explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:292: goto

2019-10-31T15:05:26Z

172.68.244.90:

Note that the concept of ''goto being harmful'' fortunately is weaning a little.
Jumping forwards in code to the end where error handling is implemented is actually in wider use now; including many locations in the Linux kernel. [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 09:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
:Actually, ''goto'' has been used quite with some frequency in low-level code in C programming over the years, so it's not altogether surprising that it is used in the Linux kernel, or any other tight bit of code. Given the "advance" of programming languages, I wouldn't say that there's been any weaning, except off of the concept of an unstructured goto in more recent languages. Admittedly, there's a schism between the low-level (that is, near-to-assembly) coders who more readily use ''goto'' because in the end, that's what the compiler reduces code branching down to, and developers using higher-level languages (that is, more highly abstracted, more removed from ''1 statement ~ 1 machine instruction'' languages) avoiding such because alternative structures abound, making ''goto'' somewhat unnecessary. There has been a bit of a dogmatic approach to teaching various languages, as in "thou shalt not use ''goto'' lest thou produce monsterous, unmaintainable code!" applied that many if not most developers observe; the humor in the panel is that this dogma is manifested in the appearance of a literal monster (a velociraptor, no less...) -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 05:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
::From an historical perspective, in the 80's, back when BASIC was the norm for developing proggies on home computers, because code blocks (begin...end, { ... }, etc.) were nonexistent, one had the option of two keywords: GOTO and GOSUB. In the case of branching beyond code that wasn't executed, many programmers abused GOTO even beyond the necessity of its use. This was a fairly hot topic in home-computing magazines at the time, again with BASIC in mind, and it appears that developers using C, [Turbo] Pascal and the like, having hangups about BASIC, emitted serious frowns at the idea of using GOTO at all. But for quick jumps that avoid having to tab forward entire blocks of code, GOTO (case notwithstanding) certainly has my support. [[User:Thokling|Thokling]] ([[User talk:Thokling|talk]]) 16:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
:"Jumping forwards in code to the end where error handling is implemented is actually in wider use now [...]" try-catch-finally? Syntactically not a goto but the effect can be similar. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.47|108.162.219.47]] 17:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
::Yeah, in most high-level languages exception handeling is preffered to goto. But some lower-level languages like C don't have that construct. Note that exception handling allows to go straight from inside a function to the error-handling code outside the function, which is an advantage over C-style error handling which usually require you to check the return value of every function in case you got a specialized "error code".[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.228|141.101.99.228]] 19:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
:::You actually can throw true exceptions in C, but without the syntactic sugar it's tedious (a lot more code), confusing (what the hell does this do?) and error prone (one could easily just wind up going to the start of the try block again, rather then going to the catch block). Also a throws and catch in the same function/method is generally frowned up for the same reasons as GOTO.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.224|108.162.238.224]] 16:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"Velociraptors are a running joke..." Ha, I get it [[Special:Contributions/79.169.177.15|79.169.177.15]] 13:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
*Shudder* I can't even imagine just how horrible the spaghetti code produced by goto's could be (or what the optimist would call "a code puzzle"). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.221|108.162.221.221]] 02:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It's also possible that in this specific case, the raptor is a reference to Operating System Concepts by Silberschatz, Peterson and Galvin. The dinosaur book '[http://pbgalvin.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/scan0006.jpg]' . [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.107|199.27.133.107]] 20:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the GOTO is so ancient, that usage of it summons ancient creatures. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.244.90|172.68.244.90]] 15:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:1774: Adjective Foods

2019-10-06T10:14:50Z

172.68.244.90:

Nobody has edited since I started this? Wow. I must have been ''early''. [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 15:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
:Nice to see somebody helping out! Thanks! [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 15:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

This looks just like all the food in my supermarket. I'm not even sure if I'm buying food or the best adjectives sometimes XD [[User:Fox Holmes|While most people have mass on Saturday, I have mine relative to my inertia]] ([[User talk:Fox Holmes|talk]]) 15:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The can of Lite is a real thing, of course, and trademarked, which is why other beers can call themselves "light" but not "Lite". [https://www.beeradvocate.com/mag/2627/lite-beer-vs-light-beer/ This article has more on that.] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.4|162.158.75.4]] 16:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I thought Lite could be a name for a drink itself, and then i found you. Cool.

Italics is totally fine, and Glazed and Lite ''are'' in white. [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 16:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
:First off, I would like to apologize, my reason for changing the text to normal could be seen as inflammatory, and that was not my intention. As for my actual reason, it's that while you may be able to read it fine, many people can't read text like that. In the comic, it's large and capital letters, but the wiki has small text. Adding all that guff makes it hard to read. For example, my mom has awful eyes, and text like that would be virtually unreadable to her. It was not for my sake, but rather for the sake of others. [[User:Fox Holmes|While most people have mass on Saturday, I have mine relative to my inertia]] ([[User talk:Fox Holmes|talk]]) 16:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
::It's not hard to increase the font size on a computer -- just ctrl and + (or ctrl and =). ctrl and - to turn it back down. The transcript is mainly there for search engines anyway, I imagine; after all, the comic is directly above it on the same page.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.178|108.162.237.178]] 17:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
:::it isn't hard to increase font size, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how busy the text is. There is no reason for it to have that much. It distracts from the real purpose and decreases readability. Also, they want it edited as well. Note the box above the transcript about format. This is not about you. It needs to change for other people who cannot read this stuff as well. What makes you think everyone knows how to increase font size? I honestly didn't until now. You need to do something about it, I'll do it for you, which you may not like.[[User:Fox Holmes|While most people have mass on Saturday, I have mine relative to my inertia]] ([[User talk:Fox Holmes|talk]]) 17:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Is "artisenal" even a word? Is that a purposeful misspelling of "artisanal"? (Like "lite" is a purposeful misspelling of "light".) [[User:Imperpay|Imperpay]] ([[User talk:Imperpay|talk]]) 16:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The "artisenal" error has now been fixed in the updated comic. [http://xkcd.com/1774/]. --[[User:Esterhazy|Esterhazy]] ([[User talk:Esterhazy|talk]]) 17:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The 'p' by a "kosher mark" indicates that it is kosher for Passover. It will say 'pareve' outright if the food is pareve. --Hamotron[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.28|172.68.54.28]] 18:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Who cares what foods ''might'' be in each of the packages? It has nothing to do with the comic and are generally speculation anyway. I'd disagree with most of what's written, but it doesn't matter. I would argue for removing the entire table/section. [[User:SeanAhern|SeanAhern]] ([[User talk:SeanAhern|talk]]) 18:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
:I'd generally agree. If we are to list them, the 'sack' should probably designate it as 'Flour or meal,' as cereals are sometimes steel-cut, but not usually stone-ground, and stone-ground wheat is flour. Also, while there are lots of kosher foods here, I've never seen kosher eggs. Rule seems to be it must come from a live kosher chicken, but I think all chickens are kosher while they are alive, & 'kosher chicken' refers to the manner of their slaughter. [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 23:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
:I don't think you are meant to be able to tell what is in the package as some of it makes no sense. Why would "cage free" be applied to flour or wheat? That is typically applied to chickens and their eggs to indicate the chicken/hen isn't trapped in a cage. But I have never heard of someone grinding a chicken. The only thing I can think of all those adjectives actually referring to would be ground up chicken such as for fertilisers. I think it is just a collection of adjectives which make no sense.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.160|108.162.249.160]] 00:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Hear, hear; in fact I think the explanation should note that part of the joke is that no product could be described as cage free and stone-ground. similarly, fire-roasted and flambé are inconsistent. Also, smoked, sun-dried, <em>and</em> barrel-aged are very nearly mutually inconsistent. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.29|162.158.79.29]] 01:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
:: Disagree, fois gras could be made from cage free ducks and then ground with stone implements. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.64|108.162.221.64]] 14:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
:: It could refer to some baked good that uses stone-ground flour and eggs from cage-free chickens.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.5|172.68.46.5]] 17:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
`

This is the opposite of 993: Brand Identity. {{unsigned ip|162.158.62.75}}

"Stune-ground" might reffer to a "Ground stone" so its probably Flour. (PS hope i edit this correctly) {{unsigned ip|172.68.34.106}}

;Lite

The contents of the Lite can could also be soda, as it's well possible to produce a lite soda (though I don't think anyone has). {{unsigned ip|172.68.34.106}}
:Coca Cola has a Lite variety, so it certainly could be. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.219|141.101.104.219]] 14:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

;Original flavor

'Original flavor' actually isn't a noun phrase (in context). It's an adjectival phrase, which is why Randall has used it as he has. I'd suggest deleting this sentence in the explanation. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.162}}

;Trivia
The link in the trivia section seems to point to the current comic image, not the older version.---- {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.100}}

Is it just me or is "original flavor" not an adjective? It seems to act as a noun, "flavor", being modified by an adjective "original", not as a phrase.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.88|108.162.215.88]] 21:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to read it as a noun phrase in context. In another context it could be, for example if a soda-can were a likely container for flavoring. Here it reads most naturally as an adjectival phrase: imagine 'Original flavor Coca Cola'. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.126|141.101.107.126]] 05:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Adam

Randall has been partially successful. I can walk into my local grocery and purchase packages of "loaf" and "spread", and bottles of "drink" [[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]])

;OSASCOMP
At first glance not all of these adjective orderings look natural. Has anyone checked? Opinion, size, age, shape, color, origin, material, purpose. ''— [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 15:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)''

I’m disappointed in myself. I thought the product was called bespoke.... [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 14:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

2186: Dark Matter

2019-08-07T13:35:10Z

172.68.244.90: added the calculation

{{comic
| number = 2186
| date = August 7, 2019
| title = Dark Matter
| image = dark_matter.png
| titletext = To detect dark matter, we just need to build a bird feeder that spins two squirrels around the rim in opposite directions at relativistic speeds and collides them together.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a DARK MATTER SQUIRREL ON SPINNING BIRD FEEDER. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This implies a {{w|Squirrel|squirrel}} weighs 580 g [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(0.3+(GeV%2Fc%5E2)%2Fcm%5E3)+*+(volume+of+earth)+in+grams].

Here is a reference to a paper that comes up with the dark-matter density of 0.3 GeV/cm3: [https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4033 On the local dark matter density].

==Transcript==
:[Megan walks with Cueball. She is holding a hand out while telling Cueball something.]
:Megan: Dark matter desity in the solar system is around 0.3 GeV/cm<sup>3</sup>
:Cueball: Is... that a lot?

:[As they continue to walk and talk she spreads her arms out.]
:Megan: In terms of mass, it means the Earth contains one squirrel worth of dark matter at any given time.
:Cueball: Wow.

:[In a frame-less panel Cueball stops while Megan walks past him. Megan is face-palming herself while looking down.]
:Cueball: Is there any way to find out which squirrel it is?
:Megan: No, it's not literally-

:[Cueball holds his hand with one finger up in front of Megan, while she has turned towards him and is holding both arms up, possible with balled fist, as she shouts back at him, shown both with large fat letters and with small lines emanating above her head.]
:Cueball: Oh, that explains why they weigh enough to set off those spinning bird feeders!
:Megan: <big>'''''Dark matter isn't squirrels!</big>

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Squirrels]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]