the "BAD" bin is as long as the width of the body shelves plus the width of the door shelves. That way, the food from the top shelf of the door will fall between the middle/bottom shelves and the side wall, and into the front end of the "BAD" bin. [[Special:Contributions/72.169.224.103|72.169.224.103]] 17:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see is that you would have to place the food back exactly where you took it from, or a little to the right. It still works, but you would have to be very precise. Maybe keep some markers to put on the conveyor belt to mark where the food came from. This way, you'd know where to put the food back.[[Special:Contributions/75.69.96.225|75.69.96.225]] 21:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

:Or you could install spigots on everything so you never have to pick anything up. Maple syrup, spigot, chicken soup, spigot, miso soup with tofu, spigot.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.24|173.245.55.24]] 20:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

"Epitaph of Stevinus" should writely be known as the epitaph of Stevin's next of kin.[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 18:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:995: Coinstar

2016-04-06T06:23:33Z

162.158.83.144:

I had the feeling that the machine opened and ate the chocolate coin ...

To me as electrical engineer it's a lesson that no technology is perfect, but we are working on it. Chocolate coin proof coin-star machines are just around the corner. - e-inspired [[Special:Contributions/98.211.199.84|98.211.199.84]] 15:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a special contribution from an expert with no sense of direction.
[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 06:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Candies do have monetary value. You buy them. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.85|108.162.222.85]] 09:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Could enough coins be exchaged for a bunny? {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.167}}
:Yes, if you melted them and poured the melted chocolate into a mold...

Has anyone actually tested whether chocolate coins will break Coinstar machines? I'll try it when I'm an adult. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.163}}

Talk:979: Wisdom of the Ancients

2016-03-30T15:06:42Z

162.158.83.144:

2nd paragraph of the explanation is nonsense! A forum post is nothing like a FAQ entry. The problem didn't get solved and was probably put away and forgotten. Happens all the time.

"There was uh, a thing called a segfault that made my computer like, all blurry and stuff." '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That was one reason why [http://stackoverflow.com/ StackOverflow] came to life: main authors fed up with (mis)using forums for query & answer site --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 23:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Just two googling steps brought me here:
http://www.mirrorsoferis.com/forum/thread05232003a.html
Relevant for "Trivia"? Even the year fits! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.230.89|108.162.230.89]] 11:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
:From the HTML source:
::<tt>
::
::
::</tt>
:Cute theory, though. -[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.126|108.162.254.126]] 12:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:934: Mac/PC

2016-03-24T15:44:02Z

162.158.83.144:

Just FYI: Mac is a subset of PC. And the more I observe the fight of Linux vs. Windows the more I think Linux users aren't very smart. I love programming but I dislike Linux and stuff.

I don't code in a browser. Linux, bitches. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|purple|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Should there be some added discussion of the fact that a Mac (or a Linux machine, or other OS) is a "personal computer", and by definition a PC? {{unsigned ip|72.45.165.98}}

:It's sad that kids today don't remember the fact that PC was, for ages, a branded term for a Microsoft computer specifically to distinguish them from filthy Macs. We fought this battle for years, and you remember nothing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.33|108.162.221.33]] 16:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

::The term {{w|Personal computer}} (PC) became popular after IBM introduced its {{w|IBM Personal Computer}} in 1981, even when the name was used also before. Microsoft never did brand that name but they bought some software licences to create {{w|MS-DOS}}. Apple, together with others, did sell graphical user interfaces long before Microsoft did. The big success of Microsoft only belongs to the decision by IBM allowing other companies to build {{w|IBM PC compatible|IBM compatible}} computers. The success is only caused by cheaper hardware. And I am running only Linux on this cheap computer because its free.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
:::I kind of agree with this, except for the use of the word "only". As if opening up for competition in a market is a small issue. [[User:Mumiemonstret|Mumiemonstret]] ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 13:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I would question whether "since most everything nowadays is done through browsers '''due to the proliferation of cloud computing'''" is true. While I would suspect that the first half of the sentence is largely true, is cloud computing specifically really that prevalent? My take on the comic was that using a browser to access the web is such a major part of the everyday use, that the 'other' use is minimal (and hence PC vs Mac is of limited relevance). --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 11:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
: And why is web browsing such a major part? Well, at least partly because fewer and fewer installs software for e.g. e-mail handling, picture and movie organizing, document creation... Instead we have Gmail, Flickr, Youtube, Google Docs, and so on. Cloud services, that is. [[User:Mumiemonstret|Mumiemonstret]] ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 13:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:928: Mimic Octopus

2016-03-24T12:50:01Z

162.158.83.144:

How does the mimic octopus manage to mimic multiple fish? Does it split it's own body up or something? '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 13:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
:"When under attack, some octopuses can perform arm autotomy, in a similar manner to the way skinks and other lizards detach their tails. The crawling arm serves as a distraction to would-be predators. Such severed arms remain sensitive to stimuli and move away from unpleasant sensations.[23]"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus#Defense] {{unsigned ip|173.245.48.113}}
::Fine, but in the SCUBA diver depiction, would it really need to rip parts out of itself to mimic bubbles? I don't think that that is quite necessary. {{unsigned ip|108.162.241.131}}
:::It could also hypothetically mimic bubbles by *actually blowing bubbles*. (No word on how it does this.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.30|108.162.216.30]] 02:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Anon
::::Simple: This is a 2D {{w|Tomography|cut-out}} of the octopus mimicking the fishes or the scuba '''in 3D'''. It assumes a very complex figure, so that in the cut-out we only see the 2D pictures above.

For the record, octopus is from the Greek ὀκτάπους, a compound of ὀκτά (eight) and πούς (foot); πούς is a third declension masculine noun, whose plural is πόδες. Therefore, the etymologically correct plural of octopus should be octopodes, not (as Orson Scott Card suggests) octopoda, since πούς is not a neuter.
:Actually, it would be "octopuses", as it showed up ''after'' the regularization of English plurals to a final -s. As the video in the explanation explains, someone in the Victorian Grammarian Era "realized" it was "Latin" and pluralized it as such. This caught on and still haunts us to this day. "Octopdes" was coined around the same time by a more observant someone, who realized it was actually Greek. Personally, I avoid the whole trichotomy by saying "octopods". Unrelated etymologically, but has the same meaning and is unequivocally regular. Anonymous 08:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone checked to see if the title text is true? Whether it is or not, this should be added to the description. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.18|108.162.212.18]] 11:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:916: Unpickable

2016-03-23T16:19:47Z

162.158.83.144:

Maybe just the geek talking here, but what's with 5x5 Rubik's cube? It should be called 5x5x5 Rubik's cube. Ok, in the title text that might be a 2-dimensions-joke. But see the previous comments. Do the readers and "explainers" all think only 2-dimensional?

2x2 rubik's cubes are harder. Just sayin'. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
: What? A 2x2 is often solved in under two seconds at competitions. The world record for 5x5 is [https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/regions.php 48.42 seconds]. See also below. [[User:Mumiemonstret|Mumiemonstret]] ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 12:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This would likely be found in the residence of my colleague ['''REDACTED'''], as he has a collection of odd Rubik's Cube clones.{{unsigned|173.72.159.14}}

I solve the cube with corner pieces and edge pieces in separate steps, so I find 2x2s harder. I just have to do the corner steps. 04:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC){{unsigned|184.11.73.88}}

2x2s are certainly not harder than any other Rubik's cube by ANY standard. As the corners of any Rubik's cube have the same rotational moves, you have to solve a 2x2 at some point when solving any cube. 4x4 is harder than 5x5 though, because you can rotate away the middle pieces.[[Special:Contributions/85.164.251.29|85.164.251.29]] 07:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
: Looking at [https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/regions.php speedcuber's results] I would disagree. 4x4 takes less than half the time. But you have a point since the "general geek" targeted by this comic's scheme might find it easier to deduce the function of a 5x5 due to the centerpieces. I still think you'd need to be a brilliant geek to be able to solve a 5x5 without prior knowledge. [[User:Mumiemonstret|Mumiemonstret]] ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 12:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:915: Connoisseur

2016-03-23T16:10:15Z

162.158.83.144:

Let's face it: every wine connoisseur is an alcoholic. You have to drink a lot of wine over a long period of time to begin distinguishing all wine-types, flavors etc. Rule of nature. No discussion.

This is one of those xkcd comics that I'm just constantly linking back to as an image retort. I love Randall. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 01:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I expanded the explanation and removed the incomplete tag. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.117|173.245.53.117]] 14:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The current incomplete tag asks why voice 1 calls Joe Biden "the man" and voice 2 calls him J.B. As far as I can see, there is no deeper/cryptic meaning to the choice of these words, other than possible space saving. Both 'J.B.' and 'the man' are shorter than 'Joe Biden'. I personally don't believe that this requires any further explanation, but I will leave the incomplete tag for now. If there are no updates to the page or additional discussion here, I will remove the incomplete tag in due course. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 13:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

:The stars are named Joe Biden, though. Hmmmm... [[User:RedHatGuy68|RedHatGuy68]] ([[User talk:RedHatGuy68|talk]]) 05:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:913: Core

2016-03-23T13:03:06Z

162.158.83.144:

FYI: It's not ''right'' under you. It's more like far, far, very far away from you. '''AND''' it's quite some time behind you, left of you, right of you, in front of you, and sometimes even {{w|Underwater Diving|above you}}. {{w|Sleep|See also!}}

And the crust is just thin enough that volcanoes and earthquakes are a thing. Safety! '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 01:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the glancing down and saying "I study that" a reference to something more inappropriate? ~ JFreund
:I think that's the joke. [[User:NealCruco|NealCruco]] ([[User talk:NealCruco|talk]]) 17:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If you stand with your arm at shoulder height and gesture downwards, saying "I study that", you will be pointing both toward the center of the earth and at your own genitals. That is the joke in the title text. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.196}}

And if Carlos Saldanha,s documentary is correct, the earth will be filled - FILLED - with velociraptors. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.191|173.245.56.191]] 15:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

894: Progeny

2016-03-22T13:39:25Z

162.158.83.144: Corrected a word mismatch.

{{comic
| number = 894
| date = May 4, 2011
| title = Progeny
| image = progeny.png
| titletext = I tell my children 'it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.' I'm trying to take the edge off their competitive drive to ensure that I can always beat them.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is a reference to IBM's computer {{w|Watson (computer)|Watson}} that beat humans at {{w|Jeopardy}} (see [[1002: Game AIs]]). The IBM team created a computer that could formulate a response to a Jeopardy-style question. In case you are not familiar, Jeopardy is a game played where the contestants are given the answer to a question, and must devise the question. A question might be "Its largest airport was named for a World War II hero; its second largest, for a World War II battle", to which the contestant must answer "What is Chicago?". When going up against two Jeopardy champions, Watson was able to {{w|Watson_(computer)#Jeopardy.21|beat them both}} (by some margin, although he did answer the above mentioned question incorrectly with "Toronto").

[[Megan]] chimes in that we are "pretty awesome at teaching" which is very true. Humans are the best (on this planet) at teaching other things to do a set of tasks. We train dogs, cats, lizards, birds, other people, and now we are getting quite good at ''teaching'' a computer, a simple machine completely of our own design, to mimic our own thought patterns and make decisions similar to what we would make. (See also [[1263: Reassuring]]).

The title text makes fun of teaching our children values about not trying to win by any means (i.e. but while playing fair) by suggesting we are just trying to hold on to our ability to beat them in something.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball sits at a computer; Megan stands behind him.]
:Cueball: Wow — researchers taught a computer to beat the world's best humans at yet ''another'' task. Does our species have ''anything'' left to be proud of?
:Megan: Well, it sounds like we're pretty awesome at teaching.
:Cueball: Huh? What good is ''that''?

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Computers]]