explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

619: Supported Features

2021-01-09T15:06:23Z

172.68.10.46: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 619
| date = August 5, 2009
| title = Supported Features
| image = supported_features.png
| titletext = I hear many of you finally have smooth Flash support, but me and my Intel card are still waiting on a kernel patch somewhere in the pipeline before we can watch Jon Stewart smoothly.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is a reference to {{w|Linux}} builds adding support and features that will not appeal to the majority of desktop computer and Linux users. Cueball has created a patch that allows support for processors with 4,096 cores, even though most computers have only 8 cores or fewer. He considers this to be more worthwhile an endeavor than full-featured {{w|Adobe Flash|Flash}} support, which was the most common way to present videos or animations on websites at the time when this comic was published, five years before the first official release of {{w|HTML5}}. Flash movies are known for their bad performance and high consumption on CPU power compared with other movie formats. Cueball's friend is uninterested in the 4,096-core-processor fix, and only wants to know if it will help him with Flash video.

However, as of 2013, there are commercial computer systems that can be actually configured up to 2,048 cores (4,096 threads), e.g. [http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/uv/models.html SGI UV 2000]. Linux powers 95% of the world's supercomputers, so while Flash video on desktop Linux would directly affect more people, the high performance computing industry relies on and actually funds Linux development. It should be noted that GNU/Linux now supports flash via {{w|Gnash_(software)}}. The first stable release was February 15, 2012; over two and a half years after this comic was written. In a turn, Flash was officially deprecated at the end of 2020, making supporting it mostly pointless.

The title text mentions the "American political satirist, writer, director, television host, actor, media critic, and stand-up comedian" {{w|Jon Stewart}} which further refers to his famous American late night satirical television program ''{{w|The Daily Show}}''. The show is also available on the internet ([http://www.thedailyshow.com/ www.thedailyshow.com]), presenting the shows on Flash videos.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and a friend holding a laptop standing together.]
:Cueball: It took a lot of work, but this latest linux patch enables support for machines with 4,096 CPUs, up from the old limit of 1,024.
:Friend: Do you have support for smooth full-screen Flash video yet?
:Cueball: No, but who uses ''that?''

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Linux]]

1849: Decades

2021-01-09T02:28:54Z

172.68.10.46: /* Explanation */ Twenties are here, that's for sure

{{comic
| number = 1849
| date = June 12, 2017
| title = Decades
| image = decades.png
| titletext = In the 90s, our variety radio station used the tagline "the best music of the 70s, 80s, and 90s." After 2000, they switched to "the best music of the 80s, 90s, and today." I figured they'd change again in 2010, but it's 2017 and they're still saying "80s, 90s, and today." I hope radio survives long enough for us to find out how they deal with the 2020s.
}}

==Explanation==

This comic shows, by use of a timeline, an interesting phenomenon where music, fashion, movies and culture created between the years 2000 and 2020 are not commonly grouped into the decade in which they were produced like previous decades. The comic asserts the reason for this is the lack of a single clear term to describe these decades, stating that the term "{{w|2000s}}" is ambiguous (as it could refer to the decade, century or millennium as a whole) and the terms "{{w|Aughts}}" and "Teens" never became the widely accepted terms for these decades.

The time-line in the comic stretches into the future (as of the time of publication) and attempts to name the 2020-2029 decade as the 20s, but does so with an uncertain question mark, presumably because it's (presently) an open question whether this dating convention will be reinstated after a 20-year pause. As the comic points out, common vernacular has managed to operate without clear terms for that grouping for 17 years, and that may have left enough of a mark on our thinking that we'll simply continue to operate in that way. There's an argument to be made grouping culture by decades is fairly arbitrary and not essential in cultural discussions. It should also be considered that that "the twenties" is still occasionally used to refer to the 1920s, and so reusing it to refer to the 2020s could be a source of confusion. It's not impossible that decade-based grouping will fall out of favor altogether in the 21st century.

It should perhaps also be noted that culture (particularly when associated with young people) in the 2000s and 2010s is often termed "{{w|Millennials#Cultural_identity|millennial culture}}", although {{tvtropes|TheGenerationGap|this term frequently comes with negative connotations.}}

The title text talks about Randall's local radio station. Until the 90s, they were able to use clear decade groupings to classify music. Once the year 2000 hit, they began saying "today", avoiding aughts or 2000s, which, as Randall says, never gained popular support. Instead of adopting a term for the 2010s, they simply continued to use "today" to refer to everything after the 1990s (this practice has been fairly common on American radio stations). Randall expresses interest in what change they will include in the 2020s (changing to the 20s or continuing their format), but includes a comedic jab at radio, suggesting that the medium might not last that long. The increasing speed and ubiquity of the internet, combined with compact digital music storage, has made radio programming increasingly obsolete in the United States and other wealthy countries. That said the joke is still based on exaggeration to an extent, since commercial radio is unlikely to disappear entirely in the next three years, but is likely to become less and less viable as an industry over time and what remains or springs from the ashes will likely shift radically in its format and delivery.

Twenties were discussed again later in [[2249: I Love the 20s]].

==Transcript==
:[A timeline across the top of the box marks decades from 1960 to 2030, the labels are above the line and the ticks marking each decade are below.]

:[Label: 1960]
:60s Music; 60s Fashion; 60s Movies; 60s Culture

:[Label: 1970]
:70s Music; 70s Fashion; 70s Movies; 70s Culture

:[Label: 1980]
:80s Music; 80s Fashion; 80s Movies; 80s Culture

:[Label: 1990]
:90s Music; 90s Fashion; 90s Movies; 90s Culture

:[Label: 2000 and 2010]
:[Items grouped over two decades.]
:Fashion; Culture; Music; Movies

:[Label: 2020]
:[The text is in light grey font.]
:20s Music?; 20s Fashion?; 20s Movies?; 20s Culture?

:[Label: 2030]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:It's weird how for 20 years we stopped grouping our cultural memories by decade because "2000s" is ambiguous and and "Aughts" and "Teens" never really stuck.

==Trivia==
*Randall has by mistake, written "and and aughts" in the caption for this comic, instead of "and aughts".

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Timelines]]
[[Category:Time]]
[[Category:Music]]
[[Category:Language]]

Talk:1844: Voting Systems

2017-06-07T10:38:01Z

172.68.10.46:

Looks like 2 of us added explanations at the same time. Someone else want to consolidate them and produce a concise explanation?
~blackhat {{unsigned ip|162.158.69.75}}

I tried merging our explanations, so there is a small improvement, but there is still some duplicated information. Plus I'm not a native english speaker, so a consolidation by a third editor would be welcome. {{unsigned ip|141.101.69.165}}

Something I don't understand about the Arrow Impossibility Theorem: In the example given, the result of the election is obviously a 3-way tie, where each candidate got exactly equal support. Surely the Arrow Impossibility Theorem doesn't complain about voting system's inability to intuitively break an exact tie? {{unsigned ip|172.68.34.58}}

:I think there is another layer of explanation here. When Cueball is discussing this - he's talking about voting for which voting system is to be chosen. The choice is Approval versus Instant Runoff - but isn't Cueball arguing about using a Condorcet method to decide WHICH voting method to choose? This is emphasised by the mouse-over text which talks about him dynamically changing his choice of ultimate candidate based on the election system chosen - which is exactly the Condorset paradox, but when applied to the selection of which voting system you want rather than the choice of candidate. Again reinforced by the discussion of "Strong Arrows theorem" which at that same meta-voting level. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.39|162.158.69.39]] 15:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

: The "exact tie" only exists because ranked-choice ballots destroy any information about ''strength'' of preference. It likely wouldn't be an exact tie with a Score voting ballot, for instance. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.51|162.158.62.51]] 00:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally the idea behind Arrow's Theorem is that you would get different results if you did a vote where the choices were just A or B, B or C, C or A, thus no option wins head to head against the others (Condorset Paradox). An example I recently read was economic policy, and how the options being presented can cause policy to fluctuate wildly in a democracy as the outcome depends on the options compared. -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.10|108.162.249.10]] 16:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
:Neither Arrow's Theorem nor the joke makes any reference to Condorcet's paradox. Rather, the joke is that it shows an individual voter who apparently fails to satisfy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_irrelevant_alternatives independence of irrelevant alternatives]. This is one of the criteria in Arrow's theorem, and it is normally always regarded as being true of any individual's opinions, just not necessarily of the outcome of an election. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 18:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

:For reference: both instant run-off voting (IRV) and every concorcet method fail independence of irrelevant alternatives. Some (most?) condorcet systems satisfy all other criteria of Arrow's theorem, while IRV also fails monotonicity. Approval voting satisfies both, but it is outside the scope of Arrow's theorem as it is not a ranked voting system. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 18:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"Arrow's impossibility theorem states that when voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked voting electoral system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide ranking." Arrow's theorem does not say that. Arrow's impossibility theorem says "When voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked voting electoral system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide ranking that is complete, transitive, Pareto efficient, have universal domain, has no dictator, and independent of irrelevant alternatives." The conditions matter, and the non-dictatorship condition in particular is horrible misnamed.

"The theorem may be interpreted in a way suggesting that no matter what voting electoral system is implemented in a democracy, the resulting democratic choices are equally imperfect". No. Perfection is an absolute so things are either perfect or they are not. "Equally imperfect" is a tautology. If you are going to throw in "equally" some voting methods are manifestly closer to perfection than others, some voting methods satisfy all but one of Arrow's conditions, while others satisfy none of them.

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.21|162.158.62.21]] 18:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

:: Quite true. Monotonicity is not desirable because it enables the kind of strategies which make Condorcet systems almost as unstable in practice as FPTP. Arrow's Theorem can be disposed of by the realization that nonmonotonicity is what makes IRV impervious to strategy. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.6.46|162.158.6.46]] 07:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

: Arrow's Theorem is based on a fundamentally flawed approach in the first place, which he realized later in life. Using ordered rankings to estimate utility is not a very good plan. Voting systems based around estimating utility directly (rated rather than ranked) are much better. It was based on economist dogma that utility can't be compared meaningfully between individuals, but interpersonal comparisons of preference are even less valid. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.51|162.158.62.51]] 00:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Totally unrelated to the discussion, but interesting that Cueball has moved from being between a black hat and a black haired women in [[1842: Anti-Drone Eagles]] to being between a White Hat and a white haired woman, two comics later, where he starts speaking in both comics. :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

For deep (but simply explained) insight into voting systems, (and why the American first past the pole system sucks), see this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLej2SlXPEd37YwwEY7mm0WyZ8cfB1TxXa playlist of youtube videos] by CGP Grey --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

: Unfortunately he repeats incorrect statements like "IRV eliminates the spoiler effect" and obviously hasn't done honest research on it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.51|162.158.62.51]] 00:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

===GOOMHR!===
Cueball almost perfectly matches my views on voting. I think Approval is far and away the best (due to ease of implementation and low chance of paradox). Condorcet & IRV use the same ballot design, but IRV is mathematically inferior, so I don't get why anyone likes it, other than bandwagon effects. The only situation where I'd support IRV is if it were the only viable option to replace FPTP, which is unfortunately the case in many places. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 22:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

:Frankie, the two established parties Democrats and Republicans both favor IRV over Condorcet precisely because of its mathematical biases. The 'deficiencies' of IRV tend to eliminate centrist moderates early in the process and leave the established parties in political power. IRV represents a slower change to the political status quo. [[User:Barrackar|Barrackar]] ([[User talk:Barrackar|talk]]) 07:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The larger the democracy, the less a single vote matters, regardless of the voting system. I, for one, support a return to the system of democratic city-states with annual elections. If a sizeable focal minority don't agree with their government, they can just break off and declare their area a separate city-state. Of course, this could eventually create a loose alliance of house-states or even people-states each with their individual laws and foreign policy. --[[User:Nialpxe|Nialpxe]], 2017. [[User_talk:Nialpxe|(Arguments welcome)]] 02:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

:Obvious counter-argument: voluntarily replacing our existing structure of nations with city-states is so much '''less''' likely to happen than replacing FPTP, that it's really not worth discussing as a plausible option at this point in history. OTOH, if Trump starts WW3, all bets are off after the apocalypse. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 13:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this might be the first xkcd, in over 1,800 comics, that I understood literally nothing on my own. Wow. Except that this was something about voting, caught the word voting, LOL! I usually get at least a few things, and come here to fill in any gaps. Guess discussing these 4 things is particularly American, I've never heard of any of them (as a Canadian, and on an iPad where I can only see the title text here).! - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.64|108.162.219.64]] 03:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC) [Hey, someone replied in the middle of my comment block! LOL! Copying my "signature"/time stamp here in the hopes of making it complete again as two separate blocks] - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 04:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
:The same with me. After reading the comic, explanation AND comments, I can't even find the joke, let alone understand it.[[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 03:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
::The topic of voting systems is particularly relevant for Canadians under the current administration, because one of the major planks of their campaign platform was "ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system" (https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/electoral-reform/). Some of us consider it one of the top two or three priorities for the current term actually! [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 04:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
:::Ah, yes, I should have said "As a Quebecer". :) We don't have the luxury of voting our beliefs, we have to vote defensively to ensure we continue BEING Canadian. Any discussion of voting I hear is about THAT. :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 04:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
::Actually I find the explanation worked for me, just that there's not much joke here. As I understand it, Arrow's Theorem means there's no clear Best System, that there's no agreement or something (sorry, I didn't re-read the explanation, so I'm working from my memory or reading 2-3 days ago, LOL!). This is saying anyone who knows enough about Arrow's Theorem to embrace it will automatically be a part of it, and magically likewise fail to agree with each other (which would take embracing the theory to a ridiculous level). - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 04:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

One thing I don't get: Why Condorcet can't be used on 3 or more candidates. I read a bit of the Wikipedia link about the Condorcet Paradox, okay, I see the POTENTIAL paradox, but it's not necessarily so. Sure it MAY be that 3 candidates get equal support in this way, but numerically this is so horribly unlikely I'm suprised it's not only being considered, but given such significant weight as to say it can't be used! As I understand it, using last year's election, it works like this: Trump, Hillary, and let's throw in Bernie Sanders as the third. As I'm understanding the explanation of the Condorcet Method, if a hypothetical election between Bernie and Trump would have Bernie winning (based on support? Sounds like no actual voting taking place), and a hypothetical election between Bernie and Hillary would also have Bernie winning, then Bernie is the winner. But that's 3 people, what doesn't work? And if Condorcet only works with 2 candidates, how is that not just a normal vote? The Paradox seems to say if exactly a third of voters rank Bernie over Hillary over Trump, one third says Hillary over Trump over Bernie, and the final third has Trump over Hillary over Bernie, then THAT'S the Condorcet Paradox. But that's SO specific, it's unlikely! - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.64|108.162.219.64]] 03:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC) I agree. Who cares about the Condorcet winner when there is the Smith set? [[User:Barrackar|Barrackar]] ([[User talk:Barrackar|talk]]) 07:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

''To the Canadian commenter:'' have you followed the elections of the Conservative party? It looks to me like a recent large-scale use of an "non-traditional" voting system. I've heard it criticised for its complexity, but no discussion on why it was chosen.
[http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-the-2017-conservative-leadership-vote-will-work/ Description here]
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.88|162.158.126.88]] 15:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC) anothercanadiancommenter
::Nope. In addition to being a Canadian I also live in Quebec. All my political involvement is about remaining Canadian, I know nothing beyond that, LOL! We don't have the luxury of voting our beliefs (other than that one), so It seems pointless to look any further. All we can do is hope that the strongest party against separation behaves. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 04:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Barrackar, any voting system can be used on any number of candidates. However, there are a lot of voting system criteria, and no voting system will be able to satisfy all of them. Arrow's theorem implies that any system based on rankings will fail at least one of 3 important criteria, and one criteria that can never be satisfied by a ranking system is immunity from irrelevant choices (IIC). However, Approval Voting (or any general cardinal rating method) is not a ranking method, per se, and so it isn't necessarily subject to the constraints of Arrow's theorem. But choosing between different voting systems is, in itself, a form of choice, and the comic uses this to point out that the implicit ranking of systems leads to lack of immunity from irrelevant choices -- by introducing IRV, Cueball's choice changes from Approval to Condorcet (which fails IIC). Note that Approval does satisfy IIC and another important criterion, Participation (adding another vote for your favorite doesn't cause your favorite to lose), but it does fail the Majority Criterion (MC) -- it is possible that by Approving all your approved candidates, including your compromise, a candidate who is in fact preferred by a majority won't win, but will be beaten by a candidate who would lose to that candidate in a direct pairwise comparison. IRV does satisfy MC, but it fails Participation and Immunity from Irrelevant Choice, is not summable (you can't do counts in separate precincts and sum the results centrally -- you have to do a central count overall to decide which candidate to eliminate next), and its monotonicity failures can lead to unpredictably unstable results. Personally, I prefer a ratings-based method, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_judgment Majority Judgment], which is effectively a special kind of median rating that is highly resistant to strategic manipulation. But MJ can still fail Participation, so I think it would benefit from being the first stage in a [http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/3-2-1_voting 3-2-1 voting] style approach -- use MJ with an A,B,C,D,E,F rating system, with A,B,C ratings approved and D,E,F disapproved, then take the top 3 MJ candidates as the 3-2-1 semi-finalists. Drop the least approved candidate from those 3 to get the top two semifinalists, and finally, choose the candidate who wins pairwise as the winner. There could be situations where MJ fails participation, but the participation loser would likely still be in the top three and would win both the "2" and final pairwise comparison. [[User:Araucaria|Araucaria]] ([[User talk:Araucaria|talk]]) 17:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the example provided in the description. In what election would Sanders, Clinton, and Trump be on the same ballot? [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 04:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
::Sounds like you're talking about what I said. This is why I worded it "let's throw in Bernie Sanders as the third", I needed a third candidate to explain what I was talking about, and he's the only other presidential hopeful whose name I know off the top of my head. :) I don't know WHY Bernie can't be on the same ballot - I suspect he's the same party as either Hillary or Trump, so he was competing with one of them to be the party's candidate - but his early disappearance from things last year led me to grasp that he couldn't be. (I should probably point out once again that I'm Canadian, therefore not my shindig, plus I'm proudly very politically unaware. See above comments for why). - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 04:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
:::If you want a specific 2016 candidate likely to be on the same ballot as Clinton and Trump and likely to beat either in a one-on-one contest, I recommend {{w|Evan McMullin}} (notably in Utah). - January First-of-May [[Special:Contributions/172.68.10.46|172.68.10.46]] 10:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

1782: Team Chat

2017-01-07T09:17:35Z

172.68.10.46: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1782
| date = January 6, 2017
| title = Team Chat
| image = team_chat.png
| titletext = 2078: He announces that he's finally making the jump from screen+irssi to tmux+weechat.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Randall]] provides us with a – presumably anecdotal – montage of the Internet's changing attitude towards different instant messaging protocols, framed within the context of a team trying to remain in communication while tolerating each others' different tastes.

Although one-on-one "talk" programs date back to 1960s mainframes, {{w|Internet Relay Chat}} (IRC) was one of the first real-time group communication protocols, invented in 1988. While it remains the format on which most later apps were based, the convenience and accessibility of other protocols such as AIM and Skype gradually exceeded IRC in popularity. Many users took to the new environments, but others preferred the old and familiar, hence schisms between groups began to grow.

[https://www.skype.com Skype] and [https://slack.com Slack] are both proprietary centralized communication protocols (usually used through their official clients). Skype focuses mainly on voice communication, be it for personal or business use, and own installable client, while Slack relies almost entirely on text communication, focuses on work communication and works completely well in its own web client, even though official desktop and mobile clients are available as well. Slack also features a huge customizability (bots, plugins) possibly inspired by IRC, and its users need to create communication teams, working inside subdomains at *.slack.com. It is possible to connect to Slack via IRC as well, using a [https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/201727913-Connect-to-Slack-over-IRC-and-XMPP gateway feature], if allowed by the team's admin.

Randall here seems to commenting on the persistence of IRC; while generally considered to be ancient software in comparison to newer and still-competing protocols, its endless customizability has led some people to support it above all others.

Extrapolating for the sake of humor, the joke here lies in a particularly uncommon but memorable type of Internet denizen: even in a far-off distant future where the world's technology has led to a superlative messaging network encompassing all people in some supposed, incredible bliss, there is always - in Randall's vision - going to be That IRC Guy.

In the title text, both {{w|GNU_Screen|screen}} and {{w|Tmux|tmux}} are unix programs that help you multitask while working in terminal (command line), and {{w|Irssi|irssi}} and {{w|WeeChat|weechat}} are both communication clients supporting mainly IRC, capable of working in a command line environment. Tmux is a newer and apparently more user-friendly project, complete with handy menus and titles, while screen is something of an industry standard, but relatively difficult to use – you need to know what you are doing or read help before use, otherwise you get lost and frustrated. [http://superuser.com/questions/236158/tmux-vs-screen] The same it is with the newer, more feature-packed and user-friendly weechat vs industry-standard, harder-to-use irssi. [https://www.quora.com/IRC-Which-do-you-prefer-irssi-or-weechat-and-why]

Basically, that ''one'' guy is a hardcore UNIX geek who doesn't use any graphical user interface, and in 2078 he decides to use a little less inconvenient, yet still command-line-based tools.

Timing of this strip follows the [https://irssi.org/2017/01/05/irssi-1.0.0-released/ release of irssi version 1.0.0].

Randall has touched on similar themes before in [[927: Standards]].

==Transcript==
:[Hairbun holding up her palm toward Cueball. A frame over the top border of the panel has a caption:]
:2004
:Hairbun: Our team stays in touch over IRC.

:[Megan is looking at Ponytail who is holding up her palm toward her. A frame over the top border of the panel has a caption:]
:2010
:Ponytail: Our team mainly uses Skype, but some of us prefer to stick to IRC.

:[Cueball is talking with Megan in a frameless panel. A frame at the top of the panel has a caption:]
:2017
:Cueball: We've got almost everyone on Slack,
:Cueball: But three people refuse to quit IRC and connect via Gateway.

:[A black panel with white text and drawings. The main body of text is above a the singularity, a starburst around a circle with two more broken lined circles around the starburst. To the right another Cueball-like guy floats in space with his laptop computer, typing on the keyboard. A frame, that is white inside, is over the top border of the panel has a caption: ]
:2051
:Narration: All consciousnesses have merged with the Galactic Singularity,
:Narration: Except for ''one'' guy who insists on joining through his IRC client.
:One Guy: I just have it set up the way I want, okay?!
:Galactic Singularity: ''*Sigh*''



{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Comics with inverted brightness]]
[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]
[[Category:Computers]]

1782: Team Chat

2017-01-07T09:15:54Z

172.68.10.46: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1782
| date = January 6, 2017
| title = Team Chat
| image = team_chat.png
| titletext = 2078: He announces that he's finally making the jump from screen+irssi to tmux+weechat.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Randall]] provides us with a – presumably anecdotal – montage of the Internet's changing attitude towards different instant messaging protocols, framed within the context of a team trying to remain in communication while tolerating each others' different tastes.

Although one-on-one "talk" programs date back to 1960s mainframes, {{w|Internet Relay Chat}} (IRC) was one of the first real-time group communication protocols, invented in 1988. While it remains the format on which most later apps were based, the convenience and accessibility of other protocols such as AIM and Skype gradually exceeded IRC in popularity. Many users took to the new environments, but others preferred the old and familiar, hence schisms between groups began to grow.

[https://www.skype.com Skype] and [https://slack.com Slack] are both proprietary centralized communication protocols (usually used through their official clients). Skype focuses mainly on voice communication, be it for personal or business use, and own installable client, while Slack relies almost entirely on text communication, focuses on work communication and works completely well in its own web client, even though official desktop and mobile clients are available as well. Slack also features a huge customizability (bots, plugins) possibly inspired by IRC, and its users need to create communication teams, working inside subdomains at *.slack.com. It is possible to connect to Slack via IRC as well, using a [https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/201727913-Connect-to-Slack-over-IRC-and-XMPP gateway feature], if allowed by the team's admin.

Randall here seems to commenting on the persistence of IRC; while generally considered to be ancient software in comparison to newer and still-competing protocols, its endless customizability has led some people to support it above all others.

Extrapolating for the sake of humor, the joke here lies in a particularly uncommon but memorable type of Internet denizen: even in a far-off distant future where the world's technology has led to a superlative messaging network encompassing all people in some supposed, incredible bliss, there is always - in Randall's vision - going to be That IRC Guy.

In the title text, both {{w|GNU_Screen|screen}} and {{w|Tmux|tmux}} are unix programs that help you multitask while working in terminal (command line), and {{w|Irssi|irssi}} and {{w|WeeChat|weechat}} are both communication clients supporting mainly IRC, capable of working in a command line environment. Tmux is a newer and apparently more user-friendly project, complete with handy menus and titles, while screen is something of an industry standard, but relatively difficult to use – you need to know what you are doing or read help before use, otherwise you get lost and frustrated. [http://superuser.com/questions/236158/tmux-vs-screen] The same it is with the newer, more feature-packed and user-friendly weechat vs industry-standard, harder-to-use irssi. [https://www.quora.com/IRC-Which-do-you-prefer-irssi-or-weechat-and-why]

Basically, that ''one'' guy is a hardcore UNIX geek who doesn't use any graphical user interface, and in 2078 he decides to use a little less inconvenient, yet still command-line-based tools.

Timing of this strip coincides with the [https://irssi.org/2017/01/05/irssi-1.0.0-released/ release of irssi version 1.0.0].

Randall has touched on similar themes before in [[927: Standards]].

==Transcript==
:[Hairbun holding up her palm toward Cueball. A frame over the top border of the panel has a caption:]
:2004
:Hairbun: Our team stays in touch over IRC.

:[Megan is looking at Ponytail who is holding up her palm toward her. A frame over the top border of the panel has a caption:]
:2010
:Ponytail: Our team mainly uses Skype, but some of us prefer to stick to IRC.

:[Cueball is talking with Megan in a frameless panel. A frame at the top of the panel has a caption:]
:2017
:Cueball: We've got almost everyone on Slack,
:Cueball: But three people refuse to quit IRC and connect via Gateway.

:[A black panel with white text and drawings. The main body of text is above a the singularity, a starburst around a circle with two more broken lined circles around the starburst. To the right another Cueball-like guy floats in space with his laptop computer, typing on the keyboard. A frame, that is white inside, is over the top border of the panel has a caption: ]
:2051
:Narration: All consciousnesses have merged with the Galactic Singularity,
:Narration: Except for ''one'' guy who insists on joining through his IRC client.
:One Guy: I just have it set up the way I want, okay?!
:Galactic Singularity: ''*Sigh*''



{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Comics with inverted brightness]]
[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]
[[Category:Computers]]

1779: 2017

2017-01-04T11:54:19Z

172.68.10.46: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1779
| date = December 30, 2016
| title = 2017
| image = 2017.png
| titletext = Things are looking good for the eclipse--Nate Silver says Earth will almost definitely still have a moon in August.
}}

==Explanation==
In this [[:Category:New Year|New Year comic]], [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] shares some of their (or [[Randall|Randall's]]) thoughts about the ending 2016 and the new year 2017 (hence the title). 2016 was a year which many people eagerly awaited the end of because of its increased turmoil (terrorist attacks, controversial political events in numerous countries, among other the election of {{w|Donald Trump}} for president in the United States and Britain voting for {{w|Brexit}}) as well as the the deaths of an unusually large number of well-known and beloved celebrities (several of these died in the first few days after Christmas).

Instead of simply condemning 2016 as a terrible year and expecting 2017 to be significantly better, Megan observes that much of what made 2016 bad is the effect that it will have upon future years rather than the actual events themselves (for instance, a divisive {{w|United States presidential election, 2016|U.S. presidential election}} has caused significant controversy in 2016, but President-elect Donald Trump will actually take office and begin to affect the world — whether for better or for worse — in 2017). Megan specifically states that ''2016 was bad was because of the things it sent us into 2017 without.'' As it is known that Randall is a {{w|Hillary Clinton}} supporter (as shown in the [[1756: I'm With Her]] comic), an additional reading of that line could be that we are headed into 2017 "without" a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Cueball claims that they should still have hope for the future, but Megan states that people had claimed that many of the bad things that did happen in 2016, could not happen (for instance Trump and Brexit). And as these things did happen, she foresees even worse events occurring in 2017, that we did not even think would be possible.

However, Randall also offers a glimpse of hope in the last few panels when Cueball observes that, just as all of the bad things in 2016 were unexpected, good things in 2017 that are unexpected could also happen, which should make us less sure what good may come of 2017. As such, he argues that we should hold on to our hope even though things seem difficult right now.

As the conversation unfolds, Megan and Cueball encounter an uprooted tree and cross it like a balance beam. This is a visual metaphor; the dead tree represents the end of the old year, while the crossing represents the transition into the new year. This is similar to the magical toboggan from {{w|Calvin and Hobbes}} that serves as a metaphor for their conversations, mentioned in [[529: Sledding Discussion]] and [[409: Electric Skateboard (Double Comic)]].

In the last panel Cueball mentioned that 2017 will also have a cool {{w|solar eclipse|eclipse}}, going through the central parts of North America. This may also serve as a reminder that the Earth continues to spin on despite all of the human turmoil going on on it's surface. This is literally true, as the eclipse Randall is excited about is caused by the orbits of three celestial bodies lining up just right (the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon).

Cueball then also notes that 2017 is a {{w|prime number}} and states that prime-numbered years (prime years) have always been good to him. He thus illustrates the positive attitude that people can choose to take in order to see all that which is good and to spread a little bit more cheerfulness, and Megan is ready to take this positive view, although she may not totally buy in to it. This could also be a pun referencing the saying "being in his prime years".

If Cueball represents Randall (born 1984) he has lived through the following prime years: 1987, 1993, 1997, 1999, 2003 and 2011. If they have all been good years for Cueball it seems unlikely that he represents Randall, since Randall's wife was diagnosed with cancer in June 2011. Of course they were also married that year, but it would not seem likely that he would consider it a good year. First during the just ending year 2016 could she have been declared free of cancer, as it takes a five year follow up after end of treatment before the disease is declared defeated. Of course, we do not know how old Cueball really is, how much thought he/Randall actually put into his seemingly off-the-cuff remark, or whether those years were actually good for Cueball. But Randall do like math and would likely always now when a year is a prime number.

The title text is a reference to {{w|Nate Silver}} who is well-known (in the United States) as an election polling analyst on {{w|FiveThirtyEight}}. His model allowed for a higher chance that Donald Trump would win the presidency compared to other similar models — though the fact that he still favored a Clinton win may be contributing to getting humor from the idea that he may be "wrong" again, and the Moon could possibly vanish in 2017, making the year definitely worse than 2016. (Earth and Moon are so close in the space order of things, that any event affecting Moon orbit seriously will almost certainly end our civilization too.) This is accentuated by the qualifier "almost definitely", which is of humorously low confidence for presenting a fact as certain as the Moon not somehow disappearing within the next year.

Randall previously mentioned his excitement for the {{w|Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017|2017 eclipse}} exactly three years earlier in [[1302: Year in Review]], where Megan complains about not having seen an aurora during 2013, and she really hopes they don't cancel the 2017 eclipse. So this comic is the second time Randall has expressed concern that he will miss the eclipse.

There have been three previous New Year's comics with only the year used as the title: [[998: 2012]] in 2012, [[1311: 2014]] in 2014 and [[1624: 2016]] in 2016. This is the first odd-numbered years (and thus of course the first prime year)using only the new year as the title. It is also the first that has such a depressive mood. This thus follows the trend of the other negative comics released after Trump's victory, the first being [[1761: Blame]] and the second being [[1773: Negativity]], which both refer to the negativity on the internet spawned by Trump's election (among other things).

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan walking outdoors]
:Cueball: Can't wait for this stupid year to be over.

:[The two approach a fallen tree]
:Megan: I can. This year made the future scarier. So much of why 2016 was bad was because of the things it sent us into 2017 without.

:[Megan has hopped up onto the tree trunk and begins to walk along it]
:Cueball: You gotta have hope, though.
:Megan: You say that, but you also said all this awful stuff couldn't happen, and it did. You're as clueless as the rest of us.

:[Cueball also walks along the tree trunk as Megan stops and turns to look at him]
:Cueball: Well, if we're wrong about which bad things can happen, it's got to make us at least a ''little'' less sure about which good things can't.

:[Closeup of Megan hopping down from the tree]
:Megan: I guess.

:[A distant shot of Megan and Cueball walking along again]
:Cueball: Plus, 2017 has a cool eclipse in it.
:Megan: Ooh, yeah!
:Cueball: And it's prime. Prime years have always been good for me.
:Megan: Sure, I'll take it.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:New Year]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Nate Silver]]
[[Category:Comics sharing name|2017]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Math]]

1762: Moving Boxes

2016-11-23T01:55:23Z

172.68.10.46: /* Explanation of boxes */

{{comic
| number = 1762
| date = November 21, 2016
| title = Moving Boxes
| image = moving_boxes.png
| titletext = Later, when I remember that I'm calling movers, I frantically scribble over the labels and write 'NORMAL HOUSE STUFF' on all of them, which actually makes things worse.
}}

==Explanation==

[[Randall]] talks about moving boxes and not labeling them until he forgets what's in them. Since he doesn't know what's in them, he writes silly things on the boxes as a joke. Some things are unusual/unlikely (e.g. sand, hydrants, peat) and some are abstract/impossible (e.g. elves, taupe, dark matter). Several of the categories overlap confusingly; for instance, "sand" and "silt" and "dark matter" are all generally considered as "particles"; "membranes", "edges", and "shawls" are all kinds of "manifolds"; "hooves" are part of "bison"; "fog" contains "water"; and "triangles" consist of three "edges". Another way to interpret this comic is that Randall actually has these items (or at least some of them) in the boxes and has simply forgotten which boxes contain what.

According to the title text, when Randall remembers that he is calling movers, he frantically scribbles "Normal House Stuff" on all the boxes. He says this makes the situation worse, possibly because the movers see the scribble and become suspicious. Alternatively, labeling every box with the exact same phrase will make it even harder to figure out what they contain and where they should go in the new dwelling.

===Explanation of boxes===
{| class="wikitable" width="100%"
!Label
!Explanation
|-
!Box 1
|-
|Grids|| [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grid Grids] are mathematical drawings; they would be constructed by drawing them, not stored in a box (though {{w|graph paper}} might be). May refer to a classic {{w|snipe hunt}} where a hazing victim is tasked with finding "a box of grid squares".
|-
|Bison||{{w|Bison}}, sometimes mistakenly called buffalo, are large animals that would probably not fit in the box.
|-
|Checkerboards||The tabletop gaming boards on which one plays {{w|English draughts|Checkers}}. It is also the name of the corresponding pattern, and thus can be interpreted as an abstract term like many other "objects" in this comic.
|-
|Fog||{{w|Fog}} is essentially low-lying clouds which, being gaseous, are hard to box using only cardboard.
|-
!Box 2
|-
|Beacons||Beacons are devices designed to draw attention to themselves, for various reasons. From the generic term "beacon" this could mean anything from electronic GPS locator beacons to miniature replicas of naval lighthouses.
|-
|Elves||Elves are a fictional race (or rather, [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurElvesAreBetter many, many fictional races]) of human-like magical creatures.
|-
|Sand||Sand grains are fine particles of rock. While it's not unheard of for people to need to store sand, it's usually not stored along with your personal belongings on moving day.
|-
!Box 3 - Blood
|-
|Hemoglobin||{{w|Hemoglobin}} is the protein found in red blood cells that carries oxygen around the body. This may be a solution of hemoglobin protein, but one human generally would not need a full box of it{{Citation needed}}.
|-
!Box 4
|-
|Water||As with sand, it's not unheard of for, say, a laboratory to store water samples for testing. But again, these wouldn't be stored along with your personal belongings on moving day. And if this is meant to be drinking water, it would be a waste of effort; it's taken as read that any house you're moving into has its own plumbing.
|-
|Hooves||{{w|Hooves}} are possibly best-known as horse and cow 'feet'. This could also be read as a compound word, Water-Hooves akin to water-wings.
|-
!Box 5 - {{w|Charadriiformes|Charadriiformes}}
|-
|Shorebirds|| Also known as {{w|Wader|Waders}},these are an order of birds that wade in littoral waters.
|-
!Box 6 - Vector Space?
|-
|Oil|| This could mean anything from cooking oil to petroleum; either way, having a third of a box full of oil bottles is unusual, but for different reasons. Of course, perhaps it is an entire box.
|-
|Vectors||{{w|Vector}}s are properties with magnitude and direction, such as velocity, momentum, acceleration, etc., but can depend on the context. In any situation, they are not physical objects, so they cannot be put in boxes. Alternatively this box could mean a carrier of a disease, such as ticks or mosquitos, but while more possible to box they would still not be practical to keep with common household goods and the intent of moving them as such would be dubious at best.
|-
|Silt|| Material between sand and clay size-wise. A sediment. See sand and water above for why this is unusual. Randall has a special place in his heart for rock particles of various sizes; see [https://what-if.xkcd.com/83/ What If #83].
|-
!Box 7
|-
|Membranes||Delicate thin pliable sheet or skin of various kinds. Usually fragile or cut easily. Not something you would expect to be packed with something sharp, which shards are likely to be, although these labels are incorrect.
|-
|Shards||These are broken pieces of smooth and hard objects, e.g. ceramic, glass, crystal. Something you would normally expect to be thrown out, rather than packed up for moving house.
|-
!Box 8
|-
|Shawls||{{w|Shawls}} are a simple item of clothing, worn loosely over one's shoulders. Also being of rectangular shape, they are supposed to be worn in colder weather.
|-
|Glucose||{{w|Glucose}} is possibly best-known as the sugar plants produce for energy, but can be manufactured.
|-
|Kits||A {{w|kit}} is any set of tools, supplies, and/or instructions for a specific purpose. These could be first aid kits, software development kits, bomb-making kits, sewing kits... It can also refer to juveniles of some mammals, such as foxes or rabbits (it is not very likely that such animals would be packed in a box - though compare [[325: A-Minus-Minus]]). Alternatively, this may be a compound word "Glucose Kits", diabetic assay tools to help the patient regulate their blood sugar.
|-
!Box 9
|-
|Hydrants||{{w|Fire hydrant}}s are likely too big to fit in boxes, and are also simply odd objects to be packing into a box.
|-
|Particles||As almost all matter is composed of {{w|particles}}, it is hard to find exceptions. Thus, this is very vague.
|-
|Knots||{{w|Knot}}s are things tied in ropes; they can hold things or just be there. This would be hard to put in a box without rope{{Citation needed}}. Could also refer to knots in a piece of {{w|wood}}, which are hard to put in the box without the rest of the wood. Knots could also refer to the {{w|Knot_(unit)|unit of speed}}, usually used in meteorology, and in maritime and air navigation which would be impossible to box as it is not a physical object.
|-
!Box 10 - Palette
|-
|Graphite||{{w|Graphite}} is a crystalline form of carbon, where the atoms are arranged in sheets. It is found in some household products (pencils and lubricant oil), though in either case the name of the end product would be a more likely box label.
|-
|Taupe|| {{w|Taupe}} is a dark tan color in between brown and gray, again, not an object. May be a reference to Gliese 581f (a.k.a. Taupe Mars) from [[1253|xkcd #1253]].
|-
!Box 11 - Gaussian surface?
|-
|Field Lines||This could refer to {{w|field line}}s as used to depict electromagnetic fields, or possibly to the lines painted on an athletic field to mark the boundaries of play. The former are a visualization tool rather than physical objects; the latter consist of streaks of paint on grass or artificial turf, and thus neither kind of field line is the kind of physical object that could be packed into a box.
|-
!Box 12
|-
|Traps||May be a reference to 'My house is full of traps' from [https://what-if.xkcd.com/34// What-If #34]
|-
!Box 13
|-
|Edges||{{w|Edge_(geometry)|Edge}} is a line segment joining two vertices. Even though physical objects do have edges, you cannot store edges themselves as they are just mathematical constructs.
|-
|Tribes||{{w|Tribe}} is a social group of people, tribes existed before states were formed. It is impossible to store a group of people in the box{{Citation needed}}.
|-
|Dough||{{w|Dough}} is a thick, malleable, sometimes elastic, paste made out of any grains, leguminous or chestnut crops. It is used in the process of cooking, but it doesn't make sense to pack it while moving.
|-
!Box 14
|-
|Dark Matter||{{w|Dark matter}} is what scientists believe to be a big part of the mass of galaxies, but we have never observed it, so it is not possible to pack it.
|-
!Box 15
|-
|Manifolds||Manifolds are akin to {{w|topological}} {{w|universe}}s. This is yet another mathematical construct which is impossible to pack into a box. Manifold could also refer to a pipe or chamber branching into several openings, for example an exhaust manifold. While physical, it's unlikely that multiple are put in a box for moving.
|-
!Box 16
|-
|Triangles||Within the context of this comic, the reference is likely to the shape. On the other hand, it would not be unusual to pack one or more {{w|Triangle (musical instrument)}}s into a box.
|-
|Peat|| {{w|Peat}} is an accumulation of partially decayed vegetation that forms in wetland bogs, moors, mires, and swamps.
|-
|Crowns|| These may be royal crowns, or may be the coin worth five shillings in UK pre-decimal currency.
|-
!Box 17
|-
|Scrolls||A {{w|scroll}} is a roll of papyrus, paper, or parchment that contains writing. It is a common item in fantasy games (as elves and traps).
|}

==Transcript==
[A bunch of cardboard boxes stacked up, each labeled]
{| class="wikitable"
| style="visibility:hidden" |
| colspan="2" height="80px" width="80px" |
Grids 
Bison 
Checkerboards 
Fog
| colspan="2" width="80px" height="80px"|
Beacons 
Elves 
Sand
| colspan="2" width="80px" height="80px" |
Hemoglobin
| colspan="2" width="80px" height="80px" |
Water 
Hooves
| style="visibility:hidden" |
|-|
| style="visibility:hidden" |
| colspan="2" width="80px" height="80px" |
Shorebirds
| colspan="2" width="80px" height="80px" |
Oil 
Vectors 
Silt
| colspan="2" width="80px" height="80px" |
Membranes 
Shards
| colspan="2" width="80px" height="80px" |
Shawls 
Glucose 
Kits
| style="visibility:hidden" |
|-|
| style="visibility:hidden" |
| colspan="2" width="80px" height="80px" |
Hydrants 
Particles 
Knots
| colspan="2" width="80px" height="80px" |
Graphite 
Taupe
| colspan="2" width="80px" height="80px" |
Field Lines
| colspan="2" width="80px" height="80px" |
Traps
| style="visibility:hidden" |
|-|
| colspan="2" width="80px" height="80px" |
Edges 
Tribes 
Dough
| colspan="2" width="80px" height="80px" |
Dark Matter
| colspan="2" width="80px" height="80px" |
Manifolds
| colspan="2" width="80px" height="80px" |
Triangles 
Peat 
Crowns
| colspan="2" width="80px" height="80px" |
Scrolls
|}
[A caption:]
I always forget to label my moving boxes until they're sealed up and I've forgotten what's in them.
{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]