explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2453: Excel Lambda

2021-04-22T13:21:02Z

162.158.93.213: reply to answer

Another ghost cueball comic! You can see it in the last panel. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.54|108.162.216.54]] 06:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

==> Is that something that has happened before? First time noticing it. Is it just a remnant of the sketching? Of doest it mean something? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.213|162.158.93.213]] 13:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Someone needs to add an explanation of the Lambda, and possibly how Excel is implementing it. (I suppose it would immediately be useful for cutting down common re-use within a formula line, though =IF(ISERR(FIND(":",A1)),A1,RIGHT(A1,LEN(A1)-FIND(":",A1))) is a trivial repeat of the FIND, once to check, then again to do, I often need to do far more nested things, check for being a value, repeat the FIND to deal with the LEFT, etc.) But it has the smell of being effectively a Macro in this instance. Which already seems to me to be the only way to run a ''proper'' Turing Machine in an Excel column without hitting Circular Reference issues.

Would it be a stretch to say that Turing's inability to prove if Cueball will stop is actually equivalent to the halting problem, except it is for Cueball and not an arbitrary Turing machine? I thought that was pretty funny. [[User:XTheBHox|xTheBHox]] ([[User talk:XTheBHox|talk]]) 11:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Microsoft themselves claim that the addition of LAMBDA makes Excel turing-comlpete (see here: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/excel-blog/announcing-lambda-turn-excel-formulas-into-custom-functions/ba-p/1925546). Based on this comic, I would argue that it already was... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.36|162.158.159.36]] 12:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2159: Comments

2019-06-06T07:32:36Z

162.158.93.213:

It seems the news article in this comic is doing exactly what it says is causing outraged user comments - presenting a narrative that is based on a few random comments from outraged readers! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 17:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
:...and none of the comments for the article appear to be from outraged users, contradicting the arbitrary narrative of the article that is based on what must be assumed are random comments! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 17:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Sources:
There is https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2016/08/17/489516952/npr-website-to-get-rid-of-comments?t=1559755447034 to tell you that NPR moves to Twitter and Facebook because they found that 491,000 comments came from only 19,400 commenters[[User:Tier666|Tier666]] ([[User talk:Tier666|talk]]) 17:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if these are "comments", so much as they are tweets being "quoted" by this article. That seems to better explain the last entry, which appears to be meant as a self-referencing quote. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.4|108.162.241.4]] 18:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
:This is entirely correct. The comic is clearly referring to the practice of quoting posts/tweets to support an article's thesis. See e.g. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/01/collection-action-kills-innovation.html [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.169|173.245.52.169]] 20:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
:I'm not sure I agree with this interpretation! I agree that many times articles display copies of tweets, but the article title specifically mentions random comments, not random tweets. I believe the comments are indeed from readers of the article, but that's just my impression. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 21:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
::Well... Can't tweets be comments as well? Comments do not need to be in the comment section. Even if I tell my coworker at the water dispenser about an article I read, and that I didn't like it, that is a comment on that article... --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 05:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
A lot of XKCD comics reference or allude to current events/reality. Are there a lot of articles that focus on the first few reader comments? Aside from NPR's move, is there something else Randall's referencing?

I think everyone is missing the real point of this comic. What it's really satirizing is the way the news media elevates a handful of negative comments about something to mean "The Internet is outraged".
[[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

There's a distinct lack of attention to the fact at least one of these comments/tweets are entirely stripped of context. The second to last one has absolutely no mention of the topic at hand, just a general statement. This delivers a particular punch coupled with the article's hand-picked comments to support a narrative. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.213|162.158.93.213]] 07:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

<nowiki>
<code>contentEditable == true;</code>
</nowiki>

2062: Barnard's Star

2018-10-23T08:39:53Z

162.158.93.213: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2062
| date = October 22, 2018
| title = Barnard's Star
| image = barnards_star.png
| titletext = "Ok, team. We have a little under 10,000 years before closest approach to figure out how to destroy Barnard's Star." "Why, does it pose a threat to the Solar System?" "No. It's just an asshole."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Please edit the explanation below and only mention here why it isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[File:Near-stars-past-future-en.svg|thumb|300px|Distances to the nearest stars from 20,000 years ago until 80,000 years in the future]]
{{w|Barnard's Star}} is a very-low-mass red dwarf about 6 light-years away from Earth in the constellation of {{w|Ophiuchus}}. It is the fourth-nearest known individual star to the {{w|Sun}} (after the three components of the Alpha Centauri system) and the closest star in the Northern Celestial Hemisphere. It is a {{w|Red dwarf}} with a mass of 0.144 Solar masses and it is 7–12 billion years old. Because of this low mass the gravitational pressure in the core is much lower and thus the fusion rate is far smaller than in the core of the Sun. In fact this star is so dim, even though it's one of the nearest, it can't be seen by the naked eye. The low fusion rate also means that the lifespan of small stars is much longer. While the Sun might last about 10 billion years and huge stars only a few hundred million years, a small Red dwarf has a lifespan of about a trillion years.

Barnard's Star is the star with the greatest proper motion in the sky. Proper motion is motion in the sky other than that caused by earth's rotation. Barnard's star is both very close to the sun (as these things go) and moving at a speed of more than 140 km/s toward the Sun. It will make its closest approach to the Sun in approximately 10,000 years, at a distance within about 3.75 light-years.

The image on the right shows different stars near the Sun over 100,000 years and it can be seen that none of them are getting closer than 3 light-years. This is a safe distance to our Solar System and the stars will not influence the orbits of the planets or smaller bodies. It's also obvious that much closer approaches never have happened since the Solar System formed 4.5 billion years ago because otherwise the nearly circular orbits of the planets in the same plane wouldn't be possible.

The title text emphasises that this close approach will not be any hazard to the Solar System, but someone is envious of the long lifetime of Barnard's Star and annoyed by its unpleasant behavior.

=Transcript=
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A black sky is shown with a yellow spot near the bottom, left of the center. Three smaller red spots at the diagonal from top left to bottom right indicate a moving star over time. Above these red spots lines are connected to a text that starts and ends with many ''A''s, first growing, and at the end getting smaller:]
:...AAAAHHi Sun! I was here billions of years before you formed and will shine for trillions of years after you dieEEEEEAAA...

:[Caption below the frame:]
:Sometimes, I wonder what Barnard's Star is saying to the Sun as it performs its 20,000-year-long high-speed flyby.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

2049: Unfulfilling Toys

2018-09-21T19:22:52Z

162.158.93.213: Extending Rigid Slap Bracelet

{{comic
| number = 2049
| date = September 21, 2018
| title = Unfulfilling Toys
| image = unfulfilling_toys.png
| titletext = We were going to do a falling-apart Rubik's cube that was just 27 independent blocks stuck together with magnets, but then we realized it was actually really cool and even kind of worked, so we cut that one.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a Stretch Armstrong made out of hard plastic. Please edit the explanation below and only mention here why it isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic lists and illustrates a number of classic toys that are missing a key piece or attribute that makes them work and/or that makes them unique. As such, they are not much fun{{Citation needed}}.

====Rigid Slap Bracelet====
Slap Bracelets are flexible bars that when you hit them on your arm they twist and become a bracelet. A rigid one would not twist and would be deeply frustrating and painful.

====Sealed Stomp Rocket====
A stomp rocket has a rubber pouch full of air, connected via a hose to a cylinder containing a tightly-fitting rocket on a stick. By stomping on the pouch, the air is forced into the cylinder launching the rocket into the air. By sealing the air channel, the rocket would stay in the cylinder and the person would just be bounced into the air by the pouch -- acting like the world's smallest bouncy house -- or the pouch will burst rending the toy even more useless.

====Pump-only Supersoaker====
A supersoaker is a water gun that works by first pumping air into the gun, which introduces air pressure next to the water, then releasing the water using the gun's trigger -- the extra pressure from the pumped air makes the water go much further than a regular water gun. In this version, the water cannot be released, so the fun part of the water gun -- getting to spray your friends -- isn't there.

====Glass Glow Stick====

In a classic glow-stick, made of flexible plastic, one much first bend it enough to break the glass cylinder inside. This allows the chemicals inside to mix and begin glowing within the plastic tube. If the entire tube were made of actual glass, however, it would not only shatter into many sharp glass pieces, but would also cover the hands of the unfortunate user with a mixture of harmful chemicals.

====Wingless Sky Dancer====

In the traditional toy, a doll or figure with folded-up wings sits on top of a hand-held device with a wrapped string or other mechanism that lets it spin the doll very fast. As the doll spins, centripetal force causes the wings to unfold and provide lift, and the doll rises up in the air and flies, spinning, sometimes going quite high. Without the wings, the doll will spin but otherwise remain flightless.

====No-strings-attached Yo-yo====
In a traditional yo-yo, one attaches a string to their finger and the other end of the string is loosely attached to the yo-yo, such that it will hold the yo-yo but the yo-yo can still spin. In this case, the string is included but not attached to the yo-yo, so the yo-yo, when it reaches the end of the string, will keep going instead of coming back to the person or spinning at the end of the string.

This one actually exists and some people are even quite good at it. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5P-fdrlBg8 for example.
====Title-text: Falling-Apart Rubik's cube====
In order to build the magnetic Rubik's cube, you would need to embed magnets (like the little hockey-puck shaped ones for magnetic bulletin boards) in the the uncolored (inward-facing) sides of each cube. You would need to take care to have the correct pole of each magnet facing outward in order for it to work, but you can achieve that by having the corners and the central outside cubes use one pole (say north) facing outward and have the edge and center (hidden) cube use the other pole (say south) facing outward. In that way each piece would be attracted to its correct neighboring piece and if you rotated a side, it would resist turning until you got half way around, then it would be drawn into the correct new position.

This also exists, is rather functional, and is the only way to make fun Rubik's cube shapes such as 1x5x5.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
{{comic discussion}}