explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2831: xkcd Phone Flip

2025-04-23T15:56:08Z

172.70.162.61:

this is my first time editing, did i do well? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.202|172.70.134.202]] 21:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
:Decent enough, assuming you were the one giving the reference to the Z-series. But it'll be expanded, improved and reformatted a lot, I predict. I put in my own (intended) first-edit, but clearly there's you (and possibly A.N. Other) already adding their own thoughts. (Which I am counting on, rather than trying to write it all in one go all by myself... I'll wait for it to settle down and ''then'' see if there are various tweaks I'll want try on whatever form it becomes.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.7|172.70.90.7]] 21:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
:The other person was me, but I think there's someone else as well reformatting and rewriting things.--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.38|172.68.34.38]] 23:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

So, what is the meaning of "flip" here? [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 22:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
:It's a reference to the Samsung Galaxy line of folding smartphones, which is marketed as 'Galaxy Z Flip' phones. While there had been double-screened smartphones in the past, Samsung was able to figure out some way to have the actual screen flex and fold in the middle so that when it's closed the primary screen is protected, but when opened up the user sees a single screen without a hinge in the middle. The current model (the 'Z Flip 5') is the sixth iteration of the device since it was originally introduced in China in 2019. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 22:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

:I think it's just part of the whole marketroid feeling these are supposed to have. It's part of the name and the [alleged] "marketing" department, as is typical, came up with something extremely dumb and useless. See: [https://serverfault.com/questions/117799/which-version-of-sunos SunOS vs Solaris] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.197.132|162.158.197.132]] 22:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Anybody else think the main sequence battery is a fusion cell that is also the chemical flashlight and full spectrum backlight that necessitates the SPF 15 coating? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.83|172.71.151.83]] 22:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
:I'm thinking it's a reference to the Cyalume lightsticks which need to be bent, which shatters a small glass vial inside and releases a hydrogen peroxide solution into a second solution of an oxalate ester and electron-rich dye contained within the outer plastic shell. The resulting chemiluminescent reaction creates visible light. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 22:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
:I assumed main sequence refers to stellar evolution in astronomy. {{w|Main sequence}} These stars have a relatively long life, matching the description. The SPF 15 coating and full spectrum would also make sense. However I am not sure that description as a chemical flashlight would follow appropriate. The primary energy generation would be nuclear (fusion). It has been long enough since I took astronomy I don't remember all the details of how the energy is converted into light, and whether that would ultimately be considered a chemical, thermal, or nuclear process (or combination thereof). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.152|172.69.22.152]] 00:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
::Even relatively cold parts of stars are too hot for any chemical reactions. The photons produced from fusion are caught and re-emitted by atoms in outer layers of stars and the spectrum DOES match thermal radiation, so thermal maybe. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
:As chemist, I automatically interpreted it as made from main group elements in the periodic system. Which actually would be a neat feature. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.36|172.71.160.36]] 19:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Arch support may also refer to the Linux distro [[Special:Contributions/162.158.110.237|162.158.110.237]] 08:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I initially misread the title text as being a ''Thanos'' partnership. In which case, presumably inadvertently touching the button could wipe out half the population of the universe.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.77|172.71.242.77]] 10:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
:Can destroy mountains with one click, but not half the population [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.220|172.70.90.220]] 10:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The breaking the glass might refer to “ Break glass (which draws its name from breaking the glass to pull a fire alarm) refers to a quick means for a person who does not have access privileges to certain information to gain access when necessary.”

With a chemical flashlight, I assume the free refills might actually come in handy (though it doesn't say there is a chemical flashlight and with the flip form, bending might just refer to some mechanical switch activating the flashlight - or considering the possibly stellar power source, it just removes shielding). [[User:627235|627235]] ([[User talk:627235|talk]]) 11:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
:At least it isn't a "chemical fleshlight". Moreover one activated by severe bending! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.46|172.70.162.46]] 11:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Had thought to note (but couldn't find a way to slip it into the Explanation) that the origami-form relies upon a square sheet, but the unfolded form seems to be (close enough to) 2:1 ratio. If it ''is'' 2:1 (give or take excess to go around the initial bend), the first step might of course be to make the screen effectively 2-ply, then worry about how to seemlessly fold ''that'' into the Fortune Teller, with convex/concave folds and the necessary compound corners. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.46|172.70.162.46]] 11:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

"One pixel display" - I was surprised by the suggestion that this could be a static image, like a slide; I had imagined, and would like to see (perhaps more explicitly) the alternative, that the whole screen simply lights up in a single color (within the __-bit colorspace). --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.177|108.162.245.177]] 17:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

:I agree with the latter - I would consider the pixel as the minimum picture element, no subdetails. [[User:Vdm|Vdm]] ([[User talk:Vdm|talk]]) 20:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

:A single pixel with a lot of display states need not be static. Show a bunch in sequence like a film based movie projector. Pixel is the minimum addressable picture element. Think about ASCII art (e.g., printing Mona Lisa on a daisywheel printer), or graphics on the IBM PC monochrome display, Commodore PET, etc. There are also those pieces of art where each pixel is a small photograph (I don't know if there is a name for that). Not typical pixels, bit of a gray area. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.15|172.71.158.15]] 21:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
::A name for that: {{w|Photographic mosaic}}.
::Also, consider perhaps waving a single pixel around fast and using ''time'' and actual position at that time with sufficient image-retention (by the static viewer) to build up an observable but very temporary image. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.152|172.69.79.152]] 22:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyone thinks the "Main sequence battery" could be a reference to [https://xkcd.com/1422 1422: My Phone Is Dying]? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.97.11|141.101.97.11]] 08:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if the "we didn't actually mean" thing is a reference to those bendy iPhones almost a decade ago? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.74|162.158.38.74]] 08:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the explanation should also mention that kid's game that you do with a folded paper like the images on the right. I don't know how it is called, but this Facebook comment by "AJ Himmel" references it:
"Can also be used to find out who you'll marry someday! Just repeatedly flip it open then unfold a flap!"
[[User:Rps|Rps]] ([[User talk:Rps|talk]]) 17:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
:It already ''does'' mention the kids' (note apostrophe!) game... "paper fortune teller". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.152|172.70.91.152]] 17:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
::I don't see any reason why a kid (singular) couldn't play with it on their own. In fact, in my experience, it was usually one kid that was playing the game - the rest were simply reluctant stooges.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.70|172.71.242.70]] 09:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Are you saying that only one particular kid ''ever'' played with such a game? With as solo an effort as any such individual(s) may have had? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.59|172.70.85.59]] 16:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Should Ruina montium really be described as a "lost mining technique" given [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_M%C3%A9dulas] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hushing]exist? It seems more like a colloquialism than lost knowledge to me.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.179.124|172.70.179.124]] 05:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Possible (tenuous) connection: the Ruina Montium feature in combination with the phone's demonstrated ability to shift into an angular, geometric form could be a reference to the angel Ramiel in ''Neon Genesis Evangelion'', which demonstrated a mountain-destroying energy blast and has a somewhat similar shape. Shown here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u26WYI9oxoA] [[Special:Contributions/172.70.127.132|172.70.127.132]] 07:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

What's incomplete in the transcript? I couldn't find anything in the text that wasn't there already.[[User:Something|Something]] ([[User talk:Something|talk]]) 14:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
: Well, I had to remove the non-canon bulletpoints, to make it correct for Transcripts But I haven't also removed the {{template|incomplete transcript}} tag, just yet, as it probably needs someone else checking the way it has ended up and being happy with it. (NB. whenever someone declares themselves as happy, inevitably they attract the attention of someone who disagrees. ;) ) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.68|172.70.86.68]] 17:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think. the first paragraph of the explanation is wrong, the phone is split in half and made into two fortune tellers. 00:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[[User:Treeplate|Treeplate]] ([[User talk:Treeplate|talk]])

The new title font makes this comic seem like the xkcd PHONE FLIP, like Phone Flip is one singular thing instead of it being the xkcd Phone: Flip. [[User:Willintendo|Willintendo]] ([[User talk:Willintendo|talk]]) 14:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
:Not sure you're right, there. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.61|172.70.162.61]] 15:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3007: Probabilistic Uncertainty

2024-11-06T09:20:30Z

172.70.162.61:

Emotional spirals are useless. I've been coping by pretending we're in scenario 1, it keeps me sane. If I'm wrong, I'll jump off that bridge when we come to it. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:And I have a friend whose strategy is baking. It's both therapeutic and delicious. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:I see I don't know US geography well: which bridge you can jump from to leave it? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Most of them. Some of them may be 'caged in' for safety/anti-suicide/anti-DropThingsInThoseBelow purposes (or a {{w|covered bridge}}). Relatively few of the others will be ones that you would have no qualms about vaulting the railing, but (as well as it clearly being a witticism by Barmar) I think you could easily ''find'' a bridge that you could jump off. And the resulting falling part isn't at all the difficult bit. Landing safely (or, in extremis for those desperate enough, in a guaranteed immediately fatal manner) is more the challenge. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.206|172.70.86.206]] 14:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but think that at preparing for the negative outcome regardless of which outcome is more likely (unless that outcome is *very* unlikely) is a healthy thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.141|172.71.147.141]] 20:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
: "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" is my usual approach to things. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This comic appeared the day before the 2024 United States Presidential Election. At publication time, polls were strongly suggesting about a 50/50 odds that either major candidate would win. Recent news items included advice from mental-health professionals on how to deal with election-related anxiety. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.195|172.71.167.195]] 20:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Definitely related. This should be in the text, not in the comments, frankly. The yanks are going nuts about the election right now. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.124.243|172.71.124.243]] 20:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Did the advice suggested narcotics? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

My personal policy is to expect and prepare for the worst. That way I can be surprised when it doesn't happen, and not surprised when it does, rather than the other way around. I don't "do" emotions, so it's basically just planning and mumbling colloquialisms involving the digestive system... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.134.64|172.71.134.64]] 21:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:As someone who used to think this way, this is obstructively cynical, and downright ''sad''. I mean, in theory you should be pleasantly surprised by the good, and prepared for the bad, but in practice you just dismiss anything good and focus exclusively on the bad. As someone with experience in this type of thinking, it isn't healthy. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.85|172.71.22.85]] 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that it's mostly Democrats that are anxious, where Trump winning is the bad case. Not being an American I don't have much perspective. Are many Republicans likely to also be anxious, and if so, why? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.60.170|172.69.60.170]] 21:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Not sure about "anxious", for Trump-supporting Rs (as opposed to Trump-opposing ones, who are both anxious and tremendously conflicted), but there's certainly a buzz of some emotion. That, if ''their'' expectations/hopes/desires are dashed, seem more likely to turn into more direct push-back than Ds would in their case. i.e. if Trump truly wins, there'll be turmoil as the legitimate government forcefully pushes against large subsets of the people, if Harris truly wins then small but determined fractions of the people will push back against the legitimate government. (If it's any way ambiguous, for long enough, which 'truth' indicates a win, it could easily be people vs. people for at least as long as the confusion lasts, with very little reason to believe that it'll be Harris supporters throwing the first stone, probably making Florida 2000 look like a "neat transition"). But this is just what it looks like at this moment. Within a day we ''might'' get to see whose words get eaten, or it could be at least a month of building tensions (due to the US system of elections, deliberately legislated to be so much more inefcicient than it needs to be, compared to various other Western nations). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:From what I've seen the ones in public-facing forums seem pretty indifferent. They do talk a lot about election fraud though. {{unsigned ip|172.70.34.117|22:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)}}

I like that the comic leaves "good" and "bad" open to interpretation.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.83|172.70.211.83]] 22:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:He doesn't want to start fights in the comments/discussion pages/replies! Good to see him appealing to no specific demographic in this one. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 22:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::Considering that the "Harris for President" banner is still active, I'm not sure I agree with that. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.4|172.68.22.4]] 22:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::yeah, for that reason i think it's more just so the comic can have further longevity, as this way it can be applied to any number of things with two outcomes, not just the current election [[Special:Contributions/141.101.109.193|141.101.109.193]] 00:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Well, so far so good ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Re [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3007:_Probabilistic_Uncertainty&oldid=355799 Further, with regards to N/A - the odds of "precisely" 50/50 are probabilistically zero]: Bear in mind that with the Electoral College system and the fact that only 7 US states are "likely in play," we are talking only hundreds or thousands of realistic possibilities. The odds of a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College are far more than 0. One possibility of a tie that is "on the radar" is if the Republicans take Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and the 2nd Congressional District of Nebraska (which is very likely to go Democratic) and the Democrats take Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. If you consider just the 7 "in play" states but Arizona "flips" from Republican to Democratic, there are 3 combinations that yield a 269-269 tie. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.249|172.70.210.249]] 01:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
: If there's a 269-269 tie, that's basically going to be a Trump win due to how the contingent election process works. (For that matter the far more plausible 270-268 to Harris, which happens if she wins Nevada but not Pennsylvania, is likely going to result in Trump getting the presidency as well, but let's ignore that.) However, many analysts, when faced with numbers like Nate Silver's 50.015%, are going to round it to 50% or 50.0% in the public-facing reports, resulting in apparent exact 50/50 odds even if mathematically they actually favor one side slightly. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.130.3|172.71.130.3]] 10:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::There's little point in being so precise, since the fraction is far less than the margin of error in the polling. Anything between 49% and 51% is essentially a toss-up. If the 51% is in your favor you can feel hopeful, but hardly confident. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Re '''We contacted several researchers who are experts in emotional spirals to ask them, but none of them were in a state to speak with us''': Is it a stretch to think that the emotional-spiral experts were all "in Puerto Rico" (which is not a state), emotionally speaking? In the last week a supporter of one of the candidates insulted Puerto Rico and by extension, people of Puerto Rico and Puerto Rican descent, causing an emotional uproar all over the inter-tubes. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.210|162.158.90.210]] 01:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Created an account just to say this; don't get mad at me but in my opinion, both candidates are equally bad, which has led to a weird sense of calmness in me due to my belief that we'll be equally screwed no matter what, just in different ways. Tbh in my opinion both candidates are in between what their supporters think of them and what their opponents think of them. Please be civil if you reply, no ad hominem please. [[User:BurnV06|BurnV06]] ([[User talk:BurnV06|talk]]) 05:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:No, one of them is clearly worse than the other. How do you feel about LGBTQ+ rights? Abortion? Medicare? Teaching kids that racism and homophobia in schools is bad? Well, if Project 2025 is anything to go by, one side ''clearly'' is the unpreferable unless you're a white, Christian, rich, and male. This is not a "both sides" issue. One is clearly the worse option. And frankly, I wish centrists knew this. I can agree to disagree on some issues but I just cannot elect someone who wants to punish people for the egregious crime of, ''gasp'', not conforming to societal standard of gender and romance.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.85|172.71.22.85]] 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::... And Project 2025 is absolutely nothing to go by. It's what a (private) conservative think tank (privately) wants to see implemented. Trump had no involvement in its contents or publication. The Heritage Foundation has been publishing things like it since 1981; it only attracted attention THIS year because politically-motivated people are trying to scare you, and were running out of ideas. It should not surprise you to learn that people who you already disagree with, have ideas that you also disagree with, and might publish compilations of those ideas you disagree with on a regular basis. Freaking out over Project 2025 is like if conservatives started freaking out over a set of published policy recommendations by the Center for American Progress. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.96|172.68.3.96]] 16:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC) MeZimm
::Fair enough, but the point still stands that this is explicitly ''not''a both sides issue. Even taking Project 2025 out of account, one side is clearly worse.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.71.44|172.68.71.44]] 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:"Equally bad" is highly subjective, Burn. More people would consider "a total disaster" vs "at least they're not a total disaster!" as a closer truth (whether their own personally-configured disastermeter comes in a Red or Blue casing), and consider balancing dead in the center of the fence to be the most inexplicable position to take. (Not to mention those like above, and also their antithesis opinions, who have a very definite good/bad opinion 9n the pair.)
:Not that I'd support being mad at you, as the problem with politics today is ''too much'' extreme polarization (we need more moderate voices, rather than wedging open an ever wider void between both limits of opinion). But there's just no realistic middle-ground to gather support around, and what middle-ground there is might also be moving one way or another (depending upon who you ask), so I'm afraid that the strictly neutral "as bad as each other" types are just guaranteed to be setting themselves up to be disappointed. In the 'best' case scenario, disappointed that things aint turning out to be as bad as feared, but I'm not sure that's reassuringly likely enough to comfort you. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:Well said, and I think it's important to mention that the reason there isn't any moderates is that the moderates ''just don't care anymore''. At least online, complete political apathy is a position I've seen a lot of people take ("Why are they constantly slamming politics into my face, I just don't care"). Unfortunately, these kinds of people are also the moderates, people who aren't particularly one side or the other. This leads to a political landscape where you have 2 extremes, and a bunch of people in the middle who couldn't care less because of said extremes. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.31.24|172.71.31.24]] 15:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Being tired of politics is one thing (blame the years-long election season for that) but it's objectively incorrect to characterise both sides as "extreme". The democrats ''are'' the moderates. In most of the Western world outside of North America the Democrats would even be considered right-wing.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.193|172.70.46.193]] 04:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:Not to be a “Discord mod” here, but the entire idea of the 50-50 portion of the comic alluding to the election today is just a theory. Y’all are reading in wayyyyyyy too deep. The comic isn’t even directly saying if one candidate is better (although the Header text is supporting Harris). The discussion is supposed to be for discussing the comic and how to improve it, not clash over ideological differences. Maybe instead of arguing about who’s the better candidate, we can finish up the comic explanation, which is extremely bare bones? TL;DR: break it up, people. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 18:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's funny that so many Democrats are genuinely terrified of the results and spend their days anxiously refreshing 538, whereas Republicans are filled with optimism and already know that the democrats have run the weakest candidate since Dukakis. Ah well, maybe in four years you'll actually get to vote for who leads your ticket instead of having them be appointed by the party elites directly without a vote. ;) {{unsigned ip|172.71.22.120|07:35, 5 November 2024}}
:Given the indirect democracy system the US has, there's a number of problems with who gets to be President. And if Harris is weaker than H. Clinton, but it's still on a knife-edge of popular/EC voting, does that mean that Trump's win was therefore less legitimate? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Do I really have to remind you that election results are not the same thing as poll results? In 2016, [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a 28.6% chance vs Clinton's 71.4% chance.] Most polls were even more egregiously in favor of Clinton. Yet Trump won. Now in 2024, you say "it's still on a knife-edge of popular/EC voting" - somehow pretending the PREDICTIONS of right now are in any way comparable to the ACTUAL RESULTS of 2016. Yet polls get "shy Tories" and pranksters and all kinds of complicating factors (even assuming the pollsters are being honest - which is not something you should EVER "simply assume"). Polls are a little bit better than astrology in terms of actual predictive power. So comparing "polls now" to "actual election then" is completely wrongheaded. You have to compare predictions to predictions. And the predictions of 2016 were "the odds are MASSIVELY in Clinton's favor" - yet now they are running a WEAKER candidate and rate her has having even LESS probability of winning than Clinton did. Don't worry, though, I'm sure they figured out some way to solve all the problems with their 2016 process, and are now 100% trustworthy again! /s [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.127|172.68.3.127]] 19:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC) MeZimm
:::Whatever direction we're going with the rest of the arguments, don't lead us down the route of misanalysing (say) 28.6% vs. 71.4% as meaning anything other than that's the predicted chance (by a necessarily incomplete process) of the process coming out one way or another (even by just one vote that swings just one EC contribution). It doesn't mean that the popular vote will split by that proportion or the EC votes will split that way, it is just an assessment of how much the (each slightly biased) coins will fall either majority heads or majority tails. But we only see the one end result (itself a fudge of a fudge of many possibly imperfect opinions) and try to read the entrails all while hearing "but the predictions were 29/71, and it was much closer than that, so obviously those stats guys were wrong".
:::Do try not to fall for such statistical fallacies. The polling will be refined for all the things that it can be refined for (accounting for the kinds of people who do vote but don't answer to pollsters, or don't vote even though they say they will, etc) and should come with error bars which can be very telling but rarely get mentioned in 'executive summaries' that get selectively quoted by the headlines of organisations with less integrity and more of their own message to try to promulgate.
:::But looking across many polls, you can see even the 'headline figure' end predictions, shorn of the most obviously optomistic/pesimistic extremes, smeared from several percentage points one way to a similar the other. If the result is within one, two or three swingstates'-worth of ECs, it'll still vindicate most of the polling opinions. Though doesn't mean you can guarantee the reverse. Anyway, not long now until the process stops being fed by votes and starts being fully chewed on by those who produce the 'answer' to this year's big question. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.185|172.70.162.185]] 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reminded of some of my coding theory class, where the absolute worst bit error rate is 50%. Less than 50% and you can repeat the data to detect and correct the errors to some vastly low probability of an incorrect result, and more than 50% and you can invert the signal which flips it to less than 50%, then do the same. At exactly 50% you're essentially getting random noise, and there's nothing you can do about that (but allow allows a one-time pad encryption to be unbreakable if done correctly). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.214.13|172.71.214.13]] 18:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

There's been talk about pollsters potentially herding because of just how tight the race allegedly is across all of the swing states (which should be more inclined D/R relative to each other, not all exactly even). I think Nate Silver made a tweet about the odds that the odds are so close. Could that be related to this comic, indirectly? {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.61|20:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)}}

What's with the section talking about strategies to manage expectations? It reads like it came straight out of ChatGPT. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.155|172.71.102.155]] 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:It probably is, considering I asked ChatGPT to analyze the comic yesterday to see if it could catch the joke about emotional spiral experts and got a very similar response. Shall we remove it? —megan [[user talk:megan|talk]] [[special:contribs/megan|contribs]] 04:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::The wikilinks show that wherever it came from originally, an editor reviewed and marked it up, so I would lean towards keep. It's not bad advice, although I'm not a psychologist or therapist. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.136|172.68.23.136]] 04:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps as expected, this has gone outdated pretty quickly. [https://manifold.markets/ManifoldPolitics/will-trump-win-the-2024-election Manifold] and [https://polymarket.com/event/presidential-election-winner-2024 Polymarket] are now both trading above 90% for Trump as of this comment. —megan [[user talk:megan|talk]] [[special:contribs/megan|contribs]] 04:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It's gone completly outdated. It was a bigger trump win than expected, and it's not even in the 50/50 category. [[User:SomeRandomNerd|SomeRandomNerd]] ([[User talk:SomeRandomNerd|talk]]) 08:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
: As someone noted above, this is not how odds work. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.61|172.70.162.61]] 09:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)