explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1831: Here to Help

2017-05-04T17:50:12Z

172.68.182.202:

So who else read the "Six months later" caption in the voice of the French narrator from SpongeBob Squarepants? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.41|172.68.58.41]] 23:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
: So I'm not the only one who does that! [[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 00:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, is Randall making a parallel to someone else who only recently announced that his job is hard, and that nobody knew how complicated things could be? Seems like a clear poke at Trump to me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.23|108.162.246.23]] 23:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
:EVERYONE feels like that after the election. Get over it. [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 23:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Between algorithms and "objectively" establishing that a problem is hard, I took this to be a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-hardness … --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.16|162.158.222.16]] 00:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

:While the people originally having the problem (Megan and Hairy in this case) may not appreciate it (because it wouldn't help SOLVING the problem), establishing that some problem is not only "hard" but specifically NP-hard, AI-hard, equivalent to halting problem or for example equivalent to axiom of choice is important scientific result. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Rather than referencing ''The Imitation Game'', the sentence "[...] now that I'VE tried, we KNOW it's hard." may be referencing instead ''Awakenings'' (1990), where Robin William's character says something similar near beginning of the movie.

Regarding the (possible) reference to the Imitation Game, whilst it may be true that the Americans Russians French and Germans thought Enigma unbreakable, the Polish had been breaking it for years before Turing got involved and work done in Poland was an important part of the British success early in the war. German improvements to operating practices later stopped the Polish methods working and yes Turing had better methods that still worked, later on in the war. But Poland at least, didn't think it was unbreakable. Just saying.

:While we are "just saying". The Germans were well aware that the Enigma was breakable, they just figured it would be too much effort. It really was, the total resources pored into breaking the Enigma was on par with the Manhattan project and the moon landing (ie US space program during the 1960s). The Germans did some changes to increase security during the war, but had they suspected how completely Enigma was broken they would probably have abandoned it. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.182.202|172.68.182.202]] 17:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the whole paragraph about informatics at the bottom is missing the point. That explanation is based on the premise that Cueball was told the problem was a "hard problem" (a formal type of problem) and didn't understand. Megan never used the formal term "hard" in describing the problem. She merely said that her field had struggling for years.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.5|162.158.79.5]] 13:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
: Agreed — she uses "hard", but later in the title text. What's still true is that the problem might still have a solution that is "simple" (you can explain it in a paragraph) but hard-to-find (it took decades to find it), and they haven't proved that's not the case. But most would still call a problem with such a solution "hard".
: Worse, as a PhD student in CS (programming languages), I'm pretty sure "hard problem" in CS also mean the same as in everyday life—"Boy, this research problem is really hard"—as opposed to NP-hard (which is what the description is attempting to describe in an extremely informal way. I've honestly never heard anybody use "hard" for "NP-hard", though that appears used on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_theory#Hard. Meanwhile, I went ahead and deleted "Set of algorithms" since that was even less relevant (and didn't bother arguing relevance). http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1831:_Here_to_Help&diff=139534&oldid=139519. --[[User:Blaisorblade|Blaisorblade]] ([[User talk:Blaisorblade|talk]]) 14:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The current explanation is taking a too tactical or literal approach. Throughout history computer science has presented itself as a solution to a variety of hard problems in other fields using a variety of techniques. These include AI, machine learning and now, big data. In most cases the techniques enter with a lot of fanfare, but later flame out, producing no real gains towards solving the hard problem. For example see all the things that computers were promising back in the 1960's. Cueball simply represents a generic version of these past and present CS fads. [[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 15:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed: Throughout [most of] history computer science has [not existed].

Talk:1827: Survivorship Bias

2017-04-21T08:16:22Z

172.68.182.202:

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)

Transcript's kind of done. [[User:Cardboardmech|Cardboardmech]] ([[User talk:Cardboardmech|talk]]) 05:17, 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)

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)

1827: Survivorship Bias

2017-04-21T08:10:50Z

172.68.182.202: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1827
| date = April 21, 2017
| title = Survivorship Bias
| image = survivorship_bias.png
| titletext = They say you can't argue with results, but what kind of defeatest attitude is that? If you stick with it, you can argue with ANYTHING.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Still incomplete.}}

This comic deals with {{w|survivorship bias}}. Survivorship bias, or survival bias, is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that did not because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. The survivors may be actual people, as in a medical study, or could be companies or research subjects or applicants for a job, or anything that must make it past some selection process to be considered further.

In this comic [[Hairy]] is giving a talk encouraging people to "never stop buying {{w|lottery}} tickets". This is an unwise investment plan for many reasons. To begin with, the chances of winning the lottery are mathematically very low and the total payout is less than ticket sales, meaning the expected return from buying a lottery ticket is almost[1] always negative. In some jurisdictions, lottery winnings are subject to taxes as well, and while small winnings may either be exempt from lottery tax or advertised after tax reduction, a jackpot is often advertised before taxes. On top of this, the winner may get their winnings in partial instalments over time, often decades for the really large sums.

Survivorship bias applies in this situation since successful people are much more likely to get paid to conduct inspirational speeches{{citation needed}} than someone who failed. [[Randall]] says below that people should be informed about survivorship bias before hearing inspirational talks from successful people.

[1]When item prices are donated to a lottery (for charity or advertising purposes), sometimes the value of those items may actually be larger than the total price for all of the lottery tickets, if you otherwise would be willing to pay full prize for all the prizes.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Please do not delete this tag until you have confirmed that this section is complete.}}

[Hairy is standing on a stage with five bags of money around him.]

Hairy: Never stop buying lottery tickets, no matter what anyone tells you.

Hairy: I failed again and again, but I never gave up. I took extra jobs and poured the money into tickets.

Hairy: And here I am, proof that if you put in the time, it pays off!

Caption: Every inspirational speech by someone successful should have to start with a disclaimer about survivorship bias.

{{comic discussion}}