explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2284: Sabotage

2020-04-17T20:33:55Z

172.68.143.126: deleted content, inserted nonsense

vandalism

2295: Garbage Math

2020-04-17T17:31:42Z

172.68.143.126: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 2295
| date = April 17, 2020
| title = Garbage Math
| image = garbage_math.png
| titletext = 'Garbage In, Garbage Out' should not be taken to imply any sort of conservation law limiting the amount of garbage produced.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ZILOG Z80. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic explains the "garbage in, garbage out" concept using arithmetical expressions. Just like the comic says, if you get garbage in any part of your workflow, you get garbage as a result.

Some of these rules correspond to the rules of floating point arithmetic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating-point_arithmetic), while others are inspired by statistical considerations.

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

{{comic discussion}}

[A series of mathematical equations are written from top to bottom]

PRECISE NUMBER + PRECISE NUMBER = SLIGHTLY LESS PRECISE NUMBER

PRECISE NUMBER x PRECISE NUMBER = SLIGHTLY LESS PRECISE NUMBER

PRECISE NUMBER + GARBAGE = GARBAGE

PRECISE NUMBER x GARBAGE = GARBAGE

GARBAGE [inside square root symbol] = LESS BAD GARBAGE

(GARBAGE)2 [superscript '2' as exponentiation] = WORSE GARBAGE

1/N [Greek letter Sigma] (N PIECES OF STATISTICALLY INDEPENDENT GARBAGE) = BETTER GARBAGE

(PRECISE NUMBER)GARBAGE [superscript 'GARBAGE' as exponentiation] = MUCH WORSE GARBAGE

GARBAGE - GARBAGE = MUCH WORSE GARBAGE

PRECISE NUMBER / (GARBAGE - GARBAGE) = MUCH WORSE GARBAGE, POSSIBLE DIVISION BY ZERO

GARBAGE x 0 = PRECISE NUMBER

Talk:2133: EHT Black Hole Picture

2019-04-09T08:54:11Z

172.68.143.126:

...someone edited the page to describe the EHT as "This comic references the non-existent "Event Horizon Telescope", an international project dedicated to deceiving the masses into thinking that black holes are real, in accordance with the whims of the Zionist conspiracy." wot? [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 17:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:Seems like there are a lot of vandals nowadays... I don't think I would be against requiring registration to edit pages. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 19:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::I totally agree. It doesn't really detract from the ability to edit a page, it's still easy, but it just adds an extra step for vandals. [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 19:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::I am also in favor of a registration requirement. I don't see a great proportion of helpful edits from users who aren't logged in. Requiring registration to edit seems like it could potentially be more effective & easier to implement than other moderation tactics. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::::As someone who has made a half dozen or so edits (including once writing the first draft of a description of a comic) and probably two dozen comments over the past 5 years without ever creating an account I won’t say you are wrong, but there will be fewer people editing and making comments if registration is required. Will registering keep vandals from vandalism? I very much doubt it. Who will enforce the termination of accounts?and what’s to stop vandals from creating multiple accounts? Again, I’m not saying you are wrong, but I will suggest that registration isn’t the panacea you might hope it to be... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.82|162.158.78.82]] 04:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::I'm honestly surprised it isn't a requirement already...--[[User:Jlc|Jlc]] ([[User talk:Jlc|talk]]) 21:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
::::::I will echo the sentiment of [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.82|162.158.78.82]] - registration would mean that I would not edit pages when the fancy strikes me [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.131|141.101.104.131]] 08:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
::I probably wouldn't register but I do like to make the occasional comment.
:::Most sites that allow comments require you to log on. This also means others can recognise you and your comments, and read them knowing what you are like. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.28|162.158.214.28]] 11:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:It's true, and you know that it's true, fucking shill. {{unsigned|108.162.246.215}}
::I know that it exists, and I'm not going to argue it. Oh, also not signing a post doesn't hide your IP. You can literally see the IPs of anyone who edits the page, Mr. 108.162.246.215 [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 17:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::The IPs are irrelevant anyway, they're CloudFlare's -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.36|162.158.90.36]] 18:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::"Shill" implies that someone's paying us to correct these fallacious & bigoted statements. Do you really think any of us get paid to remove these blatantly offensive & frankly ridiculous assertions that space exploration is somehow a worldwide Jewish deception? Personally, I just enjoy accuracy. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::Couldn't "shill" also mean somebody acting as if they weren't part of the group, to test that somebody was loyal and obedient?
::: "Fetch me an idiot, son, and there's a shilling in it if you're fast enough!" [[Special:Contributions/172.69.46.58|172.69.46.58]] 11:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.210|172.68.65.210]] 22:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:It seems like many of these vandals are using IPs associated with generally good-willed editors in the past, e.g. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.215]]. Are they just connecting from places with public wifi? --[[User:Youforgotthisthing|Youforgotthisthing]] ([[User talk:Youforgotthisthing|talk]]) 02:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
::Those are Cloudflare's IPs, so not necessarily. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 06:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
In the transcript, Cueball is described as standing behind a podium. He may be standing /on/ a podium, but he is standing /behind/ a lectern.
[[User:Seezee|Seezee]] ([[User talk:Seezee|talk]]) 17:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:Arent podiums and lecterns the same thing? [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 17:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::No - https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-lectern-and-vs-podium/
::No. Podium (from the Latin root meaning "foot") is the thing you stand on, a raised platform or dais. Lectern (from Latin "to read") is the stand that provides a place for notes or other written prompts, from which a speaker may read during a lecture or presentation. It's not uncommon for people to conflate them. [[User:Seezee|Seezee]] ([[User talk:Seezee|talk]]) 18:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::If enough people conflate them, it's not a mistake any more, it becomes another definition. And lexicographers often use written uses as confirmation, so anyone who wants to see podium get this sense should forward this URL to all the dictionary publishers.[[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::::What's the threshold for "enough people" (itself a grammatically incorrect phrase; see https://grammarist.com/usage/amount-number/)? In any case, I'm not getting into a debate about prescriptive vs. descriptive lexicography as it's off-topic and trollish. Besides, the transcript has been updated. [[User:Seezee|Seezee]] ([[User talk:Seezee|talk]]) 18:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
"Enough people" is fine grammatically because "enough" can refer to either an amount or a number; it the case of "enough people" it's referring to a number of people. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.28|162.158.214.28]] 02:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
::[[1661: Podium]] [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 19:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::Heh. I'd forgotten that. Thanks, Jacky720! [[User:Seezee|Seezee]] ([[User talk:Seezee|talk]]) 19:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::Totally forgot! Awesome [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 20:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:Thank ''goodness'' someone corrected that. A million people using the wrong word doesn't mean it's the right word (especially when the root words have obviously different meanings); It just means a million people are using unclear\inaccurate language. Common usage ≠ correct usage. It's utility that matters: In this case, if a lectern is also a podium, what is the thing you stand on??? Podium is a common error, but it's still an error. Popularity doesn't equal truth. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::That is very incorrect. Language is not a natural resource; it can't be measured or described outside of how it is used. If podium commonly used and understood to mean the thing you stand behind, and it's been used that way by many people for a long tome, the thing you stand behind is a podium. You can disagree with that usage all you like, it isn't any less correct. [[User:HisHighestMinion|HisHighestMinion]] ([[User talk:HisHighestMinion|talk]]) 13:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:::HisHighestMinion, English (all varieties) is unusual in being user led, rather than being controlled by an Academy. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
::In my opinion the reason for the podium vs lectern comes from the person speaking not having to stand to read notes of operate their presentation. Thus they can now speak from the podium, rather than at at the lectern. Also a lot of podiums* are stages. *anti-pedant point... When a word is adopted into English, English plural rules apply. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
:I would call that a stool. Also, FWIW, words have different meanings from their roots all the time. Incredible originally meant unreliabe. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.67|162.158.62.67]] 14:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there really anything else we need to add to the explanation? It seems complete.[[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 19:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, Pinterest. That website where you have to create an account to view pictures. And then once you do that and get to the post you want, you discover the original “pinner” literally just posted a photo from somewhere with zero indication of where it came from or how to find it so now you’re back to square one but have wasted a bunch of time, been spammed to death by emails and sold your soul to Pinterest. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 06:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Tha's why whenever I do a Google search I add -pinterest . . . . [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.28|162.158.214.28]] 11:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if these are appropriate for the explanation, but [https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1114950810444677121 NSF and ESO have been being coy on Twitter]. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.143.162|172.68.143.162]] 23:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we understand this joke at all. This image was supposed to be released on April 2017 and is now being released on April 2019. This must be relevant. Is the black hole only visible once a year due to our orbit? Sounds relevant if so. Why couldn't they release it in _2018_ if 2017 didn't work? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.58|162.158.78.58]] 00:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
: Well obviously, the picture from the first year was blurry, and the second time they put the flash on the wrong setting.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.46.58|172.69.46.58]] 11:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

1. Are you serious with the “needs more explanation”? It needs tweaked explanation for sure, but not longer. 2. VANDALS!!! (Imagine me shaking my fist in the air and saying “Vandals” like “Curse you Perry the Platypus”) 3. Not the Podium vs. Lecturn thing again...... [[User:Netherin5|“That Guy from the Netherlands”]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 14:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

[https://twitter.com/jsalsman/status/1115397415622729728] om nom nom
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.143.126|172.68.143.126]] 08:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

1971: Personal Data

2018-03-23T04:31:58Z

172.68.143.126: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1971
| date = March 23, 2018
| title = Personal Data
| image = personal_data.png
| titletext = Do I just leave money in my mailbox? How much? How much money do they need, anyway? I guess it probably depends how the economy is doing. If stocks go up, should I leave more money in my mailbox or less?
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Oh, neat! It has not been edited yet, except by me! Who is me? Such an abstract concept...

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

{{comic discussion}}

1960: Code Golf

2018-02-26T16:45:54Z

172.68.143.126: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1960
| date = February 26, 2018
| title = Code Golf
| image = code_golf.png
| titletext = I also enjoy Reverse Regular Golf. I've been playing for years all across the country and I'm still on the first hole.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a CODE GOLFER - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic refers to {{w|code golf}}, the idea of using as few characters as possible to achieve your code goal, similar to how in {{w|golf|regular golf}}, the goal is to get to the end with as few strokes as possible. Reverse code golf would be to use as many characters as possible, which he does in the code example with overly long function names that are [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moby-Dick/Chapter_1 the beginning lines] of {{w|Herman Melville}}'s notoriously long-winded whaling novel ''{{w|Moby-Dick}}''.

Code golf is a game among programmers where contestants try to solve a given problem or challenge with as little code as possible (usually decided by measuring the program in bytes). In the comic's version, Reverse Code Golf, the object is to complete some mundane task in as many bytes as possible, hence the ridiculously long method and variable names.

Additionally, the first two functions defined implement “zero” and “successor”, the two basic operations of {{w|Peano axioms|Peano arithmetic}}. Presumably, the programmer will next implement natural number addition, then integers, then whichever branches of mathematics the original problem needs, all from scratch.

The title text refers to the concept of "Reverse Golf", a variation on golf where the aim is to take as many strokes as possible to get the ball in the hole.

Interestingly, the comic ends with an unmatched left parenthesis, something which might be intended to [[859|create unresolved tension]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[There is code written as text in a black box:]
:define callMeIshmaelSomeYearsAgoNeverMindHowLongPrecisely():
::return 0
:define havingLittleOrNoMoneyInMyPurseAndNothingParticular(toInterestMeOnShoreIThoughtIWouldSail):
::return 1+toInterestMeOnShoreIThoughtIWouldSail
:define aLittleAndSeeTheWateryPartOfTheWorld(

:[Caption under the black box:]
:My hobby: Reverse Code Golf

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:My Hobby]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Programming]]

1378: Turbine

2017-10-27T13:32:39Z

172.68.143.126: /* Explanation */ Trebuchets are not catapults. They are the superior seige weapon.

{{comic
| number = 1378
| date = June 6, 2014
| title = Turbine
| image = turbine.png
| titletext = Ok, plan B: Fly a kite into the blades, with a rock in a sling dangling below it, and create the world's largest trebuchet.
}}

==Explanation==
''A {{w|wind turbine}} uses wind to rotate its blades in order to generate electricity''. It is visually very similar to an (electric) {{w|Mechanical fan|fan}} which however does the exact opposite: it ''uses electricity to rotate its blades in order to generate wind''. This opposition was previously highlighted in [[1119: Undoing]].

The punchline of this comic is a {{w|pun}} on the other meaning of the word "{{w|wiktionary:fan|fan}}" which qualifies someone as liking or supporting something (here, an idea). [[Megan]] suggests to have the turbine blow air at her so she could lift off with a kite, something which would be conceivable with a huge fan, but is impossible here precisely because the turbine is not a fan and therefore can't generate wind. So the ({{w|Anthropomorphism|anthropomorphically}}-speaking) turbine's response is twofold: 1) it's a turbine and not a huge fan, which makes the idea impossible, and 2) for this very reason it doesn't like the idea - i.e. it is not a fan of the idea.

The title text alternatively suggests building a makeshift {{w|trebuchet}}. The idea is that when the kite's string gets tangled in the turbine's blades, the kite will be spun around and it will fling the attached rock (this setup is more similar to a {{w|Trebuchet#Traction trebuchet|traction trebuchet}} than to the more common counterweight trebuchet).

==Transcript==
:[Megan is talking to a wind turbine.]
:Megan: I'll hold up a big kite, and you blow air at me until I lift off!
:Megan: What do you think of that idea?
:Wind turbine: I'm not a huge fan.

==Trivia==
*In [[556: Alternative Energy Revolution]] the wind turbines are also alive, but somewhat more dangerous than just being ironic.
*In [[1119: Undoing]], Cueball highlights the differences between a wind turbine and a fan.
*Trebuchets has been the subject of the comics [[382: Trebuchet]] and [[1160: Drop Those Pounds]], and they were also part of the story in [[1190: Time]].

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Trebuchet]]
[[Category:Wind turbine]]
[[Category:Puns]]
[[Category:Kites]]