explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2701: Change in Slope

2022-11-26T04:54:10Z

172.70.210.48: /* Raw Data */ 69 dots

I am an occasional data scientist, and I can confirm this is why we have monitor stands that tilt. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.50|172.71.94.50]] 16:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The third e in "neeed" in the title text seems to be a typo
[[User:Victor|Victor]] ([[User talk:Victor|talk]]) 16:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:I think Randall may have added it to represent that the speaker prolongs the "e" sound for emphasis, although that's usually done with 4-5 e's. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
::I had to double-check this, myself (presumed the 'Bot created the lage faithfully, but went straight to source to see if I needed to find a vandalism post to revert). May need a comment (to prevent hypercorrection, if not to note the implied emphisis) and certainly will if it turns out to be a typo and gets corrected (for which I'm sure a future checker will discover Randall's revisiting, but then worth a note to that effect). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.2|172.70.90.2]] 17:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I guess Randall fixed it, because I'm only seeing 2 'e's in the title text. Just updated it on the wiki. [[User:Zman350x|Zman350x]] ([[User talk:Zman350x|talk]]) 01:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Bender Bot was one of the main characters in Futurama. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:Just donning my unnecessary pedantry hat for a moment: his name is Bender Bending Rodriguez --[[User:192·168·0·1|192·168·0·1]] ([[User talk:192·168·0·1|talk]]) 23:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

A couple(?) of authors used the word(s) "(point of) inflection", which is {{w|Inflection point|not really suitable}} for a join between two straight segments. Was tempted to talk about "discontinuity", but that really only applies to the meta-slope (derivatives, to one degree or other) where it suddenly jumps (at a point), or the derivative's derivative has jumps (as it enters and leaves the smoothly linking curve). Hope it works well enough how I left it, though. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.176|162.158.142.176]] 21:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

For anyone curious, I used an image editor to turn the entire comic sideways and [https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/525939879805190154/1044395695525875712/xkcd_sideways.png it actually does seem to work,] to some degree anyway. [[User:SuperSupermario24|SSM24]] 23:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:Added; thanks! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.230|172.71.158.230]] 00:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

: If you don't mind sharing: which program did you use? Did you tweak things like relative distance / camera FOV, to effectively select a specific point in the continuum that makes up the {{w|Dolly Zoom}} effect, and at the limit on one end results in {{w|orthographic projection}}? (Edit 10 minutes later: a better article to look at is {{w|Perspective distortion (photography)}}) Or did you just leave it at whatever the default is? Can you recreate the image with the two extremes, and share them? And lastly - can you upload the image (and potentially the new images) to the wiki directly, so they can be embedded in the page? Thanks! --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 17:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This one shows the beauty of Explainxkcd: people reading the explanation are likely to learn accessible methods of substantial practical utility. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 00:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey, if it works for picking out lumber at Lowe’s, why not for graphs, too? - MadMarie
:There was an old bit of explanation that related it to examining physical objects (for dent/bend-removal in metalwork, I think it was) that got wiped out by a later edit. Though I'm considering my own version, now generalised to cover your experience, as it seems quite relevant/analogous to me. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.2|172.70.90.2]] 14:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the 1st explanation needs to go touch grass and learn how real people talk, pissed me off so much I just effectively rewrote the whole thing from scratch [[Special:Contributions/172.71.202.46|172.71.202.46]] 06:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:Intrigued, looking at the first explanation (give or take that person's initial small errors/omissions) I personally find it more to the point than what it has become. Not to say the complete rewrite was wrong, but it got it not that much closer to the mythical perfection. IMO. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.169|141.101.76.169]] 20:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Going in a different direction than "this is silly" - if we ignore the "viewing point/parallax" issue, doing a change of basis like this is similar to linear methods like [SVD https://hadrienj.github.io/assets/images/ch12_svd/ch11_SVD_geometry.png] & [https://jakevdp.github.io/PythonDataScienceHandbook/figures/05.09-PCA-rotation.png PCA], and considering the graph as a mappingg in a "higher dimension" is similar to the "kernel trick" popularized by [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wqSTBCguVyU/maxresdefault.jpg Support] [https://miro.medium.com/max/4800/1*gtF6KeL7b9zNHd7pXtC1Nw.png Vector] [https://dinhanhthi.com/img/post/ML/support-vector-machine/svm-3.jpg Machines] 11:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

== Raw Data ==

I love this cartoon. This is definitely something that was relevant in my work!

At my old job I had some commercial or public-domain software for extracting the raw data behind a scatter plot. If anyone has something like that handy, I would love to see someone extract the data behind the graph on the left, so that we can:
1. Apply the affine transformation which generates the image on the right with the tilted paper.
2. Apply the statistical tests which Randall Munroe is alluding to.

:Knock yourself out:
{{cot|Digitized data courtesy https://apps.automeris.io/wpd/}}
<pre>
0.000000, 0.015366
0.001887, 0.000000
0.002830, 0.041488
0.024528, 0.060695
0.033019, 0.014597
0.038679, 0.009988
0.044340, 0.072220
0.047170, 0.055317
0.050000, 0.072220
0.064858, 0.092964
0.070215, 0.117001
0.088207, 0.088354
0.091037, 0.122928
0.091037, 0.109099
0.100943, 0.140215
0.103773, 0.165338
0.106603, 0.178246
0.128891, 0.171331
0.147641, 0.196685
0.146226, 0.187465
0.162264, 0.215124
0.180188, 0.264910
0.182452, 0.218812
0.202830, 0.275052
0.204245, 0.261222
0.208490, 0.272747
0.217923, 0.293491
0.227358, 0.267369
0.230322, 0.234880
0.241744, 0.311930
0.256603, 0.344199
0.262263, 0.338930
0.299056, 0.376467
0.308254, 0.420261
0.313206, 0.417956
0.336791, 0.456371
0.344338, 0.433322
0.355659, 0.456371
0.367923, 0.496323
0.374055, 0.503237
0.388206, 0.503237
0.389621, 0.514762
0.409433, 0.533201
0.412263, 0.525518
0.415093, 0.540884
0.432074, 0.555328
0.446225, 0.599275
0.443395, 0.588519
0.449526, 0.537811
0.449055, 0.588519
0.468866, 0.609263
0.487263, 0.627702
0.490093, 0.636922
0.516979, 0.670727
0.523448, 0.697179
0.519809, 0.662276
0.548111, 0.697618
0.551413, 0.740642
0.550941, 0.689935
0.565092, 0.726813
0.572168, 0.724508
0.576413, 0.772911
0.582073, 0.772911
0.582073, 0.763691
0.601177, 0.785588
0.604714, 0.791350
0.625335, 0.775545
0.643394, 0.817473
0.664620, 0.855119
0.688812, 0.871693
0.688003, 0.821643
0.710374, 0.925035
0.707544, 0.806716
0.715091, 0.888156
0.717921, 0.880473
0.724148, 0.976665
0.749054, 0.927010
0.757544, 0.961913
0.763204, 0.959608
0.783016, 0.983426
0.781601, 0.971133
0.797166, 1.028756
0.802827, 1.031060
0.805657, 0.999560
0.821223, 0.966523
0.822638, 0.957304
0.842449, 1.038744
0.843864, 1.028756
0.859431, 1.049500
0.865091, 1.058719
0.876411, 1.077159
0.882072, 1.086378
0.889147, 1.077159
0.901883, 1.024914
0.904714, 1.017231
0.908605, 1.100208
0.913204, 1.107122
0.936553, 1.130171
0.937261, 1.116342
0.967447, 1.159370
0.969806, 1.205310
0.978301, 1.104817
0.983956, 1.101525
1.000000, 1.167820
</pre>
{{cob}}
:104 points. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.39|172.71.154.39]] 19:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
::: I only count 69 distinct dots, although a handful look like they might be merged pairs. What's up with that? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.48|172.70.210.48]] 04:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

:: Can someone please check my work https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1c_7Qj3S1VXtL-AckfSfHCd4ofGYYDYH5 and tell me if I'm doing it right? I'm pretty sure I don't really know what I'm doing. I kind of cargo cult-coded the Savitzky-Golay filter stuff linked from the explanation and have zero understanding of what's actually going on. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.126|172.70.211.126]] 21:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

:: Here's how Randall seems to be suggesting to do it, based on the light gray figures: [superceded] -- Can someone please help fix the residuals on the second plot? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.158|172.71.154.158]] 01:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::: I fixed the residuals and added an inset confidence interval comparisons for the two slopes, split by both their maximum difference and by the maximum sum of the r2 values: https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1apKDIN5FE32mtGiQew5cE6wK6m6eM_Fr It's not clear from the gray text which method Randall is suggesting. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.126|172.70.211.126]] 22:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:::: I added this to the end of the Colab notebook:

# Later in the Explainxkcd explanation, a "Significance of the Difference between Two Slopes Calculator"
# at https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=103 is recommended, so ... we get:

# split by maximum slope difference: (as shown in green and red)
# t-Value: 5.52246856
# Degrees of freedom: 100
# Probability: 0.00000027 (significant as < 0.05)

# split by maximum sum of r²s:
# t-Value: 6.25478825
# Degrees of freedom: 100
# Probability: 0.00000001 (also very significant)

# So, while the latter might technically be about 27 times more likely, both represent undoutably
# different linear fits. Perhaps someone can ask Randall which he was suggesting, if indeed either?

:::: What's the most reliable way to ask Randall this? Twitter? Email? Google Chat? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.91|172.71.158.91]] 23:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
::::: Why don't you generate a series of mildly noisy datasets of two slightly different but random lines each and see which method gets closest to the generating parameters? Also, please put more blank lines in your code, and consider right-aligning the comments. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.146|172.70.211.146]] 01:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

What's funny is people are doing a lot of statistics and computer magic when you can just tilt your screen like the comic says and get the same effect :P {{unsigned ip|172.70.54.52|16:14, 25 November 2022}}
:(Ɔ┴∩) ᄅᄅ0ᄅ ɹǝqɯǝʌoN ϛᄅ 'ㄣϛ:ㄥƖ ᄅᄅᄅ˙ᄅ9Ɩ˙0ㄥ˙ᄅㄥƖ ¡ƃuoɹʍ ʇᴉq ɐ ʇuǝʍ ƃuᴉɥʇǝɯos ʇnq 'ʇɐɥʇ pǝᴉɹʇ I

2703: Paper Title

2022-11-25T23:28:28Z

172.70.210.48: /* Explanation */ some links

{{comic
| number = 2703
| date = November 25, 2022
| title = Paper Title
| image = paper_title_2x.png
| imagesize = 557x261px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors hope these results are correct because we all want to be cool people who are good at science.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MICROBE TRYING TO LURE YOU WITH CLICKBAIT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Many if not most scientific research papers present a hypothesis and the result of testing the hypothesis. Scientific papers should also have titles which describe the content of the papers. See [[2456: Types of Scientific Paper]].

[[Cueball]] is writing a research paper with a {{w|clickbait}} style and {{w|puffery}} title, "Check out this cool microbe we found." His colleague [[Megan]] asks him whether science is supposed to be about formulating a {{w|hypothesis}} and testing it. Cueball agrees, changing the title to, "Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data." However, that is still an overly-promotional clickbait title, purporting to be a study of the authors' own competence, which would be highly unusual because of the lack of objectivity caused by the authors being the subject of investigation. [[:Category:Clickbait|Clickbait]] is a recurring theme on xkcd, recently considered within science publications in [[2001: Clickbait-Corrected p-Value]].

{{w|Emperical research|''Empirical investigations''}} and ''{{w|analysis}} papers'' state and test a hypothesis, but there are many kinds of scientific papers which likely will not, including ''{{w|literature review}}s,'' which qualitatively summarize the results of other papers; ''{{w|meta-analysis|meta-analyses}},'' which quantitatively summarize the results and quality of other work; ''observational reports,'' (or ''{{w|case study|studies}} — not to be confused with {{w|observational study|observational studies}}, a kind of emperical analysis'') which present data and a chronicle of its collection without analysis, testing, or interpretation; ''conference papers,'' which present preliminary work without peer review; ''definition papers,'' which attempt to formalize terms used in divergent ways on work; ''syntheses,'' which present alternative views combining multiple and often conflicting concepts; ''comparative studies,'' which compare and contrast a class of concepts; ''interpretive papers,'' showing a different perspective of previous work; ''technical reports,'' which present information on a specific procedural topic; ''opinion'' and ''editorial essays,'' which are intended argue a point of view persuasively; ''book reviews,'' which summarize monographs or biographies; and ''grant proposals,'' which make the case for funding a project. Mathematical research papers which don't involve emperical observations or uncertainty would be considered technical reports in other fields. Engineering work can be reported as an emperical investigation or a technical report. Cueball seems to want to author an observational report, but Megan would prefer an emperical investigation or analysis, perhaps because they are more likely to be accepted by peer reviewed journals, and as such are more prestigious than mere conference papers, "letters," or "communications" as observational reports are usually published.

In the title text, Cueball's conflict of interest statement says that authors hope the results are correct because "we all want to be cool people who are good at science." A scientific publication's potential {{w|conflict of interest}} usually refers to authors' financial, familial, or other external interests in the research outcomes. The disclosure statement does not describe a conflict of interest.

==Transcript==
:[Megan is standing behind and looking over the shoulder of Cueball who is sitting in his office chair at his desk typing on the keyboard. A line from the keyboard goes up to two boxes above them. A smaller one at the top, half the length and a third the height of the larger box below. There are text in both boxes. The bottom box is not filled out with text. At the end of the text in the bottom box the line indicating where the courser are can be seen, as in this is what Megan can see on the screen:]
:Paper title
:''Check out this cool microbe we found''|

:[Pan to only showing Megan who has taken a hand up to her chin. Cueball replies from off-panel.]
:Megan: Isn’t science supposed to be about formulating a hypothesis and then testing it?
:Cueball - off panel: Oh. Yeah, I guess.

:[Same setting as in the first panel, but now the bottom box is filled out with text, but still with the courser shown at the end:]
:Paper title
:''Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data''|

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Clickbait]]

2703: Paper Title

2022-11-25T23:13:57Z

172.70.210.48: /* Explanation */ copyedit

{{comic
| number = 2703
| date = November 25, 2022
| title = Paper Title
| image = paper_title_2x.png
| imagesize = 557x261px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors hope these results are correct because we all want to be cool people who are good at science.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MICROBE TRYING TO LURE YOU WITH CLICKBAIT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Many if not most scientific research papers present a hypothesis and the result of testing the hypothesis. Scientific papers should also have titles which describe the content of the papers. See [[2456: Types of Scientific Paper]].

[[Cueball]] is writing a research paper with a {{w|clickbait}} style and {{w|puffery}} title, "Check out this cool microbe we found." His colleague [[Megan]] asks him whether science is supposed to be about formulating a {{w|hypothesis}} and testing it. Cueball agrees, changing the title to, "Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data." However, that is still an overly-promotional clickbait title, purporting to be a study of the authors' own competence, which would be highly unusual because of the lack of objectivity caused by the authors being the subject of investigation. [[:Category:Clickbait|Clickbait]] is a recurring theme on xkcd, recently considered within science publications in [[2001: Clickbait-Corrected p-Value]].

''Empirical investigations'' and ''analysis papers'' state and test a hypothesis, but there are many kinds of scientific papers which likely will not, including ''literature reviews,'' which qualitatively summarize the results of other papers; ''meta-analyses,'' which quantitatively summarize the results and quality of other work; ''observational reports,'' which present data and a chronicle of its collection without analysis, testing, or interpretation; ''conference papers,'' which present preliminary work without peer review; ''definition papers,'' which attempt to formalize terms used in divergent ways on work; ''syntheses,'' which present alternative views combining multiple and often conflicting concepts; ''comparative studies,'' which compare and contrast a class of concepts; ''interpretive papers,'' showing a different perspective of previous work; ''technical reports,'' which present information on a specific procedural topic; ''opinion'' and ''editorial essays,'' which are intended argue a point of view persuasively; ''book reviews,'' which summarize monographs or biographies; and ''grant proposals,'' which make the case for funding a project. Mathematical research papers which don't involve emperical observations or uncertainty would be considered technical reports in other fields. Engineering work can be reported as an emperical investigation or a technical report. [[Cueball]] seems to want to author an observational report, but [[Megan]] would prefer an emperical investigation or analysis, perhaps because observational reports are more likely to be accepted by peer reviewed journals, and as such are more prestigious than mere conference papers, "letters," or "communications" as observational reports are usually published.

In the title text, Cueball's conflict of interest statement says that authors hope the results are correct because "we all want to be cool people who are good at science." A scientific publication's potential {{w|conflict of interest}} usually refers to authors' financial, familial, or other external interests in the research outcomes. The disclosure statement does not describe a conflict of interest.

==Transcript==
:[Megan is standing behind and looking over the shoulder of Cueball who is sitting in his office chair at his desk typing on the keyboard. A line from the keyboard goes up to two boxes above them. A smaller one at the top, half the length and a third the height of the larger box below. There are text in both boxes. The bottom box is not filled out with text. At the end of the text in the bottom box the line indicating where the courser are can be seen, as in this is what Megan can see on the screen:]
:Paper title
:''Check out this cool microbe we found''|

:[Pan to only showing Megan who has taken a hand up to her chin. Cueball replies from off-panel.]
:Megan: Isn’t science supposed to be about formulating a hypothesis and then testing it?
:Cueball - off panel: Oh. Yeah, I guess.

:[Same setting as in the first panel, but now the bottom box is filled out with text, but still with the courser shown at the end:]
:Paper title
:''Is our lab really good at finding cool microbes? Some preliminary data''|

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Clickbait]]

2699: Feature Comparison

2022-11-19T03:19:04Z

172.70.210.48: restore Tumblr group chat thing

{{comic
| number = 2699
| date = November 16, 2022
| title = Feature Comparison
| image = feature_comparison_v2.png
| imagesize =
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Below the Web, and the Dark Web, a shadowy parallel world of Cybiko users trade messages on the Translucent Neon Plastic Web.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MULTIHOMED MESH NODE. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic compares different remote communication services, including the relatively well-known {{w|Twitter}}, {{w|Discord}}, {{w|Mastodon (software)|Mastodon}}, {{w|Facebook}} (FB), {{w|Slack (software)|Slack}}, {{w|Signal (software)|Signal}}, {{w|Internet Relay Chat}} (IRC), {{w|Tumblr}}, {{w|Reddit}}, and {{w|SMS}} mobile telephone text messages. It also includes the less well-known {{w|Cybiko}}® wireless handheld computer for teens. For each of these, it purports to indicate which of various features they support. The comic illustrates how feature comparison charts/infographics can be abused by sellers who are trying to make their products look better than they really are, compared to their main competitors. The comic was likely inspired by the recent news coverage of Twitter's purchase by {{w|Elon Musk}}, and the subsequent mass firings and resignation of its staff, causing many users to start looking for alternatives.

The Cybiko was a handheld computer designed for teens and released in 2000, which featured its own two-way radio text messaging capabilities along with built-in games and a music player. Additional information about it is available at [http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php/Cybiko the Dead Media Archive], as the device has not been manufactured since 2003. The chart implies that the Cybiko has an advantage over all of the other listed communication services, as it is capable of all eight of the table's listed features - {{w|Private message|direct messaging}}, {{w|group chat}}s, {{w|file transfer}}, built-in {{w|video game|games}}, instances of the software run by individual users instead of the corporation producing it, lack of a {{w|Server (computing)|central server}} requirement, {{w|mesh networking}}, and wireless message delivery without an active internet connection - with none of the others being close.

The comic, purposefully, does not mention the downsides of the Cybiko, that being purchasing and finding friends who own one can be its own challenge, as it was discontinued nearly 20 years ago. Additionally, the comparison can be considered apples to oranges, since Cybiko is a ''device'' rather than a ''service''; a fairer comparison would be to a modern {{w|smartphone}}, which can provide most of these features via multiple apps, including ones written especially for such rival services. Even ignoring the above, some of the Cybiko's "advantages" come with their own drawbacks: while not requiring a central server nor the Internet, for example, is touted as a plus, the Cybiko instead relies on having other devices in proximity to relay messages, meaning unless the person you are sending to is nearby it will not function, which is not an issue of any of the other options. "Mesh networking" is simply a consequence of the design, and is thus akin to advertising say, that a car makes ''vroom'' noises.

This comic contains several errors. Mastodon doesn't require a central server, or support file transfer. Discord does not provide for user-run instances itself, only user-moderated and administrated instances. (There are two third party Discord server implementations, but it is unclear whether those could be counted as run by users.) Slack does not provide for user-run instances itself. Reddit does not provide for user-run instances at all, only user moderation and administration. IRC does require at least one central server,[https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1459.html] and relegates file transfer support to the domain of client extensions. Signal is heavily used in user-run instances via a diverse ecosystem of code forks; many of these don't require a central server, a couple use mesh networking. Reddit occasionally does have built-in games. Finally, Tumblr and SMS both have a form of group chats. An earlier version of the comic suggesting that Mastodon has no user-run instances was corrected by [[Randall]] shortly after publication of the original.

The title text refers to the translucent plastic covers that were popular in the late 1990s and early 200xs.

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

:[A table with checkmarks to indicate which features various messaging services have. Each column is labeled with a service name and its logo beneath, except that for the last column, the device's longer name is written higher than all the other services' names, with an arrow pointing to a drawing of the device below it.]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! Twitter
! Discord
! Mastodon
! FB
! Slack
! Signal
! IRC
! Tumblr
! Reddit
! SMS
! Cybiko® wireless handheld computer for teens (2000)
|-
! Direct messages
| ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓
|-
! Group chats
| ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓
|-
! File transfer
| || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓
|-
! Built-in games
| || ✓ || || ✓ || || || || || || || ✓
|-
! User-run instances
| || ✓ || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓ || || ✓
|-
! Doesn't require central server
| || || || || || || ✓ || || || || ✓
|-
! Mesh networking
| || || || || || || || || || || ✓
|-
! Wireless message delivery works without internet
| || || || || || || || || || ✓ || ✓
|-
|}

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Social networking]]