explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:102: Back to the Future

2018-01-25T07:52:18Z

172.69.70.251: clarifications

[[User:Rikthoff|Rikthoff]] ([[User talk:Rikthoff|talk]]) I noticed the character on the right has hair in the first two frames, but is bald in the last frame... Two persons?

[[User:Rikthoff|Rikthoff]] ([[User talk:Rikthoff|talk]]) The issue date might be off. All files since #101 have been created on April 11th, 2006. Anyone with an actual issue date?
I agree with Rikthoff, I don't think this is Cueball. Being bald is one of his main features and this guy definately has hair.--[[User:Popuppete|Popuppete]] ([[User talk:Popuppete|talk]]) 13:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

[[User:tesshavon|tesshavon]] Could it be possible that Megan's dad died because of something the other character (let's not call him Cueball until we know for sure) did in the future to "make sure his parents got together and helped his dad to be less of a loser"?

:It's more likely to have been the result of a airliner full of jet fuel crashing into the tower, causing it to burn and collapse. Megan is probably thinking that Cueball (I'm still going to call him Cueball, sorry) could maybe have alerted somebody that this was going to happen. In the past. Him having access to a time machine and all. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 20:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do we take for granted alt text refers to the Cueball/Hairy and not the father? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.210|141.101.89.210]] 21:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

What if the alt text refers to Marty McFly and not Cueball/Hairy? You don't have to think about the comic very hard to know C/H was an asshole, but I think the implication is that Marty could have taken the DeLorean and done less petty, personal things with it.
--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.47|173.245.54.47]] 21:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

^^If it did refer to MM, Randall's interpretation of the movie is skewed. MM only did what he needed to do to repair the damage he unintentionally did. There was no personal benefit intended other than saving his own life, and that of his siblings. Randall has taken some creative license with the way C/H explains the plot.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.251|172.69.70.251]] 07:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Have people forgotten? The DeLorean time machine was destroyed at the end of the third film - it spent less than a day in total in 1985 (first used 1.20 am, destroyed by a train c. midafternoon). Cueball even references this in the comic. {{unsigned ip|108.162.250.223}}

Megan can still contact the friend and get her own time machine... maybe. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 05:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The DeLorean that Marty used to travel from 1885 to 1985 was, indeed, destroyed (somewhat ironically by a fast-moving, modern train). But what of the DeLorean Doc stashed in the cave in 1885? That's what he used to create the flying train. [[User:PoconoChuck|PoconoChuck]] ([[User talk:PoconoChuck|talk]]) 20:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

^^ Actually, that cave DeLorean had to stay there after Doc buried it in 1885, or else 1955 Doc and Marty couldn't dig it out to go back to 1885 to get Doc. It is surmised that parts from the hoverboard (that remained in 1885 with Doc and Clara) were used in the making of the Time Train. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.251|172.69.70.251]] 07:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:214: The Problem with Wikipedia

2018-01-04T07:48:14Z

172.69.70.251: Possible source of previous explanation

I was unable to find the fatal hilarity link from the Batman page. I call shenanigans. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 23:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

:Could that be a reference to the Joker? --[[User:Bpothier|B. P.]] ([[User talk:Bpothier|talk]]) 19:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This always happens to me on Wikipedia! Glad to know I'm not alone :) {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.240}}

If I had a dollar for every wiki article I read that had nothing to do with the initial reason I opened Wikipedia, I'm guessing I could buy myself that motorcycle I've always wanted.
Also, it's been a long time since I last read any Asimov, but didn't he describe, in the Foundation series if I remember correctly, something very similar to Wikipedia? I wonder if that was any inspiration to the creators of Wikipedia. [[User:Militon|Militon]] ([[User talk:Militon|talk]]) 09:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be the "Encyclopedia Galactica." Perhaps more resembling the "Encyclopedia Britannica" than Wikipedia. The Encyclopedia project was embarked because the collapse of the Galactic Empire and consequent decline into a dark age was already too far along to avoid, but with an Encyclopedia covering all scientific knowledge, with copies in every major library in the Galaxy, science won't need to be re-discovered, and the dark age period would be shortened from 30,000 years to a mere 1000. It is subsequently revealed that the whole Encyclopedia project was a hoax designed to trick the people working on the project into being exiled to the edge of the Galaxy, where, in order to survive the growing barbarism around them, they would be forced to form a technologically advanced civilization -- the namesake Foundation -- and it is that Foundation, rather than the Encyclopedia, that would facilitate the end of the dark age within a mere 1000 years. [[User:Danshoham|Mountain Hikes]] ([[User talk:Danshoham|talk]]) 04:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Milton was referring to Asimov's essays, in particular "The New Teachers" and "Future Fantastic" in which he envisioned a future where every home had a computer linked up to the sum of human knowledge, letting each child, while receiving rudimentary and fundamental physical and social skills by others, is allowed to learn about whatever suits the child's fancy, to follow in-depth, to discover new interests, to receive instructions and lessons from experts, to give lessons and share their own knowledge when ready, to add to the global knowledge library, and when, and if (as Asimov hoped) the drudge work of day-to-day existence was given over to automation and robots, a new Renaissance could be born. DavidM. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.251|172.69.70.251]] 07:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This happens to me on explainxkcd. This should be added to explanation, which will make it self-referential comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.67|108.162.222.67]] 15:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

So I thought I would try and complete the wikipath to Lesbianism in Erotica while on a break at work... Bad move, all the 'What Links Here' pages are pornography related, and my boss just happened to appear at the wrong moment. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 12:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I once spent over eight hours on Wikipedia and at the end I had over fifty tabs open. Next time I'll try for a Graham's number. ~Sub6528

I get this way when I read XKCD, actually. Tonight I've wound up from this to Pietro Aretino to poor marketing decisions aimed at millenials, to Postmates. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.217.47|108.162.217.47]] 13:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1340: Unique Date

2017-12-26T06:27:43Z

172.69.70.251: Quick note of thanks.

What about Daylight Saving Time adjustments and leap seconds? Don't they bring duplicates of the same time or is there a way to account for that in the current system? --[[User:Muskar|Muskar]] ([[User talk:Muskar|talk]]) 10:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

:One hour is duplicated each year at the end of DST. Not much happens during that hour, because it's the middle of the night. A poorly written computer program that instructs the computer to set back the clock one hour whenever the clock reaches a specific time would get caught in a recursive loop (never advancing beyond that time). Properly, clocks are set back one hour when that time is first reached, but are allowed to advance after the duplicate hour concludes.

:Not sure if this in regards to a now missing statement in the Wiki, but the reference in the comic is to days. DST occurs as 2AM, so the day is not repeated. However, 1 - 2 is repeated when time is turned back and 2:01 to 2:59 are ignored when moving ahead. Of course, this assumes one lives in a state that recognizes DST. 15:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

::Exactly. [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 09:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

::In Brazil, when we leave DST, we adjust our clocks from 00:00 to 23:00, so there's a chance the day is repeated. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 04:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Leap second does not result in a duplicate. The additional second is allowed by increasing the number of seconds in a minute. Normally, the 60 seconds of 11:59 are numbered from 11:59:00 to 11:59:59, which is followed by 12:00:00. When there is a leap second, 11:59 has 61 seconds, numbered from 11:59:00 to 11:59:60 (61 total seconds) and then 11:59:60 is followed by 12:00:00.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.24|173.245.48.24]] 18:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My first thought was that he makes fun of people that consider dates like the 12.12.12 as important. As any other date they occur only once and are thus not more special. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.66|108.162.254.66]] 04:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:Good point, I have added something about that. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 04:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly related to the upcoming Pi Day. Also, next year's Pi Day will be 03-14-(20)15, which a few images going around on the Internet have made an annoyingly big deal about. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 06:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

So - Maybe I suck at searching (I do), but I can't find any information about us being limited to 4 digits in our calendar system...?[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.107|173.245.53.107]] 08:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:Most of the computer software that handles dates would have problems with more (or less) than four digits. Why bother with variable year length when you can just take the first four characters of "2014-03-10" and it works for the next 8 thousand years? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.103|103.22.200.103]] 09:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:Also, most digital displays are limited to four digits for the year. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.103|103.22.200.103]] 09:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

::And I don't think we actually start address that sooner that in September 9999. It will be Y2K over again! .... not sure where will people of 9999 get {{w|Fortran}} and {{w|Cobol}} programmers, though. Maybe we should freeze some before we run out of them. :-) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_billennium#In_literature this] out.--[[User:Rael|Rael]] ([[User talk:Rael|talk]]) 21:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:I'm with you. I suppose there may be places where leading zeros are used (somewhere in software where memory space has been set aside, I suppose) but I can't think of '''any''' common system where one has to use five digits when using a four digit number.
:When we get to December 31, 9999 (assuming he Gregorian calendar is still in use (BIG assumption)) the next day will simply be January 1, 10000 because, as you said, the Gregorian calendar isn't limited to four-digit years. And, as I say, anyone who think there is some problem with writing years as four digit numbers is simply demonstrating that they are not someone to take seriously. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.84|199.27.128.84]] 16:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

After visiting the website for the "Long Now Foundation", I find I'm left wondering - why, oh why, would they stop at using a five digit year? why not six? eight? ten? sixteen? thirty-two? [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the point in the comic title is that writing years always with 5 digits is as significant as the zero to the left it will take to do so for most of the next 8000 years. [[User:FlavianusEP|FlavianusEP]] ([[User talk:FlavianusEP|talk]]) 12:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

My first thought was that the comic was about date formats and yyyy-mm-dd being better than yy-mm-dd or dd.mm.yy. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.138|173.245.53.138]] 12:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

;Dynamic?

:It isn't, but I've made a dynamic one (based on UTC): https://voidptr.de/xkcd-1340 [[User:N.st|n.st]] ([[User talk:N.st|talk]]) 19:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wanna bet that this comic always shows the current date?--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 10:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:Haha, that's a great observation! I wish it were so, I'll check again tomorrow. If it's not, someone email Mr. Munroe to make it so, great idea. {{unsigned|Adityarajbhatt}}

:It's 00:07 (11th of March) right now in China where I am currently located and it still shows 10th of March...just for the record [[Special:Contributions/108.162.225.191|108.162.225.191]] 16:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

::It's March 15th now, and it still says the 10th. It's not dynamic. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.76|199.27.128.76]] 20:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
::It says 2014-10-01 for me. But I think it was at 11:53 (2014-09-30) when I checked it. And mine matches the atomic clock.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.173|108.162.238.173]] 04:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's funny that Randall seems to have never heard of [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2550 RFC 2550], which goes than the Long Now Foundation in expanding the representable date range. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.161|173.245.53.161]] 15:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:Technically, there will be another 2014-03-10; on October 3rd. - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.65|108.162.219.65]] 16:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::It would actually be 2014-10-03 "under our system" as stated in the comic. Technically. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 17:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::It's like me saying that there will be another 2014-03-10 on March 14th. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.63|173.245.50.63]] 19:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if this is also somehow related to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox Interesting number paradox]. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.29|199.27.128.29]] 18:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem of the date rolling back is partially mitigated by storing the year as an integer instead of as characters, such as how certain Spreadsheet programs, such as OpenOffice Calc, stores years as a 16-bit signed integer. This doesn't solve the issue, only pushing it back to be the year 32768 problem. This is even less of an issue for 64 bit Unix time, which expire on 15:30:08 UTC on Sun, 4 December 292,277,026,596. It's also important to note that the dates, such as 99, or 00 should not be seen as digits, they should be seen as characters (unless, of course, they are BCD digits, which entirely defeats the purpose of shortening the date to 2 characters length). This might seem trivial, but I think it's an important difference.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.41|108.162.216.41]] 02:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
: 3rd of October won't happen for another seven months. {{unsigned ip|173.245.53.125}}
:: As a (culturally) dd/mm/[yy]yy person (and ignoring, for brevity, the different options for delimiter), I find yyyy-dd-mm as illogical as mm/dd/yyyy... Why should anybody switch 'precision direction', mid-way? Still, as someone who went through the Y2K process ''and'' worked with colleagues across the Atlantic, I tend to use dd/Mmm/yyyy habitually in "for humans" systems (giving the abbreviated month spelling to avoid all ambiguity, as well as full year-number), or my own "yyyymmdd[-hhmm[ss[.ddd...]]]" format in (informal and internal) programming situations, with comments attached to any conversion routines (inwards and outwards). ((And, yes, there ''are'' ISO/other standards, but I find converting from/to them and internally working with my own long-practiced format works best, for me. YMMV. But be aware of how'd you deal with (or ignore) Leap Seconds!)) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.47|141.101.98.47]] 14:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
::: I once toyed with the notation 0y20140310, with the "0y" prefix (a pun on C's "0x") distinguishing it from the eight-digit integer 20140310. I later decided that 0y20140310.175959 would be a good way to extend it to specify both date and time, and it still parses as a single C token if that property is useful. (And it sorts properly, of course.) [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.68|199.27.128.68]] 04:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I am surprised nobody has mentioned the fact that we know of no civilization of human beings that has reached 10,000 years with a continuous calendar.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

We should be doing universal coding for the year. All dates start with a 1, followed by the number of zeroes equal to the number of digits in the number of digits in the date. Take 2015, it has 4 digits, 4 has 1 digit, so it starts with "10" then append the number of digits in the date, "4" and finally the date "2015" to get "1042015". In 8000 years this would be "10510015" in 1e10 years it would be "100101000002015". A computer drops the one, checks the number of leading zeroes, reads in that many digits, then reads in that result in digits to read in the year. With the leading 1 it can still be stored as a binary number rather than a string, and needs no starting or ending indicators, and will expand indefinately to store any date ever to exist. --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.106.41|188.114.106.41]] 21:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

- I just had to add a 'bravo' for whomever appended the [citation needed] to the "Since time only moves forward" part of the explanation. It makes me happy. Thank you, stranger. - DavidM. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.251|172.69.70.251]] 06:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)