explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1391: Darkness

2016-06-22T15:04:42Z

162.158.83.18: Someone got the other 2 REAL-life wishes and therefore WASTED the first?

{{comic
| number = 1391
| date = July 7, 2014
| title = Darkness
| image = darkness.png
| titletext = This was actually wish #406. Wish #2 was for him to lose the ability to remember that each new wish wasn't my first.
}}

==Explanation==
In the comic the news anchor [[Ponytail]] describes the {{w|sunset}} as though it were an unprecedented, newsworthy event, rather than [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MundaneMadeAwesome something mundane] that happens every day. They even have a reporter ([[Cueball]]) on the spot reporting from where the ''darkness'' has spread so far.

The sunset is a common event. {{w|Isaac Asimov}} based his short story {{w|Nightfall (Asimov short story and novel)|Nightfall}} on a fictional civilization that doesn't know darkness because the planet is always illuminated by the six stars surrounding it. The story describes how people would react (mass insanity, fall of civilization) when the orbital motion of the planet eventually leads to five of the suns setting, plus one in eclipse.

Describing mundane occurrences in unusual detail, to show off how odd they really are, is something [[Randall]] has done before (for instance about dreaming in [[203: Hallucinations]]). But the caption below the main panel adds another twist to the joke by showing that the news report wasn't a mere imagine spot, but something actually happening due to the interference of Randall's final wish to his {{w|genie}}, which caused all news reporters to forget the day-night cycle.

Another possible meaning is that this comic is a reference to the way the media often talk about {{w|global warming}} as if each weather occurrence had meaning outside of its context like in [[1321: Cold]]. That take on the weather and the day/night cycle being denied because of a skewed point of view was also used on the {{w|Daily Show}}. The segment "[http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/18l8gy/unusually-large-snowstorm Unusually Large Snowstorm]" from February 10, 2010 used the same trope. Several Daily Show correspondents have different views on the weather based on where they are, ending with a correspondent who equates nighttime with everlasting darkness.

The caption references the fact that there is a limit to the number of wishes. It is a common rule, often used in fiction, that you get [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThreeWishes three wishes] from a [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenieInABottle genie in a bottle]. There usually is an added stipulation that no wish may be used to acquire more wishes. In the title text, however, it is stated that Randall has managed to bypass the three wish limit rule. This was accomplished by using his second (#2) wish to simply make the genie unable to remember granting the speaker any wishes. He have thus used the same trick on the genie as he used here on the media. The media wish turns out '''not''' to have been his last (i.e. #3), but rather #406. This shows just how far, "make someone forget something", can go by applying it to the genie.

It is interesting that it was his second wish that gave him unlimited wishes. What did he wish for on wish #1? Maybe he wasted the first wish, because he did not believe the genie was able to grant wishes - a common error {{Citation needed}}. On the other hand, he may have used the first wish to learn a way where his second wish could circumvent the three rule limit. He did not wish for more wishes (a clear rule), but since the genie now always think the next wish is his first, it is not Randall who asks for more wishes, but the genie that forgets to stop at the limit.

There seem to be a conflict with the title text, and where the caption says ''Genie, for my last wish...'' Because if the genie thinks it is his first wish, he would be confused. It could, however, be to shock the reader, that he makes a point of him wasting a final wish on something this silly. Then in the title text, he makes it clear that it was only a wish he used, because he had an unlimited number of wishes at hand. And to the genie he would simply have said, ''...for my first wish...''

*To have three wishes from a genie, but really only need one, was the joke in [[152: Hamster Ball]]. Perhaps this genie is the same, and the first wish was for a human-sized hamster ball. Much later - inspired by the hamster ball? - he breaks the code to free, not only three, genie wishes.
*The concept of having unlimited wishes has previously been explored in [[1086: Eyelash Wish Log]] - one of the wishes is also related to news anchors - the wish is to control the direction they are looking.
*Genies are also part of [[532: Piano]] and [[879: Lamp]], although these two jokes are of a more juvenile character.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail is a news anchor at a media desk and she reports:]
:Ponytail: ...getting reports that the darkness has spread as far west as Texas. Let's go live to our reporter in Houston.
:[From a breaking news window in the bottom right corner of the panel, a Cueball as a newscaster stands in darkness with two people walking behind him:]
:Cueball: It's been thirty minutes since the sun vanished...
:[There is a caption below the panel]:
:Caption: "Genie, for my last wish, make everyone in the media forget about the day-night cycle."

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:1619: Watson Medical Algorithm

2016-05-18T00:17:22Z

162.158.83.18:

Build environment is still insane since comic #371. {{unsigned ip|162.158.2.139}}

(Above poster please sign comments with four tildes)

I'm trying to picture Baymax using this algorithm. {{unsigned|International Space Station}}

:"OK, who swapped out Baymax's programming card with a Doomba AI?" [[User:VectorLightning|VectorLightning]] ([[User talk:VectorLightning|talk]]) 08:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, at least the autoconfig isn't as threatening as #416.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.179|108.162.245.179]] 07:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that the extra limbs should be removed when there are 100+ and Vitamin D levels checked when the nmbr of limbs is in an acceptable range... does IBM use a ticketing system? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.194|162.158.91.194]] 08:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
: Unfortunately the algorithm as shown in the cartoon has the conditions for those two steps exactly the other way around, making even less sense medically. --[[User:Svenman|Svenman]] ([[User talk:Svenman|talk]]) 14:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems a normal patient would end up mostly unscathed and in an infinite loop in the lower right corner. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjaminikuta]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 09:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
:Uhm no. You would normally have an oxygen level above 50% of what is expected. (It should be close to 100% if I understand [http://www.nonin.com/Normal-Oxygen-Level this correctly], which I may not...). This means you have had your skeleton removed. If you survived this you are squeezed until fluid comes out. (Probably not necessary after the skelerectomy). But then you end up in the lower right corner. Of course you can also get there after just getting an oxygen injection, but only directly if you are not comforted when the program tries. If you where comforted you will lose some limbs. And then end up in the lower right corner. No matter what if you are still OK (could be possible) when reaching here, you will be asked about your pain level. And even if you start by saying 0-8 many many times, getting as many scalp massages, you will just get the same question, until you say 10 then your eyes will be removed. But no matter what, if you are asked such a stupid question enough times you will surely at some point say something else than 0-10, and then you will die, as this answer will take you down the last path of the program (and only exit of the cycle according the to glitch mentioned in the title text), and this will end up with the program performing an autopsy on you, thus cutting you up and removing all organs etc. So no you will not be able to go unscathed infinitely, and even if you kept saying 0-8 you would eventually die from thirst. ;) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
::Yes, normal oxygen saturation is 98-100% in air. If it drops below 95% you will be in trouble, if it drops below 85% you're likely dead. [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 09:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
::: Actually you can go a lot lower than 85% and still recover. You lose consciousness at about 55% on average, so you could dip below 50% for maybe a minute and still recover with appropriate treatment. It is unclear exactly what "inject oxygen" means, it could mean intubate and actively ventilate with oxygen (appropriate) or it might mean use a syringe & needle to literally inject an oxygen embolus (which would do more harm than good). It could even mean a blood transfusion, because there is oxygen carried by the red blood cells (appropriate). [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 22:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This might also partially be a reference to machine learning, which Watson apparently uses: badly designed ML systems often build models which produce the expected results for the training data, but do something unexpected or wrong with real data. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfitting#Machine_learning]. That said ... 'dissect doctor for parts' doesn't seem like a reasonable response to any training input ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.39.208|162.158.39.208]] 10:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The noted "unrelated actions" aren't all entirely unrelated. The coughing blood one is interpreting backwards (so "is patient not coughing up blood because the patient is not here to do so?"), the vitamin D one is somewhat logical (vit D is part of the chain that converts calcium to bone, low vit D can cause bone loss, but high vit D is basically harmless), and the green fluid is slightly sane but too vague (logic appears to be that green fluid indicates severely infected and/or necrotic tissue, for which cauterizing might be a valid treatment step in extreme situations). Weirdly specific might be a better header? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.197|141.101.106.197]] 11:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

So what happens if the skeleton has exactly the right number of bones? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.153.71|162.158.153.71]] 12:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
: Indeed this case is not covered, thus making the algorithm faulty even on an abstract logical level. --[[User:Svenman|Svenman]] ([[User talk:Svenman|talk]]) 14:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
: What is the "right" number anyway? The number of bones in a normal human is not constant: it changes from 270 at birth to 206 as an adult. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 22:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
:: {{w|Human_skeleton}} : "It is composed of 270 bones at birth – this total decreases to 206 bones by adulthood after some bones have fused together" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.46|162.158.255.46]] 22:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

the Request organ donation/Remove organs part reminds me of Live Organ Transplants segment in ''{{w|Monty Python's The Meaning of Life}}''. --[[User:Valepert|valepert]] ([[User talk:Valepert|talk]]) 12:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

100 could be a reference to 4 in binary (4+ limbs / less than 4 limbs) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.39|141.101.99.39]] 12:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
:I believe you're correct. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 15:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
:: The binary explanation does make more sense than a human centipede. Although, given the general grossness of the comic, I'm not going to completely rule out the human centipede idea. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 22:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think GlaDOS is a descendent from this Watson. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 15:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The part about squeezing and looking for the color of the ooze seems to reference Humorism. The colors match the four humors. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.188|162.158.91.188]] 15:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
: No it does not match -- the colors would be red-black-yellow-'''blue''' (not green) -- the blue is for water [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Humorism.svg/1022px-Humorism.svg.png like in this diagram] --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.46|162.158.255.46]] 14:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
:: The red-black-yellow-green matches the Rastafarian colors [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.46|162.158.255.46]] 15:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised he didn't make a Dr Watson joke/reference.--[[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 17:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This algorithm certainly does not exit without the death of the patient, however, such a death can result from old age as long as the patient can make it to the bottom right infinite loop and continuously reports a number from 0-9 for pain. It IS possible to make it to that loop alive. Extremely low blood oxygen levels have been recorded in healthy Everest climbers, but the article I read gave the results in kilopascals, not in % so I don't know how that converts. However, repeatedly reporting a pain level of 0-8 would result in continuous scalp massages, which may actually be considered pleasant. [[User:Kashim|Kashim]] ([[User talk:Kashim|talk]]) 20:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
: I get the feeling that even if people can survive at low oxygen levels at a decent level for a time, it's not going to be either healthy or prolonged. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 04:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
:: I think I found a major fault in the diagram -- The algo will loop indefinitely removing eyes with laser surgery as long as the pain-level is 10 -- since most people only have two eyes, the algo may seg-fault after the second eye is removed and the paitent may leave alive at that point [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.46|162.158.255.46]] 15:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this may be the least undesirable path through the flowchart:
START > Draw blood (enough to lower oxygen saturation to 49%) > Record name > Measure height and weight > Measured height/weight happens to match standard chart exactly > No surgery needed > Not coughing up blood > Still here > Record pulse rate > No screaming (unconscious due to low O2 saturation) > O2 saturation below 50% > Inject oxygen > Comforting succesful > Review medical history > Skin grafts > Fewer than 100 limbs > Good vitamin D > Check build environment > Rinse with saline > Phone battery level is high > Sync photos > General anesthesia > Discharge [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 22:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
:Nope, that path doesn't work. First, injecting oxygen may do more harm than good, as previously mentioned. Second, you'll be unconscious, so comforting will be unsuccessful. Third, having fewer than 100 limbs actually leads to the path where some are removed (possibly an error in the chart?). Fourth, due to the bug, discharge leads to hunting you down and capturing you again. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.161|108.162.249.161]] 01:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
::First, it may or it may not... I'm hoping not! (see above for discussion of possible ways to "inject" oxygen) Second, I'll be conscious again because my oxygen saturation has now been restored, so comforting is possible. Third, please look at the updated version of the flowchart, fewer than 100 leads to measuring Vitamin D. Fourth, there is no pathway shown from discharge to hunting down and capturing: I assume that START is admission to the hospital, therefore once discharged from hospital I have escaped Watson's clutches. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 04:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:::Yes, Randall fixed the bone count decision, but perhaps you missed the 'minor glitch' described in the mouseover text... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.161|108.162.249.161]] 04:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
::::Dammit. Yes I missed that. I have doomed myself to infinite skin grafts. The glitch means the only end point is autopsy. Which is less undesirable, infinite skin grafts or autopsy? [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 05:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::No luck on getting infinite skin grafts, I'm afraid. Watson won't draw blood again, so you won't be able to keep failing the oxygen saturation test. Besides, keeping oxygen perpetually under 50% would be fatal in itself. Maybe that's the best way to go: blacking out from oxygen deprivation. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.161|108.162.249.161]] 23:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

ALERT!!! The comic has been updated since this explanation was first posted: the decisions for number of limbs have been swapped. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 04:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I wonder whether Randall took some inspiration from [http://buttersafe.com/2015/10/15/a-serious-case-of-spookiness/ Buttersafe]? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.161|108.162.249.161]] 04:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
: entirely possible, Randall does list Buttersafe as a web comic he enjoys. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 05:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Man I liked the original limb count decision better.... [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 04:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:Yes, there was a delicious craziness about it. [[User:Martin|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martin|talk]]) 05:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
::Ah, so it ''did'' change. (SFAICT, usually when the comic changes between publication and the present, the changes are noted somewhere in the explanation. It seems the explanation has been made to match the current version but doesn't have any reference to the original.) IMO, also, the original was funnier for the 'bad AI' (i.e. either evil or just incompetent) quality to that section. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.227|162.158.152.227]] 09:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Another infinite loop is in the upper right; if the patient's phone battery is low, defibrillate, then check phone battery condition again. Since defibrillating the patient is not going to improve teh patient's phone battery charge level, this will repeat infinitely, unless the battery is being charged by some external force (or, perhaps, by the electric charge from the defibrillator?) [[User:Swordsmith|Swordsmith]] ([[User talk:Swordsmith|talk]]) 12:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't help feeling some of the information on this page are meant as jokes, like "disect the doctor for parts" being "may be considered ethically dubious". Is there someone who can clarify these? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.72.191|162.158.72.191]] 19:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:I believe the author of the information is giving the robot the benefit of the doubt. After all, some of these may very well be acceptable under the right circumstances, and you know what they say about those who assume! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.11|108.162.221.11]] 02:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

What could happen if I rate my pain level as 10 three times? There is no more eye left to remove, so would the algorithm crash? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.83.18|162.158.83.18]] 00:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)