explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2278: Scientific Briefing

2020-03-09T21:24:16Z

172.68.182.136:

{{comic
| number = 2278
| date = March 9, 2020
| title = Scientific Briefing
| image = scientific_briefing.png
| titletext = "I actually came in in the middle so I don't know which topic we're briefing on; the same slides work for like half of them."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BAD GRAPH. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Things are bad, and are getting worse.

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

==Trivia==
Poorly labeled graphs were already the topic of [[833: Convincing]].

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2151: A/B

2019-05-18T06:47:55Z

172.68.182.136:

Came straight to this site after trying to read today's comic[[Special:Contributions/172.68.230.22|172.68.230.22]] 16:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
: Yeah, no kidding! Usually I get the majority of the comic and I come here for the finer points and title text (I browse these sites on my iPad, no mouse with which to see the "MouseOver text"). But this one, *whiff!*, right over my head! LOL! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
:: @NiceGuy: You can touch and hold on the image to see the mouseOver text. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.182.136|172.68.182.136]] 06:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The title text refers to "Java script", which probably is meant to reference both the programming language Java and the completely different programming language JavaScript. While the former is almost never referenced with the word script afterwards, the latter is also never referenced with a space in the middle of the word. Hence, it seems meant to further confuse which language is actually being referenced. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.77|172.68.132.77]] 16:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The title text is a pun. "Java script" means the writing system used on the island of Java, while "JavaScript" is a programming language used mainly in browsers.
[[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

2148: Cubesat Launch

2019-05-13T06:19:23Z

172.68.182.136: /* Explanation */ quantify "costs a lot"

{{comic
| number = 2148
| date = May 10, 2019
| title = CubeSat Launch
| image = cubesat_launch.png
| titletext = Luckily, the damages were partly offset by the prize money we got from accidentally winning the nearby water skiing championship tournament.
}}

==Explanation==
A {{w|CubeSat}} (aka U-class spacecraft) is a miniature artificial-satellite with cubic dimensions of 10 cm × 10 cm × 11.35 cm (~ 4 in × 4 in × 4.5 in), and masses of about 1.33 kg (2.9 lbs) per unit. CubeSats are put into orbit from the International Space Station or launched as secondary payloads. As of January 2019, at least 900 CubeSats have successively achieved orbit, and at least 80 have been destroyed in launch failures. They typically function as Earth observation satellites, amateur radio emitters as well as testing prototype small-satellite technology.

The comic begins with [[Megan]] telling [[Cueball]] that being officially part of a CubeSat launch is fairly expensive (starting at around $40,000),<ref>https://makezine.com/2014/04/11/your-own-satellite-7-things-to-know-before-you-go/]</ref> but she has an idea for a much cheaper alternative: use a fishing line on a drone to attach to a rocket just before launch, with the CubeSat attached to the other end of the fishing line so it gets pulled into space.

In reality, this plan would fail for multiple reasons.

# Security would presumably prevent the drone from reaching the rocket.
# Even if Megan were to pilot the drone past security undetected, the launch would have been scrubbed as soon as any observer noticed the drone near the rocket and told Mission Control, who would order a countdown halt and stop the rocket launch, which prevents Megan from launching her CubeSat in the first place - after which Security would locate the drone's user and take her into custody.
# The unshielded CubeSat would likely be destroyed by aerodynamic forces.
# The drone would not be able to attach itself to the rocket in a way that would remain secure.
# The fishing line would not hold - either the rocket exhaust would sever it, or the force from the CubeSat, gravity, and the acceleration of the rocket would become more than its tensile strength could withstand.
# Precise weight is an important number during launch. The extra weight of the drone, the fishing line, the air drag from the drone, and the CubeSat all would combine to put more downward force on the rocket. This unexpected extra weight would not have been calculated and could turn the rocket off-course, along with making it spend more propellant in countering the forces exerted this way. This may result in the rocket not achieving the planned orbit, and may have to orbit at a lower altitude. Having said that, the rocket still outweighs Cueball, Megan, the drone, the fishing line, and the Cubesat by many thousands of pounds.

Upon realizing her plan, Cueball immediately responds with "uh-oh", indicating his concern, but Megan assures him that it will be fine, before piloting the drone towards the rocket. She successfully connects the drone to the rocket, and the rocket lifts off.

Whatever her plan was, it goes wrong almost immediately. The unexpected force on the rocket from the side causes it to tilt and go off course. Perhaps if the rocket's control software employed {{w|adaptive control}} techniques, it could have maintained control in the presence of this unexpected force. It is implied that it's not due to the comparatively small force of the CubeSat, but because Cueball is standing on the fishing line. However in real life the force from Cueball stepping on the line would still be very small and would be unable to cause a scenario like this. Megan and Cueball get tangled in the fishing line and are carried away. While the fate of the rocket is not shown, it is likely that its unplanned {{w|Attitude_control|attitude change}} would activate the automatic termination sequence or result in manual activation of the destruction protocol.

Megan and Cueball miraculously survive and are brought to an investigative board to explain their actions. Megan attempts to defend herself using flawed logic: something was bound to go wrong sooner or later, so it's not her fault that she was the cause. This logic does not account for the fact that this particular rocket's chance to crash was greatly increased by the drone attempting to connect to it. She isn't totally to blame for the accident anyways, since the launch should have been scrubbed as soon as the drone came anywhere near the rocket, and the failure of Mission Control to do so is negligence on their part, and hence they are more responsible for the failure of the mission than Megan and Cueball as they did not follow proper protocol and allowed the launch to occur under unsafe conditions.

The title text describes that the supposedly huge damages they caused were partly covered by the earnings from a water skiing championship, which Cueball and Megan presumably won by being dragged across the water by the rocket. This might be a tangential reference to an incident in the {{w|The Adventures of Tintin|Tintin}} adventure ''{{w|The Black Island}}'', where the {{w|Thomson and Thompson|Thompson Twins}} blunder into and win an aerobatics competition when they compel a mechanic with no flying experience into taking off in pursuit of that volume's antagonists. Alternatively, it may simply be a case of the title text {{w|jumping the shark}}.

Additionally, this is not the first comic to discuss CubeSats; they were also mentioned in [[1866: Russell's Teapot]] and in [[1992: SafetySat]].

==Transcript==
:[Megan is holding a cube attached by a string to a quad-copter drone flying above her head. She talks to Cueball standing next to her.]
:Megan: A spot on a CubeSat launch costs a lot, but you can get a drone and a spool of fishing line for cheap.
:Cueball: Uh oh.

:[A wide shot of Megan flying the drone with the cube at her feet while Cueball stand behind her looking after the drone that flies up to the left.]
:Megan: No no, watch.
:Megan: This is gonna go great.

:[Wide shot of a rocket standing on its launch pad with the support tower. The, now very small, drone is approaching, string attached, from the right.]

:[Slim shot of the rocket as the drone attaches to the rocket, just under the tip with the payload. The string goes down and out to the right.]
:Megan (off-panel): Perfect!

:[A huge cloud is emitted from the bottom of the rocket as it lift off the ground every so slightly.]
:''Foom''

:[As the rocket is taking off it begins tilting in the direction of the string. Two off-panel voices come from Megan and Cueball's direction.]
:Off-panel voice #1: Should it be tilting already?
:Off-panel voice #2: Hey, move your leg.

:[Close up of Megan and Cueball struggling in tangle of string that surrounds Megan while she is holding the cube in one hand and the remote for the drone in the other. Cueball uses both hands to try and help her out of the tangle. The string goes out to the left towards the rocket.]
:Megan: Ugh, let go, I can get-
:Cueball: -No, lift your ''other'' arm-

:[Three slim panels follow, one above the others, of the rocket, with string, tilting increasingly to the right and down as if pulled by the string. In the final panel of the three the tip of the rocket is now further than where the string goes down to the bottom of the panel. So the string now goes back left from where it is attached to the rocket, rather than to the right as in all previous panels.]

:[Megan entangled in the string with the cube in her hand and Cueball hanging below her holding on to the string, are flying through the air, as the string goes up right, and with small lines drawn above it to indicate it is moving to the right. On the ground Science Girl holds a hand to her mouth looking up at them, while a guy looking like Cueball runs away with hands over his head.]
:Megan and Cueball (screaming): ''Aaaaaa''

:[A disheveled looking Megan and Cueball both with plaster casts on their arms stand before four people, Hairbun, another Cueball like guy, Ponytail and Hairy. They are the members of an interview panel and are sitting behind a desk like table with a large label on its front:]
:Launch accident investigation board
:Megan: Listen.
:Megan: Space exploration is never going to be completely safe.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Science Girl]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Drones]]
[[Category:Space]]

Talk:1827: Survivorship Bias

2017-04-22T20:18:15Z

172.68.182.136: i had to write it

Is "defeatest" a typo or a joke? I've never seen Randall make a typo before, but I also don't get the joke if there is one. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.184|162.158.2.184]] 04:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
:Definitely a typo. [[User:Cardboardmech|Cardboardmech]] ([[User talk:Cardboardmech|talk]]) 04:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
::At first I thought this was an unfamiliarity with the word, and was about to talk about how it's a real word and what it means, then I noticed the spelling, LOL! I KNOW I've seen such spelling errors several times before - often getting fixed in the next day or two - but I couldn't provide examples even if my life depended on it. And yeah, I'd say this is more "spelling error" than "typo", the I is nowhere near the E on any keyboard. :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.88|108.162.219.88]] 05:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
:::If itdoesn't get fixed, it might be some weird pun on "[survival of] the fittest". Wouldn't make a lot of sense in the context of the sentence though [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.233|162.158.91.233]] 09:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
::::sometimes Randall do not fix errors, so nothing can be concluded on that (would it be survivorship bias to do so? ;-) How should the word be spelled (I'm not native English speaking), and does the word even exist? The spelling should be mentioned when someone explains the title text. I'm not up for it. And then if it is corrected later, it should go into the trivia section as a corrected error. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
It has been corrected to defeatist [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 13:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Transcript's kind of done. [[User:Cardboardmech|Cardboardmech]] ([[User talk:Cardboardmech|talk]]) 05:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
:I have changed the format to the usual style and added a bit more detail. But else nicely done. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Other than the title text, does any more work need to be done on the explanation? The Template:Incomplete param is pretty vague right now. <span style="background:#0064de;font-size:12px;padding:4px 12px;border-radius:8px;">[[User talk:AgentMuffin|<span style="color:#f0faff;">~AgentMuffin</span>]]</span>

No doubt a lottery isn't a wise investment. However, I have not heard about accepting 25% of the prize or in annual instalments for over a decade before. Is that an american habbit? Vince [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.174|141.101.105.174]] 06:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
: Never heard of such things, either... [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
:This is a thing that some American lotteries do. It reduces the amount that you have to pay in taxes. [[User:Mulan15262|Mulan15262]] ([[User talk:Mulan15262|talk]]) 12:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
: I don't play the lottery but I have heard of this practice and I think its typical here in the states. As I remember, you have the option of accepting 50% of the prize as an immediate payment or of accepting the full amount in installments over 20 years. With a progressive tax schedule this of course will affect the actual amount received and available for use. The use of payments helps the lottery itself as well and the choices of 50% and 20 years is no accident. The lottery can take the 50% it would have paid directly and invest it. A doubling period of 20 years needs an annual return on investment of only 3.6% (approx) so it works out to be a good deal for both parties. Unless of course your life expectancy is less than 20 years! [[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 00:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The title text is written in the style of an inspirational/motivational speech. Do not be deterred, you can do ANYTHING. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.58|172.68.110.58]] 07:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I took the liberty of editing the very emotional text and replace it with something a bit more "professional", as I think fits this site better. I am still not quite happy about it, as advertising jackpots without taxes and not advertising the payout time are local phenomena only applicable to some jurisdictions, and make no difference to the overall survivor bias that is the theme of the comic [[Special:Contributions/172.68.182.202|172.68.182.202]] 08:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
: I think the whole tax stuff can be deleted. Playing lottery is always stupid - even if there were no taxes on the prize. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
::I agree with Elektrizikekswerk on both issues. Lottery is just tax on low IQ we call it in my family ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
::: I've heard it called "gambling for the math-impaired." [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 17:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Third paragraph is taken word-by-word from Wikipedia article on Survivorship Bias. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.88|162.158.92.88]] 12:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's another example of survivorship bias, "We grew up without bicycle helmets and 'nonsense' like that when kids and dogs ran free and '''we came out fine'''" but of course I also remember there were a lot of kids with concussions and there were a lot of three-legged dogs running around. Both cases have greatly decreased because of bicycle helmets and leash laws. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 13:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
:And don't forget all the dog bites that came out "just fine"! [[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 00:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If I may suggest, survivor bias is a special example of Bastiat's "That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Unseen", aka, the Broken Window Fallacy. The logic failure lies in paying attention to only part of the results, not all of them. I'd extend this to argue for acceptance of "The Ends Justify The Means... Buy You Gotta Consider ALL The Ends, Not Just Some Of Them". Saving 100 people is one great end. But if you also kill 10,000 of them, but in the background, where they don't stand out, the ends aren't justified.
--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.227|108.162.212.227]] 19:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There actually was a case of a man who won the lottery after buying the same set of numbers every time. Naturally, his advice to everyone was "Keep buying the same numbers every time and you'll win eventually." Of course, there's no way he could be persuaded this was nonsense. [[User:Mark314159|Mark314159]] ([[User talk:Mark314159|talk]]) 01:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This is an awfully long explanation, considering that it barely mentions Randall's assertion that *all* motivational speakers should include disclaimers (IE: "Results are not typical."). If compared by net-income versus cost-of-living, the vast majority of people end their lives with less wealth than their parents, in spite of any efforts to better their situation through education, savings, investment, et cetera. In other words, no matter how hard they try, most people lose. That's just a hard economic truth, & many people espousing hard work, dedication & especially sticking to your goals, tend to overlook the fact that financial success is actually quite rare, regardless of the lifelong effort put into it. As stated, nobody hires the failures to give talks; Maybe we should!

Also, speaking to graduating students is far from the most common activity of such professional speakers. The use of motivational speakers at conventions, paid seminars, & sales pitches is much more common & frequent than talks given to students. Since Randall doesn't mention students in any way, I think that specific phrase about students should be removed from the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.11|141.101.99.11]] 17:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This isn't quite relevant to the topic, but please let me vent out about a certain opinion that is going to appear in the explanation eventually: that lotteries are bad investment ''just'' because they lose you money on average. This is in fact bullshit, because so does insurance! If you really want to apply math to such things, you need to integrate welfare, not money profit, over the probabilities. Wherein welfare is some half-arbitrary function over money that denotes its actual impact on one's life and that ''usually'' grows slower than linearly on positive side (your life changes more after earning the first million dollars than after the second one), but sharply drops on the negative side (a bad debt is a life-ender). With such a welfare($) choice lottery is in fact bad while insurance is good. Note, hovewer, that in some situations, like when you already have a big debt and the mafia is killing you for it next week, lottery makes a surprisingly good, while still unlikely, investment! It's all a matter of the specific situation with welfare($). (Sorry for bad engrish, I never learned all those math terms.) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.182.136|172.68.182.136]] 20:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)