explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1240: Quantum Mechanics

2018-03-06T17:36:00Z

198.41.230.172: CHRONOLOGICAL NOTE

To me, it's not about "probably wrong" it's about irrelevant. QM itself says nothing about anything but quantum (particle component) probable vector(s).
Recent success of Bayesian probability in these regards implies more about lack of "common sense" understanding or meaning, than about subjectivity of universe (as if there was a difference?).
QM is not really knowledge in itself, it's just illuminating math (in a very limited realm).
not wrong, just fuzzy [[User:Monteletourneau|Monteletourneau]] ([[User talk:Monteletourneau|talk]]) 05:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Who is CueBall talking to? It is not Meg, unless she dyed her hair. [[Special:Contributions/65.215.93.238|65.215.93.238]]
:[[Ponytail]] --[[Special:Contributions/92.230.59.41|92.230.59.41]] 14:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Are "almost" against common sense? I see you don't know much about quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, common sense is about as usefull as in {{w|Alice's Adventures in Wonderland|Alice's Wonderland}}. Possibly less. And that bit about {{w|Quantum tunnelling|going through the wall}} is used in {{w|Flash_memory#NAND_flash|Flash memories}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 14:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
:Sure. You can see that people do not understand anything about something because you think you know a lot about that something. WRONG! I know exactly what I was talking about and "almost" was a word that I did not chose lightly.[[User:Claudionico|cinico]] ([[User talk:Claudionico|talk]]) 13:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
It applies to us all - the more you think you know the more wrong you are, the more you actually know, the less right you think you are.
[[User:Monteletourneau|Monteletourneau]] ([[User talk:Monteletourneau|talk]]) 05:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"You can safely ignore any sentence that includes the phrase 'according to quantum mechanics'" Including, of course, that one. [[User:Tbrosz|Tbrosz]] ([[User talk:Tbrosz|talk]]) 16:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

awe some
[[User:Monteletourneau|Monteletourneau]] ([[User talk:Monteletourneau|talk]]) 05:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"Albert Einstein being famously ''wrong''", isn't that a bit subjective? Although there is little evidence supporting the hidden variable theory, it is not out of the question to consider it, Einstein might've been right you know. --[[Special:Contributions/79.160.93.211|79.160.93.211]] 21:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
:Einstein was not ''wrong'', he just was searching to unify relativity mechanics with quantum mechanics. That sentence "God does not play dice" is often misunderstood and in wrong context here. I did remove it.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
::I don't know about ANY evidence supporting {{w|Hidden variable theory}}, on the other hand I heard that {{w|Bell's_theorem|Bell inequalities}} were experimentally tested and results are against Einstein. Wikipedia itself states that "Most advocates of the hidden variables idea ... are ready to give up locality". Einstein {{w|Principle_of_locality|assumed that the principle of locality was necessary, and that there could be no violations of it}}. Are you seriously saying that someone managed to put their subjective position into that many articles on wikipedia? ; The point of "wrong content" may be more valid, especially considering that Einstein probably was able to understand quantum mechanics, just didn't believe it. It would be very interresting what he would say about the issue if he wouldn't died 9 years before the Bell inequalities were formulated. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Exactly! The EPR paper does not claim that QM is wrong, it just points out the (to Einstein paradoxical) consequences of entanglement. In the same way you can claim that Schroedinger said QM was wrong, because of his famous thought experiment involving an angry cat (he made up the example to criticize the kopenhagen interpretation of "his" wave mechanics).[[Special:Contributions/85.164.251.29|85.164.251.29]] 18:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I recall hearing an argument along these lines... Something about the "fact" that a dog observing a quantum wave form will cause it to collapse, thus the observer is "conscious", and thus has a "soul". How exactly you explain all the misnomers in that set of assumptions, let alone test the hypothesis to begin with, I've no clue. Can we train monkeys to read particle detectors? And what consequence might this have for Schrodinger's poor cat? ;) [[Special:Contributions/99.42.81.32|99.42.81.32]] 06:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

:I'm not sure how they managed to actually prove dogs can collapse quantum wave form, but I'm definitely sure that if dog can do that cat can too. Remember that {{w|Schrödinger's cat}} was THOUGH experiment, we don't know if someone really tried it (unless {{w|Cheshire Cat|Lewis Carol did}}). -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Dog = soul, cat does not, it's proven all right!
Isn't it right there in the equation?
I thought S = soul???
Besides, the bible (NO the devil) tol' me so.
[[User:Monteletourneau|Monteletourneau]] ([[User talk:Monteletourneau|talk]]) 05:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this not a reference to the Einstein quote that a mouse wouldn't change the universe by observing it? (In German: "Ich kann mir nicht denken, daß eine Maus das Universum verändert, dadurch, daß sie es betrachtet"){{unsigned ip|91.45.17.43}}

Dogs have souls in Christian philosophical tradition, just not immortal ones. Most Christian philosophers follow a loosely Aristotelian philosophy which says that all living things have some kind of soul: plants have vegetative souls, animals have sensitive souls, and people have rational souls. Thus this sentence ought to be corrected: "the concept of most of the large monotheistic religions [is that] only humans have been created in the image of God and thus only they have souls." {{unsigned ip|162.158.75.202}}
:Fixed as of this comment's date [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.172|198.41.230.172]] 17:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:1258: First

2018-03-02T17:45:01Z

198.41.230.172: Undo revision 153390 by 198.41.230.172 (talk)

First! [[User:Edo|Edo]] ([[User talk:Edo|talk]]) 04:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:This is a wiki, not some xkcd reader's blog. [[User:GameZone|GameZone]] ([[User talk:GameZone|talk]]) 04:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

::(it's called a joke) [[User:Edo|Edo]] ([[User talk:Edo|talk]]) 04:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

::I thought it was funny. [[Special:Contributions/75.37.205.50|75.37.205.50]] 07:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:: I actually would have been slightly disappointed if someone hadn't made a "First!" comment for this particular comic. Only slightly, though, because that would mean I would've been able to do it. [[Special:Contributions/66.87.67.175|66.87.67.175]] 18:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:::Personally, I considered putting "InB4 someone says 'First'!!!", and thus probably annoyed ''both'' the "First"-likers and the Meme-haters. However, I left it too long to work out if I ought to. ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.106.190.241|178.106.190.241]] 23:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

:Ha! I was going to do the same thing. --[[User:Druid816|Druid816]] ([[User talk:Druid816|talk]]) 07:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

When I saw today's comic on XKCD.com, I came here just to check if someone made a "First!" comment in comic's discussion page. [[Special:Contributions/78.205.5.80|78.205.5.80]] 08:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:Yep, I wanted to come here and post "first!" I thought that would be fun and original. [[User:Porkypine|Porkypine]] ([[User talk:Porkypine|talk]]) 14:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:I also only came by to make sure the first thing in Discussion was "First," as is appropriate.

I agree it is likely Megan offscreen, but can we be sure? [[Special:Contributions/83.227.33.35|83.227.33.35]] 09:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:Is Megan the canonical name for the long-haired brunette? Interesting... [[Special:Contributions/188.76.190.204|188.76.190.204]] 12:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
:: Yes. See [[159:_Boombox]] --[[User:Rael|Rael]] ([[User talk:Rael|talk]]) 14:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I corrected the indents, dont be mad at me :) [[Special:Contributions/188.76.190.204|188.76.190.204]] 12:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain what it means? I first guessed it was the proliferation on the "exactly zero" sentence, but it can also means "not comments at all". [[Special:Contributions/188.76.190.204|188.76.190.204]] 12:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:He is being ironic because there have been so many annoying internet behaviours have come about. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 13:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:Could also be self referencing, as massive use of irony can be considered an annoying internet behaviour. --[[Special:Contributions/132.230.150.44|132.230.150.44]] 13:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:If someone comes with a new annoying behavior, it will be the first! [[Special:Contributions/179.219.106.94|179.219.106.94]] 14:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:I get that there are annoying Internet behavior, and idiocy on the Web is pretty much unavoidable, but are there any new, specific behaviors that we can put in the explanation rather than just telling people how obvious it is? (I'm not just complaining, if it came across that way. I would offer examples if I could think of any.) [[Special:Contributions/98.166.43.28|98.166.43.28]] 22:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)DBrak

::I make $205,392 a day part time sitting at home on the computer. I didn't know it could be so easy! Check out my website to find out more! [[Special:Contributions/108.184.110.140|108.184.110.140]] 16:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

:For starters, how bout those Youtube commenters? "Justin Bieber suxorz", "49 JB fans disliked this vid", "Metal = shit, rap = awesome", etc. [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 00:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

:Youtube memes could fill a thread alone. How about "thumbs up if still listening to this in 2013", or "57 people [number of negative votes] don't like good music". But I think more generic internet behavior was intended, like Rickrolling, ending dubiously spelled words with (sp?) rather than use a spell checker, any number of annoying and overused acronyms and letter/number substitutions, etc.

:"Exactly zero" is often used in dubious arguments. "The odds of that working are exactly zero." [[User:gijobarts|gijobarts]] ([[User Talk:gijobarts|talk]]) 07:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
::That sounds like a dubious argument. It is more often used when the point someone has made is clearly, indisputably and entirely wrong. "The government is trying to kill us with chemtrails!". "No, it really isn't." Except you would say 'the chances of that being true are exactly zero' thing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 20:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see a need for the 'List of annoying Internet habits developed after "First"' section. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.71|108.162.216.71]] 07:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
:tl,dr. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 20:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
::The need was to suppress a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed citation needed]] tag. See [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1258%3A_First&diff=50873&oldid=49502]. [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 21:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1258: First

2018-03-02T17:44:38Z

198.41.230.172: COMMENT

First! [[User:Edo|Edo]] ([[User talk:Edo|talk]]) 04:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:This is a wiki, not some xkcd reader's blog. [[User:GameZone|GameZone]] ([[User talk:GameZone|talk]]) 04:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

::(it's called a joke) [[User:Edo|Edo]] ([[User talk:Edo|talk]]) 04:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

::I thought it was funny. [[Special:Contributions/75.37.205.50|75.37.205.50]] 07:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:: I actually would have been slightly disappointed if someone hadn't made a "First!" comment for this particular comic. Only slightly, though, because that would mean I would've been able to do it. [[Special:Contributions/66.87.67.175|66.87.67.175]] 18:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

::Didn't this wiki start as a blog? [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.172|198.41.230.172]] 17:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

:::Personally, I considered putting "InB4 someone says 'First'!!!", and thus probably annoyed ''both'' the "First"-likers and the Meme-haters. However, I left it too long to work out if I ought to. ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.106.190.241|178.106.190.241]] 23:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

:Ha! I was going to do the same thing. --[[User:Druid816|Druid816]] ([[User talk:Druid816|talk]]) 07:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

When I saw today's comic on XKCD.com, I came here just to check if someone made a "First!" comment in comic's discussion page. [[Special:Contributions/78.205.5.80|78.205.5.80]] 08:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:Yep, I wanted to come here and post "first!" I thought that would be fun and original. [[User:Porkypine|Porkypine]] ([[User talk:Porkypine|talk]]) 14:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:I also only came by to make sure the first thing in Discussion was "First," as is appropriate.

I agree it is likely Megan offscreen, but can we be sure? [[Special:Contributions/83.227.33.35|83.227.33.35]] 09:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:Is Megan the canonical name for the long-haired brunette? Interesting... [[Special:Contributions/188.76.190.204|188.76.190.204]] 12:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
:: Yes. See [[159:_Boombox]] --[[User:Rael|Rael]] ([[User talk:Rael|talk]]) 14:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I corrected the indents, dont be mad at me :) [[Special:Contributions/188.76.190.204|188.76.190.204]] 12:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain what it means? I first guessed it was the proliferation on the "exactly zero" sentence, but it can also means "not comments at all". [[Special:Contributions/188.76.190.204|188.76.190.204]] 12:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:He is being ironic because there have been so many annoying internet behaviours have come about. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 13:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:Could also be self referencing, as massive use of irony can be considered an annoying internet behaviour. --[[Special:Contributions/132.230.150.44|132.230.150.44]] 13:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:If someone comes with a new annoying behavior, it will be the first! [[Special:Contributions/179.219.106.94|179.219.106.94]] 14:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:I get that there are annoying Internet behavior, and idiocy on the Web is pretty much unavoidable, but are there any new, specific behaviors that we can put in the explanation rather than just telling people how obvious it is? (I'm not just complaining, if it came across that way. I would offer examples if I could think of any.) [[Special:Contributions/98.166.43.28|98.166.43.28]] 22:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)DBrak

::I make $205,392 a day part time sitting at home on the computer. I didn't know it could be so easy! Check out my website to find out more! [[Special:Contributions/108.184.110.140|108.184.110.140]] 16:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

:For starters, how bout those Youtube commenters? "Justin Bieber suxorz", "49 JB fans disliked this vid", "Metal = shit, rap = awesome", etc. [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 00:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

:Youtube memes could fill a thread alone. How about "thumbs up if still listening to this in 2013", or "57 people [number of negative votes] don't like good music". But I think more generic internet behavior was intended, like Rickrolling, ending dubiously spelled words with (sp?) rather than use a spell checker, any number of annoying and overused acronyms and letter/number substitutions, etc.

:"Exactly zero" is often used in dubious arguments. "The odds of that working are exactly zero." [[User:gijobarts|gijobarts]] ([[User Talk:gijobarts|talk]]) 07:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
::That sounds like a dubious argument. It is more often used when the point someone has made is clearly, indisputably and entirely wrong. "The government is trying to kill us with chemtrails!". "No, it really isn't." Except you would say 'the chances of that being true are exactly zero' thing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 20:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see a need for the 'List of annoying Internet habits developed after "First"' section. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.71|108.162.216.71]] 07:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
:tl,dr. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 20:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
::The need was to suppress a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed citation needed]] tag. See [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1258%3A_First&diff=50873&oldid=49502]. [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 21:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1962: Generations

2018-03-02T17:31:01Z

198.41.230.172: COMMENT

Table guy! Maybe this could be a table with "Year", "Generation Name", "References" and "Speculation". Or something. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.172|198.41.230.172]] 17:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Blue Eyes

2018-03-01T17:52:44Z

198.41.230.172: ELABORATED ON DISPLAY OF WEBPAGE

{{comic
| date = October 11, 2006
| title = Blue Eyes
| image = Blue Eyes.jpg
| before = The Hardest Logic Puzzle in the World
| lappend = blue_eyes.html
| extra = yes
}}
<div class="toclimit-3" style="float:right; margin-left: 10px;">__TOC__</div>

==Explanation==
XKCD's [http://xkcd.com/blue_eyes.html Blue Eyes] puzzle is a logic puzzle posted around the same time as comic [[169: Words that End in GRY]]. [[Randall]] calls it "The Hardest Logic Puzzle in the World" on its page; whether or not it really is the hardest is up to speculation.

The page contains two comics. On the top is [[82: Frame]], and at the bottom is [[37: Hyphen]]. These particular comics may have been chosen intentionally, as 82 involves a mind screw (and formal logic can be pretty mind-screwy to the uninitiated) and 37 involves linguistic ambiguity, which Randall has explicitly gone out of his way to avoid (interestingly, [[169]] involves the infuriating ambiguity caused by misquoting riddles). That said, Randall could have simply picked those comics out of a hat to plug for his comic (which he also does explicitly), and the date of release could also be completely random.

Randall cites "some dude on the streets in Boston named Joel" as his source for the comic idea (although he's rewritten it).

==The Puzzle==

A group of people with assorted eye colors live on an island. They are all perfect logicians -- if a conclusion can be logically deduced, they will do it instantly. No one knows the color of their eyes. Every night at midnight, a ferry stops at the island. Any islanders who have figured out the color of their own eyes then leave the island, and the rest stay. Everyone can see everyone else at all times and keeps a count of the number of people they see with each eye color (excluding themselves), but they cannot otherwise communicate. Everyone on the island knows all the rules in this paragraph.

On this island there are 100 blue-eyed people, 100 brown-eyed people, and the Guru (she happens to have green eyes). So any given blue-eyed person can see 100 people with brown eyes and 99 people with blue eyes (and one with green), but that does not tell him his own eye color; as far as he knows the totals could be 101 brown and 99 blue. Or 100 brown, 99 blue, and he could have red eyes.

The Guru is allowed to speak once (let's say at noon), on one day in all their endless years on the island. Standing before the islanders, she says the following:

"I can see someone who has blue eyes."

Who leaves the island, and on what night?

==Solution==

Randal's solution is at [http://xkcd.com/solution.html xkcd.com/solution.html].

Here are some observations that help simplify the problem.

No one without blue eyes will ever leave the island, because they are given no information that can allow them to determine which non-blue eye color they have. The presence of the non-blue-eyed people is not relevant at all. We can ignore them. All that matters is when the blue eyed people learn that they actually are blue-eyed.

There are two ways in which blue-eyed people might leave the island. A lone blue-eyed person might leave on the first night because she can see that no one else has blue eyes, so the guru must have been talking about her. Or an accompanied blue-eyed person can leave on a later night, after noticing that other blue-eyed people have behaved in a way that indicates that they have noticed that her eyes are blue too.

The problem is symmetrical for all blue-eyed people, so this means they will either all leave at once or all stay forever.

'''Theorem:''' If there are N blue-eyed people, they will all leave on the Nth night.

'''Dual Logic.'''

Blue eyed people leave on the 100th night.

If you (the person) have blue eyes then you can see 99 blue eyed and 100 brown eyed people (and one green eyed, the Guru).
If 99 blue eyed people don't leave on the 99th night then you know you have blue eyes and you will leave on the 100th night knowing so.

'''Intuitive Proof.'''

Imagine a simpler version of the puzzle in which, on day #1 the guru announces that she can see at least 1 blue-eyed person, on day #2 she announces that she can see at least 2 blue eyed people, and so on until the blue-eyed people leave.

So long as the guru's count of blue-eyed people doesn't exceed your own, then her announcement won't prompt you to leave. But as soon as the guru announces having seen more blue-eyed people than you've seen yourself, then you'll know your eyes must be blue too, so you'll leave that night, as will all the other blue-eyed people. Hence our theorem obviously holds in this simpler puzzle.

But this "simpler" puzzle is actually perfectly equivalent to the original puzzle. If there were just one blue-eyed person, she would leave on the first night, so if nobody leaves on the first night, then everybody will know there are at least two blue-eyed people, so there's no need for the guru to announce this on the second day. Similarly, if there were just two blue-eyed people, they'd then recognize this and leave on the second night, so if nobody leaves on the second night, then there must be a third blue-eyed person inspiring them to stay, so there's no need for the guru to announce this on the third day. And so on... The guru's announcements on the later days just tell people things they already could have figured out on their own.

It's obvious that our theorem holds for the "simpler" puzzle, and this "simpler" puzzle is perfectly equivalent to the original puzzle, so our theorem must hold for the original puzzle too.

Another way of looking at it is to use selective attention. Although each blue-eyed person can see each other blue-eyed person on the island, she doesn't need to. The only thing she needs to know in order to determine whether to leave on night N is whether or not she can see an Nth person with blue-eyes. On night 1, she only needs to see 1 other blue-eyed person to not leave; on night 2, she can see 2 other blue-eyed people, so she doesn't leave; and so on and so on until night 100 when she can't see a 100th blue-eyed person, and then leaves.

'''Formal Proof.'''

To prove this more formally, we can use mathematical induction. To do that, we'll need to show that our theorem holds for the base case of N=1, and we'll need to show that, for any given X, *if* we assume that the theorem holds for any value of N less than X, then it will also hold for N=X. If we can show both these things, then we'll know the theorem is true for N=1 (the base case), for N=2 (using the inductive step once), for N=3 (using the inductive step a second time) and so on, for whatever value of N you want.

Base case: N=1. If there is just one blue-eyed person, she will see that no one else has blue eyes, know that the guru was talking about her, and leave on the first night.

Inductive step: Here we assume that the theorem holds for any value of N less than some arbitrary X (integer greater than 1), and we need to show that it would then hold for N=X too. If there are X blue-eyed people, then each will reason as follows: "I can see that X-1 other people have blue eyes, so either just those X-1 people have blue eyes, or X people do (them plus me). If there are just X-1 people with blue eyes, then by our assumption, they'll all leave on night number X-1. If they don't all leave on night number X-1, then that means that there is an Xth blue-eyed person in addition to the X-1 that I can see, namely me. So if they all stay past night number X-1, then I'll know I have blue eyes, so I'll leave on night number X. Of course, they'll also be in exactly the same circumstance as me, so they'll leave on night number X too."

This suffices to prove our theorem. The base case tells us the theorem holds for N=1. That together with the inductive step tells us that it therefore holds for N=2, and that together with the inductive step again tells us that it holds for N=3, and so on... In particular, it holds for the case the original puzzle asked about, N=100, so we get the conclusion that the 100 blue-eyed people will leave on the 100th night.

==Randall's thought-provoking questions==

After giving his solution, Randall posed three questions for further thought about the puzzle. (I'll answer them in a different order than he asked.)

'' '''Question 2.''' Each person knows, from the beginning, that there are no less than 99 blue-eyed people on the island. How, then, is considering the 1 and 2-person cases relevant, if they can all rule them out immediately as possibilities?''

Blue-eyed people can't see their own faces, so blue-eyed people can see one less blue-eyed face than non-blue-eyed people can. Even though I can see that there are at least 99 blue-eyed people, I don't know that they can see that, so I need to imagine people who see only 98, who would base their actions in part by imagining people who can see only 97 who would base their actions in part by imagining people who can see only 96, and so on... All the levels are relevant. (It's like [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_eZmEiyTo0 the Princess Bride scene] where Vizzini is trying to think about what Wesley would choose in part based upon Wesley thinking about what Vizzini would choose in part based upon... "So clearly I cannot choose the one in front of me!") Each layer of thinking about what someone else might be thinking about can decrement by 1 the number of blue-eyed people visible to the lattermost imagined person, so it turns out that even the base case with N=1 blue-eyed person is relevant. As the days go by, some of the more far-fetched "he might be thinking that I might be thinking that he might be thinking that I might be thinking that..." hypotheses get ruled out. But it's only after night N-1 that the blue-eyed people rule out all the possibilities in which they have brown eyes, whereas the brown-eyed people only learn on night number N that they don't have blue eyes.

It might help to think of all the different situations people might be in. (Remember brown-eyed people always are situated where they can see one more blue-eyed face than blue-eyed people can.)

'''Situation 0.''' If I see 0 blue-eyed people, I can leave right after the announcement on night 1.
'''Situation 1.''' If I see 1 blue-eyed person, then she might be in situation 0 and about to leave on night 1; or else she might be in situation 1 just like me, in which case we'll both leave together on night 2.
'''Situation 2.''' If I see 2 blue-eyed people, they might each be in situation 1 watching to see whether anyone in situation 0 leaves the first night (I know nobody will leave that night, but they wouldn't know this), in which case they would leave together on night 2; or else they might be in situation 2 just like me, in which case we'll all leave together on night 3.

:
:
:
'''Situation N.''' If I see N blue-eyed people, they might be in situation N-1 watching to see whether any people in situation N-2 leave on night N-1 (I know nobody will leave that night, but they wouldn't know this), in which case they would leave together on night N; or else they might be in situation N just like me, in which case we'll all leave together on night N+1.
:
:

Even though I start out in situation 99, I need to worry that the blue-eyed people might be in situation 98, so I need to wait long enough for people in situation 98 to figure out what's going on, and then see whether they act like they are indeed in situation 98. But if they're in situation 98, then they're worrying about whether all the blue-eyed people might be in situation 97, so they're going to need to wait long enough for people in situation 97 to figure out what's going on. Of course, that requires waiting long enough for people in situation 96 to figure out what's going on, and so on, down all the way to situation 0. All the levels are relevant, and it takes a separate day to eliminate each level, which is why the whole process takes N days.

'' '''Question 3.''' Why do they have to wait 99 nights if, on the first 98 or so of these nights, they're simply verifying something that they already know?
''

Consider an analogy. I've heard that miners used to take canaries down into mines because canaries pass out more quickly in poor air than miners do. Suppose you know the canary will do fine for 98 or so seconds, and then pass out if the air is bad. As you watch the canary for those 98 seconds, there's a sense in which you're just verifying something you already know (it'll do fine), but it seems more accurate to say that your best detector for the quality of the air takes 98 seconds to give you a reading, and you're waiting 98 seconds to see what that reading is.

When the blue-eyed people wait 98 or so days to leave, that's because their best available detector of their own eye-color takes 98 or so days to give a reading. (This detector involves watching what the other blue-eyed people do, and of course they themselves are waiting on a detector that takes 97 or so days to yield its result...) There's a sense in which they're "simply verifying something that they already know", but it seems more accurate to say that they're waiting for their best available detector of their own eye-color to deliver its reading.

'' '''Question 1.''' What is the quantified piece of information that the Guru provides that each person did not already have?''

Before the Guru speaks, the hypothetical chain of A imagining B imaging C imagining D...imagining Z seeing N blue eyed people cannot terminate uniquely. Z seeing no blue eyed people can consider whether or not they are blue eyed. This means it is not {{w|Common knowledge (logic)|common knowledge}} that there are blue eyes. Once the guru makes their pronouncement it is common knowledge and every chain of reasoning must terminate at 1 blue eyed person and Z above would have to conclude that they had blue eyes. From then on every midnight the common knowledge that there are N blue eyed people increments by 1 as everyone sees nobody leaving on the ferry.

Stated another way, there's only one stable set of beliefs for the blue eyed people that would allow them to have so many exist on the island indefinitely. That is if each blue eyed person believed not only that they have brown eyes, but also that every other blue-eyed person believed, incorrectly, that they had brown eyes. Logic reduces this to "all blue-eyes believe that all blues-eyes have brown eyes". The Guru eliminates that particular possibility.

Another simple way to understand why the Guru's information is important is thus. Each blue-eyed person knows two sets of information: what the actual situation is on the island (both now and in the past), and what would happen in a hypothetical situation. Each blue-eyed person then needs only to compare the actual situation to a known hypothetical one, and if it matches up, then they take the corresponding action. Consider this: If there were only one blue-eyed person, and the guru never made the announcement, she would not leave on day 1 because she would not know that N is greater than or equal to 1. Now let's add a 2nd blue-eyed person. Blue-eyes 2 would not be able to inductively determine whether or not to leave on night 2, because blue-eyes 2's knowledge of whether or not to leave on night 2 is dependent on what blue-eyes 1 does on night 1 if and only if blue-eyes 1 knows what to do on night 1. If blue-eyes 1 doesn't know that N is greater than or equal to 1, then blue-eyes 1 doesn't know what to do on night 1, so her lack of leaving gives blue-eyes 2 no new information, since it was an uninformed action and blue-eyes 2's inductive reasoning was dependent on blue-eyes 1 knowing what to do, and so the inductive process never takes off for the hypothetical situation. This means a hypothetical situation for N people cannot be induced. As such, blue-eyes 100 does not have certain knowledge of the hypothetical situation that would occur on nights 99 and 100, and so even though she knows N = either 99 or 100, she can't take action on either of those nights, because she has no certain hypothetical situation to compare reality to, and as such cannot have certainty about the actions she should take.

==Trivia==
*The web page which contains the puzzle has no {{w|CSS|style sheet}}. The font size of the heading and subheading is increased with deprecated HTML tags, rather than the heading tags. The way the page is displayed therefore depends on the browser's settings. Despite this fact, due to a similarity of default settings between computers, most computers will by default display the page similarly to the way it is displayed in this page's screenshot, with a white background, black text and the {{w|Times New Roman}} font or a similar one. However, it has two line breaks after every paragraph instead of HTML paragraph breaks, meaning that paragraph spacing will not vary between browsers, relative to the font size.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:My Hobby]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]

82: Frame

2018-03-01T17:51:47Z

198.41.230.172: Undo revision 153331 by 198.41.230.172 (talk) THIS IS EMBARASSING BUT I EDITED THE WRONG PAGE

{{comic
| number = 82
| date = March 29, 2006
| title = Frame
| image = frame.jpg
| titletext = ...
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] is standing in the middle of the first square panel, but then the panel's frame starts warping away from being square and starts to form into tendrils that move toward him, then slowly wrap themselves around him, and finally retract, reforming the frame again, but pulling him apart in the process, in a very macabre comic even by xkcd standards.

Typically, the frame on a cartoon is used to separate different periods of the action. Here, this has been subverted by the frame becoming a character, the main protagonist, and sole survivor of the strip.

There is some indication that Cueball is also just part of a drawing, since his upper torso, with parts of each arm, is left hanging in the air without any tendrils touching it. If it was not stuck in the center of the image, it would fall down, but more importantly, even if all tendrils pulled very fast at the same time, it is highly unlikely that they could pull so precisely that the body would split in four pieces around this remaining body cross, and one of the tendrils should have pulled this part along with either an arm, the head, or the lower torso. This could be some comfort for those who think that this is too much. Of course, it could also just be something that [[Randall]] did not think was important in such a {{w|Surrealism|surreal}} comic.

Comics often use artifacts on the frame to add mood to the comic. This comic then makes those artifacts a major feature of the comic, like a {{w|Chekhov's gun}} ("If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off.") The use of creative panel layouts and effects was first made possible in newspaper comics at the insistence of Bill Watterson, author of Calvin and Hobbes (which it is known that Randall has been influenced by), requiring lengthy negotiations due to the printing technology of the time. The creative use of panel layout and effects is thus part of the artistic legacy of Calvin and Hobbes. xkcd, among others, has continued along that path of pushing the boundaries of the medium.

The title text "..." could indicate that Randall wasn't being very serious about this comic. But perhaps it was an idea to creatively use parts of the comic nobody thought about, and it spoke for itself and needed no extra comment. The three dots also indicate that something more will happen soon. The reader may visualize the final result and empty square panel, ready for the next unfortunate person to walk into this trap. Alternatively, it could mean that Randall found the comic so bizarre, even he couldn't comment on it (see [[#Trivia|Trivia section]]).

==Transcript==
:[Cueball stands alone in the center of this almost normally framed panel. But there are four small indentations two both left and right and maybe also one top right.]

:[Tendrils from the frame develop and grow inwards while breaking the outer frame down. The tendrils comes close to Cueball. There are 13, three from three of the four sides and four from the right.]

:[The tendrils have now completely broken the outer frame down and 11 have reached Cueball and these begins to wind themselves around him. There are tendrils around his forehead, neck, cheek, left arm, left wrist, left hand, right wrist, right hand, lower torso, left leg and right leg. Those around his legs spiraling almost up to his crotch. 14 other tendrils have not reached him yet. All those reaching him was among the 13 from the previous panel. Only the two from the bottom right corner did not make contact. The other 12 not reaching him where new.]

:[Finally the 11 tendrils that have reached Cueball retract along with the other 14 tendrils back to the frame, tearing Cueball apart in 9 pieces, leaving one central piece (his upper torso with a part of each arm) floating in the center without tendrils on it. His head has been split in two by three tendrils, that keep the parts close together. The left arm with one tendril has been split from the hand with two tendrils, whereas the two holding the wrist and hand kept their part of the arm in one piece. The two legs have been separated from the lower torso at the crotch, and they as well as the lower torso is all being pulled away by one tendril. The other tendrils have almost reached the frame, three of them are already gone leaving 11 near the frame. The frame has also nearly reformed it self again.]

==Trivia==
*This is one of two comics featured with [[Blue Eyes]]: The Hardest Logic Puzzle in the World, the other being [[37: Hyphen]].
*The title text "..." has been used twice later also with somewhat surreal comics, both about the black hat of [[Black Hat]]; [[412: Startled]] and [[455: Hats]].
*There is a striking similarity to the opening scene in the movie {{w|Hellraiser}} (1987) (read the {{w|Hellraiser#Plot|plot}} here - Spoiler).
**The way the room resets after killing the person in it also reminds of the opening scene in the movie {{w|Cube (film)|Cube}} (1997). Although it is a very different way of doing it, that person is also divided into small pieces.
**Although the Hellraiser trap also resets, it is not like it is a room that does the damage or resets, so there is reason to compare to both movies.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

82: Frame

2018-03-01T17:50:17Z

198.41.230.172: ELABORATED ON DISPLAY OF WEBPAGE

{{comic
| number = 82
| date = March 29, 2006
| title = Frame
| image = frame.jpg
| titletext = ...
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] is standing in the middle of the first square panel, but then the panel's frame starts warping away from being square and starts to form into tendrils that move toward him, then slowly wrap themselves around him, and finally retract, reforming the frame again, but pulling him apart in the process, in a very macabre comic even by xkcd standards.

Typically, the frame on a cartoon is used to separate different periods of the action. Here, this has been subverted by the frame becoming a character, the main protagonist, and sole survivor of the strip.

There is some indication that Cueball is also just part of a drawing, since his upper torso, with parts of each arm, is left hanging in the air without any tendrils touching it. If it was not stuck in the center of the image, it would fall down, but more importantly, even if all tendrils pulled very fast at the same time, it is highly unlikely that they could pull so precisely that the body would split in four pieces around this remaining body cross, and one of the tendrils should have pulled this part along with either an arm, the head, or the lower torso. This could be some comfort for those who think that this is too much. Of course, it could also just be something that [[Randall]] did not think was important in such a {{w|Surrealism|surreal}} comic.

Comics often use artifacts on the frame to add mood to the comic. This comic then makes those artifacts a major feature of the comic, like a {{w|Chekhov's gun}} ("If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off.") The use of creative panel layouts and effects was first made possible in newspaper comics at the insistence of Bill Watterson, author of Calvin and Hobbes (which it is known that Randall has been influenced by), requiring lengthy negotiations due to the printing technology of the time. The creative use of panel layout and effects is thus part of the artistic legacy of Calvin and Hobbes. xkcd, among others, has continued along that path of pushing the boundaries of the medium.

The title text "..." could indicate that Randall wasn't being very serious about this comic. But perhaps it was an idea to creatively use parts of the comic nobody thought about, and it spoke for itself and needed no extra comment. The three dots also indicate that something more will happen soon. The reader may visualize the final result and empty square panel, ready for the next unfortunate person to walk into this trap. Alternatively, it could mean that Randall found the comic so bizarre, even he couldn't comment on it (see [[#Trivia|Trivia section]]).

==Transcript==
:[Cueball stands alone in the center of this almost normally framed panel. But there are four small indentations two both left and right and maybe also one top right.]

:[Tendrils from the frame develop and grow inwards while breaking the outer frame down. The tendrils comes close to Cueball. There are 13, three from three of the four sides and four from the right.]

:[The tendrils have now completely broken the outer frame down and 11 have reached Cueball and these begins to wind themselves around him. There are tendrils around his forehead, neck, cheek, left arm, left wrist, left hand, right wrist, right hand, lower torso, left leg and right leg. Those around his legs spiraling almost up to his crotch. 14 other tendrils have not reached him yet. All those reaching him was among the 13 from the previous panel. Only the two from the bottom right corner did not make contact. The other 12 not reaching him where new.]

:[Finally the 11 tendrils that have reached Cueball retract along with the other 14 tendrils back to the frame, tearing Cueball apart in 9 pieces, leaving one central piece (his upper torso with a part of each arm) floating in the center without tendrils on it. His head has been split in two by three tendrils, that keep the parts close together. The left arm with one tendril has been split from the hand with two tendrils, whereas the two holding the wrist and hand kept their part of the arm in one piece. The two legs have been separated from the lower torso at the crotch, and they as well as the lower torso is all being pulled away by one tendril. The other tendrils have almost reached the frame, three of them are already gone leaving 11 near the frame. The frame has also nearly reformed it self again.]

==Trivia==
*This is one of two comics featured with [[Blue Eyes]]: The Hardest Logic Puzzle in the World, the other being [[37: Hyphen]].
*The title text "..." has been used twice later also with somewhat surreal comics, both about the black hat of [[Black Hat]]; [[412: Startled]] and [[455: Hats]].
*There is a striking similarity to the opening scene in the movie {{w|Hellraiser}} (1987) (read the {{w|Hellraiser#Plot|plot}} here - Spoiler).
**The way the room resets after killing the person in it also reminds of the opening scene in the movie {{w|Cube (film)|Cube}} (1997). Although it is a very different way of doing it, that person is also divided into small pieces.
**Although the Hellraiser trap also resets, it is not like it is a room that does the damage or resets, so there is reason to compare to both movies.
*The web page which contains the puzzle has no {{w|CSS|style sheet}}. The font size of the heading and subheading is increased with deprecated HTML tags, rather than the heading tags. The way the page is displayed therefore depends on the browser's settings. Despite this fact, due to a similarity of default settings between computers, most computers will by default display the page similarly to the way it is displayed in this page's screenshot, with a white background, black text and the {{w|Times New Roman}} font or a similar one. However, it has two line breaks after every paragraph instead of HTML paragraph breaks, meaning that paragraph spacing will not vary between browsers, relative to the font size.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:1269: Privacy Opinions

2018-02-28T21:44:43Z

198.41.230.172: MOVED AN OLD COMMENT TO UNDER THE NEW TOPIC

This comic could be meant to satirize those who trivialize the opinions of privacy advocates. I doubt many reading this comic would assume this is either a fair or exhaustive list of opinions on internet privacy as it is highly unlikely that the reader him/herself would hold any of these opinions. 00:05, 1 October 2013 {{unsigned ip|68.190.213.83}}

Sometimes I think all my burritos are imaginary. [[User:Nathkingcole|Nathkingcole]] ([[User talk:Nathkingcole|talk]]) 11:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Nat.
:The burrito isn't, but Chipotle's promises of all natural ingredients in their food is. They do that just to make a quick buck off the health-conscious crowd. Lying burrito! --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 15:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This may be pointless, but Kudos to 63.85.81.254's edit. [[User:Saibot84|Saibot84]] ([[User talk:Saibot84|talk]]) 13:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
:This may be offensive, but Redeemer's edit was both excellent and necessary. [[Special:Contributions/96.254.46.231|96.254.46.231]] 13:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::I wouldn't call it offensive (outside the language); it's simply opinionated. Thanks Saibot84. [[Special:Contributions/63.85.81.254|63.85.81.254]] 13:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::Fail on both counts, from me (for Redeemer's contribution), as neither excellent ''nor'' necessary. Only in the light of that does 63.etc's edit (who has just ninjaed me with an edit conflict... hi there!) actually make any sort of sense. But what do I know? I'm just an IP, and you can probably find that I'm not even in the US, from that...
:::Redeemer's meta-analysis of Randall, even if false, was still an exemplary display of critical thinking that I've found to be surprisingly lacking with XKCD fans. If Randall is anything like the person I think he is, he would appreciate such an alternative perspective. Additionally, it was an ''absolutely'' necessary defense against a straw man-like simplification of an all too legitimate concern for privacy rights. I will agree that Redeemer's edit would have been more appropriate here as a Discussion item rather than an edit to the Explanation, but this differing viewpoint should still be heard. [[Special:Contributions/96.254.46.231|96.254.46.231]] 15:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
::Can we just have a proper explanation, instead, please? Let's say something like: there's those that overthink the situation, those that over-''do'' it, some overestimate the problem, some overestimate ''other'' problems, some enjoy the idea too much and some just enjoy their food more. Eh? Any good for ya? I'm sure it can be tweaked, to taste. [[Special:Contributions/31.109.31.130|31.109.31.130]] 13:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Done. Or at least a start. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 14:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have an opinion, but I'm keeping it private for now. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 13:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

One mention of the NSA, one mention of Google. I'm not sure how Randall's politics are relevant, or how he's excusing privacy concerns, and the "explanation" says a lot about the interpretation and US-centric perspective of the poster without adding to the comic. Unless it was a deliberate parody of the conspiracy panel, not appropriate, dude. (And I'm a Brit - I definitely didn't vote for any political party in the states. But hello, Echelon.) [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 13:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::The comment was so off the wall I think it pretty much had to be parody, in keeping with panel 3. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 14:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder why '''some''' Americans consider that '''world-wide''' issues like on-line privacy have to be related '''only''' to U.S. politicians.{{unsigned ip|88.9.73.162}}

I'm pretty sure the explanation of the Nihilist isn't right. In my opinion Randall jokes that if all of your actions are meaningless (the nihilistic way of thought) then the same applies to all your data. [[Special:Contributions/188.174.192.237|188.174.192.237]] 14:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to whoever classed this place up by deleting that vitriol.{{unsigned ip|50.148.241.3}}

I'm a fan, but I'm disappointed. Don't tell me I didn't "get it" though. I "got it" very well. I love XKCD very much, but not today. I would like to thank Saibot84 and 96.254.46.231 for their heartwarming support. A Reddit post about the edit can be found here: [http://www.reddit.com/r/restorethefourth/comments/1n3rz0/my_protest_against_xkcds_underhanded_defense_of/ My protest against XKCD's underhanded defense of the NSA] -- Yours truly, Redeemer [[Special:Contributions/31.172.30.1|31.172.30.1]] 16:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::I'm genuinely concerned about internet security issues, and I'm entirely sympathetic to your perspective, Redeemer. But, whatever Randall's background or motivation, this comic stands alone in poking fun at extreme positions on the subject. I don't believe it either trivialises the argument or makes a reasoned statement about an acceptable position - none of the panels show a "normal" perspective. Whether or not Randall intended it to be, there are many more sources of privacy concerns world-wide than the NSA, and many reasons to hold an opinion on NSA network analysis other than support for a political party (which to me rarely means support for every position that they hold). Let's stick to explaining the comic, not meta-analyzing Randall's motivations for posting it. This is not the place, no matter how your perspective may colour your interpretation of the message behind the comic. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]])
:::TL;DR, but the current NSA incidents are a source for Randall's ideas here. It should be mentioned. Incomplete done tag by me.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Too impatient, can't be qualified to comment. Randall mentions the NSA in one panel. The issue isn't whether the NSA is a concern, it's that the NSA is not the only source of internet privacy concerns or media scares; if not mentioning it "excuses" the NSA/current US Government, singling it out "excuses" other organizations (other governments and surveillance bodies, Google, Facebook, network operators...) - and Randall himself mentions Google. Don't assume this is just about the NSA. Even if that was Randall's inspiration, it's not the only context for the comic. There have been repeated incidents regarding GCHQ, for example.[[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]])

::::You must have some very strict guidelines for TL;DR. It's just a paragraph! [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 05:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

::I also can claim "web scraping, network administration and security <nowiki>[as]</nowiki> my professional area of expertise" (only currently on personal time, hence this pseudo-anonymous IP, which I know wouldn't fool the NSA), but I think you just don't get it, Redeemer. Nor do some of your Reddit contributors. Not wanting to reddit (by a name I'd jump into there with, that is), I won't even attempt to disabuse you of your opinion, however. But you ''do not'' vandalise key areas of wikis with such personal venom. Bad show for doing so, and stick to your blogs. Anyway, for myself: Hamlet, Act 5, Scene 2, line 358, second half. [[Special:Contributions/31.109.31.130|31.109.31.130]] 23:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
:::"These foils have all a length"?[[Special:Contributions/150.135.210.50|150.135.210.50]] 23:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::::"The rest is silence." according to Shakespeare-navigators.com. Much as I'd love to be educated enough to know that by heart.[[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]])

Is it just me, or is it actually Danish instead of Megan in the Nihilist panel? The hair looks too long to be Megan's. [[User:Sciepsilon|Sciepsilon]] ([[User talk:Sciepsilon|talk]]) 00:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with "''Since a large percentage of people and companies present in the internet don't have the ability or intention to do strong cryptography''". Strong encryption is extremely available to 100% of people and companies. It is public and free to use. Most significant companies use VPN's and encrypted hard drives. It is just untrue to suggest that strong cryptography is not available to anyone. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 06:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
:That is the difference between availability and ability. While the necessary software is freely available, people don't understand how to use it (no ability), even don't want to learn how to use it (no intention).
:Also in "strong cryptography" I would require not only algorithms to be strong but also authentication schemes. The current SSL system uses Certificate Authorities, which are broken by design, thus not "strong" in the sense I was meaning it.
:While good companies using VPNs and encrypted hard drives is a good ideal, 90% of the companies do without them to save the money involved (performant hardware + setting up). Additionally they do not use encryption when communicating with others (e.g. their customers). Think of all the websites that cannot be accessed with HTTPS (including this one). -- [[User:Xorg|Xorg]] ([[User talk:Xorg|talk]]) 10:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
::Strong encryption in form of VPN is available to everyone and I believe lot of companies are using it. Also HTTPS is used relatively often, although many sites lack it, only use it for most important areas or only for administration for performance reasons. Thats all. Most importantly, no way of encrypting email is simple enough to be actually used by public, and I seriously doubt that majority of instant messaging is point-to-point encrypted (I know for sure Skype chat aren't - they may be encrypted on wire but keys are available to their servers).
::Note that while centralised solution of Certificate Authorities is less secure that decentralized ones, you can still get usable security in SSL ... unless you need it for HTTPS. The fact that NO HTTPS page is signed by multiple authorities is the real problem. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

At the present moment, what exactly is incomplete in this explanation? When Dgbrt added the incomplete tag, it was because "it should be mentioned that the NSA incidents are a source for Randall's ideas here", however the very first line of the explanation reads "Randall parodies some of the reactions to Edward Snowden's revelations of widespread intrusive surveillance by the U.S. National Security Agency" which pretty much covers it. Furthermore, that line was already in place when the incomplete tag was added. Am I missing something? [[Special:Contributions/88.9.73.162|88.9.73.162]] 19:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
:Wait, what? That'll teach me to read the comments page rather than checking changes to the explanation. Randall's comic is about reactions to *all* internet privacy concerns. It explicitly mentions Google. Why is everybody assuming that the NSA is the only source of issues here? Sure, there have been recent revelations about the NSA. And GCHQ (indeed, by Snowden). And Google. And Facebook. And every country introducing mandatory network filters. And my employers (and anyone else's with a firewall data sniffer). And quite probably a lot more I don't know about. Can we please stop putting words in Randall's mouth and having a blinkered focus on the NSA as though it's the only source of problems when the comic itself mentions more concerns than that. I didn't think it was my place to remove the incomplete tag, but I now support the assertion that it's inaccurate, rather than incomplete. (Sorry; I was annoyed enough to register here in order to try to balance this bias! Perhaps someone with more seniority can paraphrase?) [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 21:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
::NSA is not only source of issues, but it's definitely the most currently debated one. Even mentioned companies are currently debated in context of their collaboration with NSA. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
:::The NSA scandal is not the most topical example. Ed Snowden's leaks about the NSA and GCHQ (including GCHQ spying on G20 Summit attendees) happened primarily in May, four months ago. The UK government has been proposing opt-out traffic inspection for porn filtering since July; one of the Australian political parties has made a similar proposal this month. The current Miss Teen USA was the subject of a recent privacy scandal, though webcam related rather than about data inspection. A media watchdog report about Google's expectation of privacy in gmail hit the news in August. Facebook drew criticism for security issues in August, and the inability to manage sex hate issues at the end of May. The NSA relationship with Google, Facebook et al. as part of PRISM is certainly an issue, but not the only, and arguably not greatest, source of concern for many about those companies and other organizations. The Snowden case is, in many places, old news, and - while it may have been reported solely in the context of the NSA in the US, it certainly hasn't been in the UK (other than regarding the issues of his asylum). Don't get me wrong - I'm happy to call out the NSA, and it's not like I avoid Google et al. I just believe that it's blinkered to attribute the comic solely either to the Snowden case in general or to the NSA in particular. I'd be happy with "Randall parodies some extreme reactions to internet security concerns, such as those raised by Edward Snowden's revelations about widespread intrusive surveillance by the NSA and other agencies." Is that reasonable? [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 18:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::::O.o I'm not sure I entirely agree with the analysis about what Randall wants us to believe (I'm called a "nut" about a number of things without taking offence at any of them, for example), but I'll admit that the current version removes my objection that the explanation was overly-biased in exclusively referring to the NSA. So thank you, Davidy22 (edit war aside), and I'll pick my battles. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 13:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::::I didn't write that analysis, I just stepped in when another user was autoreverting it for being "too long." It is a pretty good bit of text though. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::Whoops. Thank you *and* 173.72.122.24. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 18:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't be the only xkcd reader that's driven crazy by the fact that "data" is used as a singular throughout this, can I? I mean, data isn't imaginary, data '''are''' imaginary!! {{unsigned ip|150.212.131.213}}
:Oh dear. I'll go and get my pedantry circuits checked - I should have noticed that. See how discussing politics and current(ish) affairs contributes to my mental decay? [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 18:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

:Unless you talk about {{w|Data_%28Star_Trek%29|Lieutenant Commander Data}}, and I think he would be offended if you call him imaginary. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone photoshop this: ⋈ onto the conspiracist's neck? thanks, [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.120|199.27.128.120]] 04:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

;Please remove bias
Can somebody please rewrite the last section which is extremely biased against the comic, seeming to attack the ideas presented and suggesting that Randall doesn't care at all about civil rights. It violates the idea of a neutral explanation and is seen to be pushing the writers point of view. This bias is especially evident to a person who disagrees with this point of view (because, seriously, who cares if the govt. knows about your dinner plans or your big break up or even your love of perfectly legal porn. They don't care. If you do think that they're interested in that, then you are vastly overestimating your importance). Can somebody who is better at writing please rewrite that section with a more neutral (or at least ballanced) tone? --Imamadmad 20:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

== Page needs simplification ==

Why is this explanation a goddamn thesis on the comic? Is all this detail necessary? I call for a simplification of the page. I do not perform the simplification myself because the page as it is bores me too much to revise it. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.172|198.41.230.172]] 21:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
:I moved a comment from 2014 to under this topic as it seems relevant to it. Sorry if that's not a legal maneuver.[[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.172|198.41.230.172]] 21:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I tend to over-analyze stuff and I have the opinion that this amount of explanation should exist about everything. However, as a user (even though I dislike that word), that's too much text. There should be a more succinct explanation, and the rest of it hidden somewhere but available by a link, button, tab, etc. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.148|108.162.219.148]] 01:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1269: Privacy Opinions

2018-02-28T21:42:43Z

198.41.230.172: /* Page needs simplification */ new section

This comic could be meant to satirize those who trivialize the opinions of privacy advocates. I doubt many reading this comic would assume this is either a fair or exhaustive list of opinions on internet privacy as it is highly unlikely that the reader him/herself would hold any of these opinions. 00:05, 1 October 2013 {{unsigned ip|68.190.213.83}}

Sometimes I think all my burritos are imaginary. [[User:Nathkingcole|Nathkingcole]] ([[User talk:Nathkingcole|talk]]) 11:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Nat.
:The burrito isn't, but Chipotle's promises of all natural ingredients in their food is. They do that just to make a quick buck off the health-conscious crowd. Lying burrito! --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 15:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This may be pointless, but Kudos to 63.85.81.254's edit. [[User:Saibot84|Saibot84]] ([[User talk:Saibot84|talk]]) 13:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
:This may be offensive, but Redeemer's edit was both excellent and necessary. [[Special:Contributions/96.254.46.231|96.254.46.231]] 13:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::I wouldn't call it offensive (outside the language); it's simply opinionated. Thanks Saibot84. [[Special:Contributions/63.85.81.254|63.85.81.254]] 13:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::Fail on both counts, from me (for Redeemer's contribution), as neither excellent ''nor'' necessary. Only in the light of that does 63.etc's edit (who has just ninjaed me with an edit conflict... hi there!) actually make any sort of sense. But what do I know? I'm just an IP, and you can probably find that I'm not even in the US, from that...
:::Redeemer's meta-analysis of Randall, even if false, was still an exemplary display of critical thinking that I've found to be surprisingly lacking with XKCD fans. If Randall is anything like the person I think he is, he would appreciate such an alternative perspective. Additionally, it was an ''absolutely'' necessary defense against a straw man-like simplification of an all too legitimate concern for privacy rights. I will agree that Redeemer's edit would have been more appropriate here as a Discussion item rather than an edit to the Explanation, but this differing viewpoint should still be heard. [[Special:Contributions/96.254.46.231|96.254.46.231]] 15:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
::Can we just have a proper explanation, instead, please? Let's say something like: there's those that overthink the situation, those that over-''do'' it, some overestimate the problem, some overestimate ''other'' problems, some enjoy the idea too much and some just enjoy their food more. Eh? Any good for ya? I'm sure it can be tweaked, to taste. [[Special:Contributions/31.109.31.130|31.109.31.130]] 13:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Done. Or at least a start. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 14:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have an opinion, but I'm keeping it private for now. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 13:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

One mention of the NSA, one mention of Google. I'm not sure how Randall's politics are relevant, or how he's excusing privacy concerns, and the "explanation" says a lot about the interpretation and US-centric perspective of the poster without adding to the comic. Unless it was a deliberate parody of the conspiracy panel, not appropriate, dude. (And I'm a Brit - I definitely didn't vote for any political party in the states. But hello, Echelon.) [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 13:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::The comment was so off the wall I think it pretty much had to be parody, in keeping with panel 3. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 14:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder why '''some''' Americans consider that '''world-wide''' issues like on-line privacy have to be related '''only''' to U.S. politicians.{{unsigned ip|88.9.73.162}}

I'm pretty sure the explanation of the Nihilist isn't right. In my opinion Randall jokes that if all of your actions are meaningless (the nihilistic way of thought) then the same applies to all your data. [[Special:Contributions/188.174.192.237|188.174.192.237]] 14:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to whoever classed this place up by deleting that vitriol.{{unsigned ip|50.148.241.3}}

I'm a fan, but I'm disappointed. Don't tell me I didn't "get it" though. I "got it" very well. I love XKCD very much, but not today. I would like to thank Saibot84 and 96.254.46.231 for their heartwarming support. A Reddit post about the edit can be found here: [http://www.reddit.com/r/restorethefourth/comments/1n3rz0/my_protest_against_xkcds_underhanded_defense_of/ My protest against XKCD's underhanded defense of the NSA] -- Yours truly, Redeemer [[Special:Contributions/31.172.30.1|31.172.30.1]] 16:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::I'm genuinely concerned about internet security issues, and I'm entirely sympathetic to your perspective, Redeemer. But, whatever Randall's background or motivation, this comic stands alone in poking fun at extreme positions on the subject. I don't believe it either trivialises the argument or makes a reasoned statement about an acceptable position - none of the panels show a "normal" perspective. Whether or not Randall intended it to be, there are many more sources of privacy concerns world-wide than the NSA, and many reasons to hold an opinion on NSA network analysis other than support for a political party (which to me rarely means support for every position that they hold). Let's stick to explaining the comic, not meta-analyzing Randall's motivations for posting it. This is not the place, no matter how your perspective may colour your interpretation of the message behind the comic. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]])
:::TL;DR, but the current NSA incidents are a source for Randall's ideas here. It should be mentioned. Incomplete done tag by me.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Too impatient, can't be qualified to comment. Randall mentions the NSA in one panel. The issue isn't whether the NSA is a concern, it's that the NSA is not the only source of internet privacy concerns or media scares; if not mentioning it "excuses" the NSA/current US Government, singling it out "excuses" other organizations (other governments and surveillance bodies, Google, Facebook, network operators...) - and Randall himself mentions Google. Don't assume this is just about the NSA. Even if that was Randall's inspiration, it's not the only context for the comic. There have been repeated incidents regarding GCHQ, for example.[[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]])

::::You must have some very strict guidelines for TL;DR. It's just a paragraph! [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 05:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

::I also can claim "web scraping, network administration and security <nowiki>[as]</nowiki> my professional area of expertise" (only currently on personal time, hence this pseudo-anonymous IP, which I know wouldn't fool the NSA), but I think you just don't get it, Redeemer. Nor do some of your Reddit contributors. Not wanting to reddit (by a name I'd jump into there with, that is), I won't even attempt to disabuse you of your opinion, however. But you ''do not'' vandalise key areas of wikis with such personal venom. Bad show for doing so, and stick to your blogs. Anyway, for myself: Hamlet, Act 5, Scene 2, line 358, second half. [[Special:Contributions/31.109.31.130|31.109.31.130]] 23:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
:::"These foils have all a length"?[[Special:Contributions/150.135.210.50|150.135.210.50]] 23:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::::"The rest is silence." according to Shakespeare-navigators.com. Much as I'd love to be educated enough to know that by heart.[[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]])

Is it just me, or is it actually Danish instead of Megan in the Nihilist panel? The hair looks too long to be Megan's. [[User:Sciepsilon|Sciepsilon]] ([[User talk:Sciepsilon|talk]]) 00:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with "''Since a large percentage of people and companies present in the internet don't have the ability or intention to do strong cryptography''". Strong encryption is extremely available to 100% of people and companies. It is public and free to use. Most significant companies use VPN's and encrypted hard drives. It is just untrue to suggest that strong cryptography is not available to anyone. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 06:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
:That is the difference between availability and ability. While the necessary software is freely available, people don't understand how to use it (no ability), even don't want to learn how to use it (no intention).
:Also in "strong cryptography" I would require not only algorithms to be strong but also authentication schemes. The current SSL system uses Certificate Authorities, which are broken by design, thus not "strong" in the sense I was meaning it.
:While good companies using VPNs and encrypted hard drives is a good ideal, 90% of the companies do without them to save the money involved (performant hardware + setting up). Additionally they do not use encryption when communicating with others (e.g. their customers). Think of all the websites that cannot be accessed with HTTPS (including this one). -- [[User:Xorg|Xorg]] ([[User talk:Xorg|talk]]) 10:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
::Strong encryption in form of VPN is available to everyone and I believe lot of companies are using it. Also HTTPS is used relatively often, although many sites lack it, only use it for most important areas or only for administration for performance reasons. Thats all. Most importantly, no way of encrypting email is simple enough to be actually used by public, and I seriously doubt that majority of instant messaging is point-to-point encrypted (I know for sure Skype chat aren't - they may be encrypted on wire but keys are available to their servers).
::Note that while centralised solution of Certificate Authorities is less secure that decentralized ones, you can still get usable security in SSL ... unless you need it for HTTPS. The fact that NO HTTPS page is signed by multiple authorities is the real problem. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

At the present moment, what exactly is incomplete in this explanation? When Dgbrt added the incomplete tag, it was because "it should be mentioned that the NSA incidents are a source for Randall's ideas here", however the very first line of the explanation reads "Randall parodies some of the reactions to Edward Snowden's revelations of widespread intrusive surveillance by the U.S. National Security Agency" which pretty much covers it. Furthermore, that line was already in place when the incomplete tag was added. Am I missing something? [[Special:Contributions/88.9.73.162|88.9.73.162]] 19:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
:Wait, what? That'll teach me to read the comments page rather than checking changes to the explanation. Randall's comic is about reactions to *all* internet privacy concerns. It explicitly mentions Google. Why is everybody assuming that the NSA is the only source of issues here? Sure, there have been recent revelations about the NSA. And GCHQ (indeed, by Snowden). And Google. And Facebook. And every country introducing mandatory network filters. And my employers (and anyone else's with a firewall data sniffer). And quite probably a lot more I don't know about. Can we please stop putting words in Randall's mouth and having a blinkered focus on the NSA as though it's the only source of problems when the comic itself mentions more concerns than that. I didn't think it was my place to remove the incomplete tag, but I now support the assertion that it's inaccurate, rather than incomplete. (Sorry; I was annoyed enough to register here in order to try to balance this bias! Perhaps someone with more seniority can paraphrase?) [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 21:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
::NSA is not only source of issues, but it's definitely the most currently debated one. Even mentioned companies are currently debated in context of their collaboration with NSA. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
:::The NSA scandal is not the most topical example. Ed Snowden's leaks about the NSA and GCHQ (including GCHQ spying on G20 Summit attendees) happened primarily in May, four months ago. The UK government has been proposing opt-out traffic inspection for porn filtering since July; one of the Australian political parties has made a similar proposal this month. The current Miss Teen USA was the subject of a recent privacy scandal, though webcam related rather than about data inspection. A media watchdog report about Google's expectation of privacy in gmail hit the news in August. Facebook drew criticism for security issues in August, and the inability to manage sex hate issues at the end of May. The NSA relationship with Google, Facebook et al. as part of PRISM is certainly an issue, but not the only, and arguably not greatest, source of concern for many about those companies and other organizations. The Snowden case is, in many places, old news, and - while it may have been reported solely in the context of the NSA in the US, it certainly hasn't been in the UK (other than regarding the issues of his asylum). Don't get me wrong - I'm happy to call out the NSA, and it's not like I avoid Google et al. I just believe that it's blinkered to attribute the comic solely either to the Snowden case in general or to the NSA in particular. I'd be happy with "Randall parodies some extreme reactions to internet security concerns, such as those raised by Edward Snowden's revelations about widespread intrusive surveillance by the NSA and other agencies." Is that reasonable? [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 18:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::::O.o I'm not sure I entirely agree with the analysis about what Randall wants us to believe (I'm called a "nut" about a number of things without taking offence at any of them, for example), but I'll admit that the current version removes my objection that the explanation was overly-biased in exclusively referring to the NSA. So thank you, Davidy22 (edit war aside), and I'll pick my battles. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 13:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::::I didn't write that analysis, I just stepped in when another user was autoreverting it for being "too long." It is a pretty good bit of text though. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::Whoops. Thank you *and* 173.72.122.24. [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 18:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't be the only xkcd reader that's driven crazy by the fact that "data" is used as a singular throughout this, can I? I mean, data isn't imaginary, data '''are''' imaginary!! {{unsigned ip|150.212.131.213}}
:Oh dear. I'll go and get my pedantry circuits checked - I should have noticed that. See how discussing politics and current(ish) affairs contributes to my mental decay? [[User:Fluppeteer|Fluppeteer]] ([[User talk:Fluppeteer|talk]]) 18:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

:Unless you talk about {{w|Data_%28Star_Trek%29|Lieutenant Commander Data}}, and I think he would be offended if you call him imaginary. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone photoshop this: ⋈ onto the conspiracist's neck? thanks, [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.120|199.27.128.120]] 04:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I tend to over-analyze stuff and I have the opinion that this amount of explanation should exist about everything. However, as a user (even though I dislike that word), that's too much text. There should be a more succinct explanation, and the rest of it hidden somewhere but available by a link, button, tab, etc. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.148|108.162.219.148]] 01:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

;Please remove bias
Can somebody please rewrite the last section which is extremely biased against the comic, seeming to attack the ideas presented and suggesting that Randall doesn't care at all about civil rights. It violates the idea of a neutral explanation and is seen to be pushing the writers point of view. This bias is especially evident to a person who disagrees with this point of view (because, seriously, who cares if the govt. knows about your dinner plans or your big break up or even your love of perfectly legal porn. They don't care. If you do think that they're interested in that, then you are vastly overestimating your importance). Can somebody who is better at writing please rewrite that section with a more neutral (or at least ballanced) tone? --Imamadmad 20:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

== Page needs simplification ==

Why is this explanation a goddamn thesis on the comic? Is all this detail necessary? I call for a simplification of the page. I do not perform the simplification myself because the page as it is bores me too much to revise it. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.172|198.41.230.172]] 21:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

1269: Privacy Opinions

2018-02-28T21:38:09Z

198.41.230.172: /* Explanation */ ATTEMPTS TO UNDO THE REPETITIVENESS OF THE WORDS "THE AUTHOR"; FORMATTING IMPROVEMENTS

{{comic
| number = 1269
| date = September 25, 2013
| title = Privacy Opinions
| image = privacy opinions.png
| titletext = I'm the Philosopher until someone hands me a burrito.
}}

==Explanation==
According to the title, the comic is about opinions on internet privacy in general. Six positions are offered as options. Four of the positions are tagged negatively by [[Randall|the author]] by their subtitles alone: the Crypto Nut, the Conspiracist, the Nihilist, and the Exhibitionist, all of which have negative valences in contemporary English. That the viewer is encouraged to identify negatively with these four positions is further encouraged by the content of the panels, as those characters are depicted either as having such boring lives that they have no need for privacy (the Crypto Nut, the Nihilist), or as being crazy (the Conspiracist, the Exhibitionist).

A fifth position, the Philosopher, is tagged somewhat ambivalently by the author: Megan, or possibly a look-alike, is depicted as boring her interlocutor, yet in the title text, Randall admits that he is usually the Philosopher. Also, “Philosopher” in vernacular English is neutrally valenced, potentially having the ability to expound either wisdom (''sophia'') or {{w|Sophist#Modern_usage|sophistry}}. It is also a synonym for Sage, the sixth position. As Randall condones his own movement from Philosopher to Sage, he thus indicates that the Philosopher is to be viewed negatively, even if it is a tempting position to hold.

The title of the sixth position, the “Sage”, is positively valenced in contemporary English, and the author in the title text states that once he obtains a “burrito” — i.e., a “real” thing, he switches from the Philosopher to the Sage. The internal evidence presented thus far therefore is entirely consistent; Randall encourages the reader to identify with the Sage. However, the choice of [[Beret Guy]] to represent the Sage undercuts this somewhat as Beret Guy is frequently seen as bizarrely disconnected from reality in a way that is maladaptive (e.g. [[1030: Keyed]]) and overly obsessed with food to the point of creating trouble and potential self-harm (e.g. [[452: Mission]]).

By presenting five negatively tagged positions followed by a positively tagged sixth and final one, the author follows a rhetorical commonplace of listing and refuting a number of positions one by one, concluding with the favored and best one, which is not refuted and should be accepted both on its own merits and by virtue of being the last one standing. The comic therefore implies that no other (significant) positions exist.

Having completed the rhetorical analysis of the comic, we are now in a position to understand the meaning of “Internet Privacy”.

Panels #3 and 5 directly reference the American NSA. Panel #5's “exhibitionist” also references Google, but the characters in the panel appear to be NSA agents (one wears an official cap and they are viewing the exhibitionist on an official, government-looking monitor). Likewise, the focus of the “Nihilist” is that the joke is on the people who gather the data, rather than those who are subsequently able to make use of it (such as Facebook's users rather than “Facebook” itself; i.e., Facebook's employees and, by extension, its advertisers). The content of the actual data is only mentioned in panels #2, 4, and 5, and in each panel, it is suggested that it is meaningless or trivial. The Sage underscores the notion that any data known about him does not bother him, and therefore must be meaningless or trivial. The reader is thus encouraged to believe that it does not actually matter whether others discover personal data about him/her.

The comic is therefore what social theorists call '''reductive''', because it reduces the range of possibilities of “Opinions on Internet Privacy” to an artificially and simplistically narrow subset; in this case, individuals concerned with government or corporate agencies using data that they have gathered on individuals, and the futility of worrying about such things. The comic does not admit the possibility of other “opinions on internet privacy” – namely, that individuals might have legitimate concerns with governmental or corporate uses of their data, let alone other individuals' access to data that is assembled and distributed by corporations such as Facebook. The comic likewise does not consider the possibility of individuals having more interesting lives than the characters depicted, and therefore very real concerns about their privacy due to the activities that they engage in that are potentially more career limiting (should they be discovered) than obsessing about cryptography or eating a burrito.

The comic is “functionally” reductive, as opposed to “intentionally” reductive, because the reduction is the function or effect of the comic for readers who read it straightforwardly. There is not enough internal evidence in the comic to maintain that the author intentionally excluded other viable opinions on internet privacy; it could be that they are just not on his radar. For example, we do not have enough information in the comic to claim that Randall is against civil rights; it could be simply that he doesn't often think about them. Likewise, it would exceed the evidence of the comic to claim that the author believes that schoolteachers who use the internet to facilitate legal but frowned-upon sexual behaviors should lose their jobs if they are found out due to internet privacy breaches; it could be that Randall simply hasn't bothered to worry about these matters if they don't affect him personally. This adjudication – whether the comic is “intentionally” reductive or not – may only be made on the basis of external evidence; that is, data known about [[Randall]] from sources beyond this comic.

An alternative interpretation of the title text is that it is not Randall speaking his own opinion, but instead represents Beret Guy's (i.e. the “Sage's”) perspective. Randall may indeed have some concern with internet privacy, which would be consistent with the views on open-source security expressed in [[463: Voting Machines]], for example. In other cases, such as [[1490: Atoms]] and [[1419: On the Phone]], the title text has been used as additional, farcical statements made by characters in the strip, rather than as Randall expressing his own views. Under this interpretation, Beret Guy would be prone to philosophizing about security, but then be easily distracted by a burrito; this is consistent with Beret Guy's general behavior.

Additional observations about the comic follow.

*The {{w|Philosopher}} - the intellectual who likes to talk about the topic, often boring those around him who don't think or worry much about privacy.
*The {{w|Cryptography|Crypto Nut}} - the one who goes crazy with security, even for things needing none.
:Since a large percentage of people and companies present in the internet don't have the ability or intention to do strong cryptography, the crypto nut's communication is limited to talking with other crypto nuts - which indicates cryptography as a topic. A real crypto nut will encrypt not just the important stuff because otherwise the attacker (in this context, assumed to be a government agency, network operator or corporation) will know which mails contain stuff that was secret enough to warrant encrypting, thus giving them information about whom he's doing secret business with.
*The {{w|Conspiracist}} - the one who sees super-secret data-gathering agencies everywhere.
:The (data) warehouse mentioned is the {{w|Utah Data Center}} which seems to be of impressive size. The punchline is created by taking the iceberg and warehouse analogies literally.
*The {{w|Nihilism|Nihilist}} - Nihilists believe that life lacks purpose and meaning. Someone who espouses this philosophy would think that a life spent spying someone else's meaningless life is hence doubly lacking in meaning.
*The {{w|Exhibitionist}} - Assumes people are invading his privacy, and using it to show off.
:This type is predominantly associated with twitter, but other social networks as well. This archetype is humorously combined with a ''sexual'' exhibitionist, who gets a sexual rise from the knowledge that others are spying on him/her.
:The awkwardness of the spying officials is magnified by the fact that they appear to be of opposite sexes, increasing the discomfort of the seated male.
*The {{w|Wisdom|Sage}} - Seems to know the difference between the real and the imaginary - or does he?
:The monologue alludes to a scene in {{w|The Matrix}} in which Cypher arranges with the evil machines to become a traitor.
:The Sage is apparently immediately satisfied when he has food and prosperity. He does not need privacy or other democratic rights as long as he does not individually suffer from their absence.

The release of the comic on this date could be to coincide with the premiere of {{w|South Park}}'s 17th season on the same date, which starts with an episode ({{w|Let Go, Let Gov}}) in which Cartman discovers that the NSA has been spying on him.

The title text is to suggest that he enjoys burritos so much that being handed one even while philosophizing (his natural state) would stop him in his tracks to eat the burrito, thus becoming a ''pseudo-sage'' concerned only with the burrito at the exclusion of the topic of internet security. The burrito is later mentioned as a way to stay connected to the real word (compared to the world of art) in [[1496: Art Project]].

==Transcript==
:'''Opinions on Internet Privacy'''
:The Philosopher:
::Megan: "Privacy" is an impractical way to think about data in a digital world so unlike the one in which our soci--
::Ponytail: ''' ''So bored.'' '''
:The Crypto Nut:
::Cueball: My data is safe behind six layers of symmetric and public-key algorithms.
::Friend: What data is it?
::Cueball: Mostly me emailing with people about cryptography.
:The Conspiracist:
::Cueball talks to Megan.
::Cueball: These leaks are just the tip of the iceberg. There's a warehouse in Utah where the NSA has the ''entire'' iceberg. I don't know how they got it there.
:The Nihilist:
::Megan: Joke's on them, gathering all this data on me as if anything I do means anything.
:The Exhibitionist:
::Cueball is watching a surveillance console, Officer Ponytail stands behind him.
::Console: ''Mmmm,'' I sure hope the NSA isn't watching me bite into these juicy strawberries!! ''Oops,'' I dripped some on my shirt! Better take it off. Google, are you there? Google, this lotion feels soooo good.
::Cueball: Um.
:The Sage:
::Beret Guy and Cueball sitting at a table.
::Beret Guy: I don't know or care what data ''anyone'' has about me. Data is imaginary. This burrito is real.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Cryptography]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Internet]]
[[Category:Computers]]

392: Making Rules

2018-02-28T21:22:42Z

198.41.230.172: /* Explanation */ ADDED A WIKI LINK SO PEOPLE MAY READILY SEE A PICTURE OF THE BEETLE / FUSCA, AND INFO ABOUT THIS BRAZILIAN NAME

{{comic
| number = 392
| date = March 5, 2008
| title = Making Rules
| image = making_rules.png
| titletext = I never understood why someone would expect me to accept their rules right after they'd punched me. I'm sure it's all very symbolic or something.
}}

==Explanation==
"{{w|Punch Buggy}}" is a game played by two people with a view of traffic (often, but not here, during a car ride). For each {{w|Volkswagen Beetle}} that passes nearby, the first player to see it is entitled to punch the other player, while calling "Punch Buggy" followed by the colour of the spotted Beetle. Traditionally the other player is permitted to return the punch, unless the first player also calls "no punch back."

Many people will just assume that the game is always being played and punch you out of the blue, giving you no chance to opt out. Implicit in this game is the idea that you can make rules just by declaring them (e.g. "no punch back") even if those rules are ridiculously unfair. When [[Cueball]] realizes this, he decides to make the game stakes more desirable than just the right to punch someone, and (seemingly successfully) uses the same principle to secure the right to sleep with the other man's girlfriend.

The title text describes how silly these games are.

In the UK, a common variant uses a yellow {{w|Mini}} rather than the VW Beetle. Other examples of this type of game are the {{w|Car numberplate game}} and {{w|Padiddle}}.

==Transcript==
:[Two men are sitting. A yellow buggy passes by.]
:Man: Punch buggy yellow. No punch back!
:[Man punches Cueball, Cueball punches the man back, with seemingly greater force, causing the man to fall of the bench they are sitting on.]
:Man: I said no punch back!
:Cueball: You can do that?
:Cueball: Man, this changes everything.
:Soon...
:[A blue buggy passes by, and Cueball is holding Megan's hand.]
:Cueball: Sleep with your girlfriend buggy blue!
:Man: Hey!
:Cueball: No complaining back!
:Man: Aww...

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Sex]]

1240: Quantum Mechanics

2018-02-28T21:15:59Z

198.41.230.172: /* Explanation */ (MINOR) IMPROVED WORDING

{{comic
| number = 1240
| date = July 19, 2013
| title = Quantum Mechanics
| image = quantum mechanics.png
| titletext = You can also just ignore any science assertion where 'quantum mechanics' is the most complicated phrase in it.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic plays with the fact that {{w|quantum mechanics}} is a very complex subject that is frequently misapplied by laymen. Many of the phenomena studied in quantum mechanics are contrary to common sense and can only be expressed in complex mathematics. Yet, since the field is fundamental to our understanding of reality, it is commonly cited to support broad sweeping philosophical generalizations.

The phrase “according to quantum mechanics” betrays that the speaker does not know very much about the subject. To a physicist, it is almost as vague as “according to physics”. Somebody who understands the subject would use a more precise term such as “according to the uncertainty principle” or “according to a paper by such-and-such.”

[[Cueball]] explains to [[Ponytail]] that dogs must have {{w|souls}}. This would be against the doctrine of certain religions, including some sects of Christianity, which teach that only humans have souls.

The question of whether animals have souls comes up for many reasons in theological and philosophical discussions. One major one is the wish of many dog owners to meet their pets in {{w|Heaven}}. For this to come to pass, it would be necessary for dogs not only to have souls, but also ''immortal'' souls. This distinction comes up in Catholicism, for example, where the usually taught doctrine (See [http://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/ContraGentiles2.htm#82 Aquinas, S.C.G. II, C. 82]) is that while animals do have souls, their souls are mortal, and therefore die with their bodies. In this case, animals cannot enter Heaven, or {{w|Hell}}, or {{w|Purgatory}}.

Cueball, however, uses quantum mechanics as an argument even though quantum mechanics is only applicable on the atomic scale and not on macroscopic objects like animals. It also, besides, only applies to matter and energy, and not to souls — which are held by most doctrines to be immaterial. His argument, however, is a reference to the concept of an '{{w|Observer (quantum physics)|observer}}' in quantum physics, as well as theories about the {{w|Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation|collapse of wave functions}}.

The vast majority of people do not have a sufficient understanding of quantum mechanics to judge if Cueball's statement is correct. Nevertheless, [[Randall|Randall's]] message is: you don't need to understand quantum mechanics to judge the statement. No matter what the sentence is, it is almost certainly incorrect, so “you can safely ignore” it.

The title text refers to “science assertions” — that is, claims about scientific knowledge — that include the words “quantum mechanics”. If “quantum mechanics” is the most complicated term in the sentence, then the speaker probably does not know what they are talking about. If a scientist is correctly applying quantum mechanics, they will use more specific (and hence more complicated) language.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Ponytail stand facing each other, talking. Cueball has a small dog on a leash.]
:Cueball: But dogs can observe the world, which means that according to quantum mechanics they ''must'' have souls.

:[Caption below the frame:]
:'''Protip''': You can safely ignore any sentence that includes the phrase "According to quantum mechanics".

==Trivia==
*{{w|Niels Bohr}} [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr quote]:
::''Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Protip]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Religion]]

1240: Quantum Mechanics

2018-02-28T20:59:28Z

198.41.230.172: /* Explanation */ ATTEMPTING TO FIX ACCIDENTAL CREATION OF CODE BLOCK

{{comic
| number = 1240
| date = July 19, 2013
| title = Quantum Mechanics
| image = quantum mechanics.png
| titletext = You can also just ignore any science assertion where 'quantum mechanics' is the most complicated phrase in it.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic plays with the fact that {{w|quantum mechanics}} is a very complex subject that is frequently misapplied by laymen. Many of the phenomena studied in quantum mechanics are contrary to common sense and can only be expressed in complex mathematics. Yet, since the field is fundamental to our understanding of reality, it is commonly cited to support broad sweeping philosophical generalizations.

The phrase “according to quantum mechanics” betrays that the speaker does not know very much about the subject. To a physicist, it is almost as vague as “according to physics”. Somebody who understands the subject would use a more precise term such as “according to the uncertainty principle” or “according to a paper by such-and-such.”

[[Cueball]] explains to [[Ponytail]] that dogs must have {{w|souls}}. This would be against the doctrine of certain religions, including some sects of Christianity, which teach that only humans have souls.

The question of whether animals have souls comes up for many reasons in theological and philosophical discussions. One major one is the wish of many dog owners to meet their pets in {{w|Heaven}}. For this to come to pass, it would be necessary for dogs not only to have souls, but also ''immortal'' souls. This distinction comes up in Catholicism, for example, where the usually taught doctrine (See [http://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/ContraGentiles2.htm#82 Aquinas, S.C.G. II, C. 82]) is that while animals do have souls, their souls are mortal, and therefore die with their bodies. In this case, animals cannot enter Heaven, or {{w|Hell}}, or {{w|Purgatory}}.

Cueball, however, uses quantum mechanics as an argument even though quantum mechanics is only applicable on the atomic scale and not on macroscopic objects like animals. It also, for that matter, only applies to matter, and not to souls, which are held by most doctrines to be immaterial. His argument, however, is a reference to the concept of an '{{w|Observer (quantum physics)|observer}}' in quantum physics, as well as theories about the {{w|Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation|collapse of wave functions}}.

The vast majority of people do not have a sufficient understanding of quantum mechanics to judge if Cueball's statement is correct. Nevertheless, [[Randall|Randall's]] message is: you don't need to understand quantum mechanics to judge the statement. No matter what the sentence is, it is almost certainly incorrect, so “you can safely ignore” it.

The title text refers to “science assertions” — that is, claims about scientific knowledge — that include the words “quantum mechanics”. If “quantum mechanics” is the most complicated term in the sentence, then the speaker probably does not know what they are talking about. If a scientist is correctly applying quantum mechanics, they will use more specific (and hence more complicated) language.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Ponytail stand facing each other, talking. Cueball has a small dog on a leash.]
:Cueball: But dogs can observe the world, which means that according to quantum mechanics they ''must'' have souls.

:[Caption below the frame:]
:'''Protip''': You can safely ignore any sentence that includes the phrase "According to quantum mechanics".

==Trivia==
*{{w|Niels Bohr}} [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr quote]:
::''Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Protip]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Religion]]

1240: Quantum Mechanics

2018-02-28T20:58:42Z

198.41.230.172: /* Explanation */ (MINOR) SLIGHTLY IMPROVED WORDING, ADDED A COUPLE EXTRA WIKI LINKS

{{comic
| number = 1240
| date = July 19, 2013
| title = Quantum Mechanics
| image = quantum mechanics.png
| titletext = You can also just ignore any science assertion where 'quantum mechanics' is the most complicated phrase in it.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic plays with the fact that {{w|quantum mechanics}} is a very complex subject that is frequently misapplied by laymen. Many of the phenomena studied in quantum mechanics are contrary to common sense and can only be expressed in complex mathematics. Yet, since the field is fundamental to our understanding of reality, it is commonly cited to support broad sweeping philosophical generalizations.

The phrase “according to quantum mechanics” betrays that the speaker does not know very much about the subject. To a physicist, it is almost as vague as “according to physics”. Somebody who understands the subject would use a more precise term such as “according to the uncertainty principle” or “according to a paper by such-and-such.”

[[Cueball]] explains to [[Ponytail]] that dogs must have {{w|souls}}. This would be against the doctrine of certain religions, including some sects of Christianity, which teach that only humans have souls.

The question of whether animals have souls comes up for many reasons in theological and philosophical discussions. One major one is the wish of many dog owners to meet their pets in {{w|Heaven}}. For this to come to pass, it would be necessary for dogs not only to have souls, but also ''immortal'' souls. This distinction comes up in Catholicism, for example, where the usually taught doctrine (See [http://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/ContraGentiles2.htm#82 Aquinas, S.C.G. II, C. 82]) is that while animals do have souls, their souls are mortal, and therefore die with their bodies. In this case, animals cannot enter Heaven —
or {{w|Hell}}, or {{w|Purgatory}}.

Cueball, however, uses quantum mechanics as an argument even though quantum mechanics is only applicable on the atomic scale and not on macroscopic objects like animals. It also, for that matter, only applies to matter, and not to souls, which are held by most doctrines to be immaterial. His argument, however, is a reference to the concept of an '{{w|Observer (quantum physics)|observer}}' in quantum physics, as well as theories about the {{w|Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation|collapse of wave functions}}.

The vast majority of people do not have a sufficient understanding of quantum mechanics to judge if Cueball's statement is correct. Nevertheless, [[Randall|Randall's]] message is: you don't need to understand quantum mechanics to judge the statement. No matter what the sentence is, it is almost certainly incorrect, so “you can safely ignore” it.

The title text refers to “science assertions” — that is, claims about scientific knowledge — that include the words “quantum mechanics”. If “quantum mechanics” is the most complicated term in the sentence, then the speaker probably does not know what they are talking about. If a scientist is correctly applying quantum mechanics, they will use more specific (and hence more complicated) language.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Ponytail stand facing each other, talking. Cueball has a small dog on a leash.]
:Cueball: But dogs can observe the world, which means that according to quantum mechanics they ''must'' have souls.

:[Caption below the frame:]
:'''Protip''': You can safely ignore any sentence that includes the phrase "According to quantum mechanics".

==Trivia==
*{{w|Niels Bohr}} [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr quote]:
::''Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Protip]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Religion]]

1240: Quantum Mechanics

2018-02-28T20:51:47Z

198.41.230.172: /* Explanation */ THE "MAJOR MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS" MOSTLY SEEM TO TEACH THAT ANIMALS HAVE SOULS, BUT DIFFERENT ONES FROM HUMANS. THIS REVISION CLEARS UP THIS WORDING AND EXPANDS ON THE 'DOGS IN HEAVEN' CONCEPT, ALONG WITH OTHER IMPROVEMENTS.

{{comic
| number = 1240
| date = July 19, 2013
| title = Quantum Mechanics
| image = quantum mechanics.png
| titletext = You can also just ignore any science assertion where 'quantum mechanics' is the most complicated phrase in it.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic plays with the fact that {{w|quantum mechanics}} is a very complex subject that is frequently misapplied by laymen. Many of the phenomena studied in quantum mechanics are contrary to common sense and can only be expressed in complex mathematics. Yet, since the field is fundamental to our understanding of reality, it is commonly cited to support broad sweeping philosophical generalizations.

The phrase “according to quantum mechanics” betrays that the speaker does not know very much about the subject. To a physicist, it is almost as vague as “according to physics”. Somebody who understands the subject would use a more precise term such as “according to the uncertainty principle” or “according to a paper by such-and-such.”

[[Cueball]] explains to [[Ponytail]] that dogs must have {{w|souls}}. This would be against the doctrine of certain religions, including some sects of Christianity, which teach that only humans have souls.

The question of whether animals have souls comes up for many reasons in theological and philosophical discussions. One major one is the wish of many dog owners to meet their pets in {{w|Heaven}}. For this to come to pass, it would be necessary for dogs not only to have souls, but also ''immortal'' souls. This distinction comes up in Catholicism, for example, where the usually taught doctrine (See [http://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/ContraGentiles2.htm#82 Aquinas, S.C.G. II, C. 82]) is that animals do have souls, but that they're mortal, and therefore their souls die with their bodies. In this case, animals cannot enter Heaven (or Hell, or Purgatory).

Cueball, however, uses quantum mechanics as an argument even though quantum mechanics is only applicable on the atomic scale and not on macroscopic objects like animals. It also, for that matter, only applies to matter, and not to souls, which are held by most doctrines to be immaterial. His argument, however, is a reference to the concept of an '{{w|Observer (quantum physics)|observer}}' in quantum physics, as well as theories about the {{w|Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation|collapse of wave functions}}.

The vast majority of people do not have a sufficient understanding of quantum mechanics to judge if Cueball's statement is correct. Nevertheless, [[Randall|Randall's]] message is: you don't need to understand quantum mechanics to judge the statement. No matter what the sentence is, it is almost certainly incorrect, so “you can safely ignore” it.

The title text refers to “science assertions” — that is, claims about scientific knowledge — that include the words “quantum mechanics”. If “quantum mechanics” is the most complicated term in the sentence, then the speaker probably does not know what they are talking about. If a scientist is correctly applying quantum mechanics, they will use more specific (and hence more complicated) language.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Ponytail stand facing each other, talking. Cueball has a small dog on a leash.]
:Cueball: But dogs can observe the world, which means that according to quantum mechanics they ''must'' have souls.

:[Caption below the frame:]
:'''Protip''': You can safely ignore any sentence that includes the phrase "According to quantum mechanics".

==Trivia==
*{{w|Niels Bohr}} [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr quote]:
::''Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Protip]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Religion]]

471: Aversion Fads

2018-02-26T21:04:11Z

198.41.230.172: /* Explanation */ REMOVED A JUDGMENT CALL ABOUT STEREOTYPE ACCURACY SOMEONE LEFT IN

{{comic
| number = 471
| date = September 3, 2008
| title = Aversion Fads
| image = aversion_fads.png
| titletext = Hey, are you friends with any hamsters? This kite needs a passenger.
}}

==Explanation==

Here, we see [[Cueball]] and his Cueball-like friend, who are grossed out that there is a {{w|furry}} (noted by the kid's fox ears and tail) near them. These people most likely have bought into the stereotype of furries, and as such, are showing their disgust towards what they perceive the fandom to be. [[Megan]] then calls for the furry to help her with her kite. The way this turns out, she also thinks that furries are “weird as hell”, but she is also irritated by the fact that a lot of people on the Internet are involved with a lot of weird things that may gross out or otherwise offend the general population, yet the Internet in general frequently mocks furries for engaging in essentially the same things. This hypocrisy bothers her, so she takes whatever opportunity she has to defend furries, who are, after all, people of the Internet.

Hearing this, the furry brings up {{w|The Lion and the Mouse|the fable of the lion and the mouse}} (from {{w|Aesop}}). This fable talks about a lion who spares a mouse from being eaten, since the mouse's promise that he would repay the lion gave the lion a good laugh. In the story, the lion later gets caught in a trap and the mouse chews through the cords, freeing the lion. The furry now has a debt to repay Megan, but before we can get to that Megan curtails the simile. She assumes that the furry will perceive the story to be about animal bondage relationships, and be aroused by this. Given the knowledge of this wiki's editors about furries, however, it should be noted that this will very likely '''not''' arouse the furry.

In the title text, Megan realizes that her kite needs a passenger. So, she asks the furry if he has any hamster friends. This likely refers to real hamsters, which could be tied to the kite. However, this being a furry, it could also refer to people who have hamster “fursonas” — a “fursona” is the type of animal that a furry pretends to be. Such a person would still have the weight of a regular person and therefore unsuitable for flying on the kite after tied (given the kite's size as depicted and assumptions about usual kite materials). This may be a reference to [[20: Ferret]].

==Transcript==
:[Two Cueball-like guys stand together as a young guy dressed up with small ears and a tail approaches.]
:Cueball: Oh God, a furry. Don't let it touch you.

:[The furry hears someone call out to him.]
:Off-screen: Hey, kid.

:[Megan is seen preparing a kite to be flown.]
:Megan: Forget those assholes. Come help me.

:[The furry begins to help Megan set up the kite.]
:Furry: Thanks. So you're cool with furries?

:[The two are now standing far appart the furry with the kite and the line going over to Megan.]
:Megan: Well, I think your fetish is weird as hell. It just bothers me how you're this designated Internet punching bag among people who are otherwise down with weird fetishes. So I stick up for you when I can.

:[The kite now successfully up in the air and Megan pulls the line with both hands moving backwards.]
:Furry: Well, thanks. I owe you one.
:Megan: It's no big deal.

:[Megan stops some distance from the fury holding the line with one hhand. The fury lift one hand up apologising.]
:Furry: No, this is like the lion and the mouse.
:Megan: ...Listen, can we pick a comparison less likely to turn you on?
:Furry: Sorry.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Furries]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

232: Chess Enlightenment

2018-02-26T21:00:51Z

198.41.230.172: /* Transcript */ CAPITALSIZAITION

{{comic
| number = 232
| date = March 7, 2007
| title = Chess Enlightenment
| image = chess enlightenment.png
| titletext = You know that 'sweep the pieces off the board and see it in your mind' thing? Doesn't work.
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic, [[Cueball]] finds his game of chess against [[Megan]] to be too difficult, and he attempts to tap his subconscious to find his next move. The rules of chess are not ingrained into his subconscious, however, and so his subconscious ends up feeding him invalid moves and beginner questions concerning movement rules.

{{w|Chess}} is a board game in which two players take turns to move a variety of different pieces representing units on a battlefield to try to capture the other player's king. Chess has a lively tournament scene and takes much practice to attain a competent level of skill in the game. Different units can move and capture in different ways; pawns can only move forward by one square unless it's their first move, in which case they can move up two squares, but they can only capture by moving diagonally unless they perform an ''{{w|En passant|en passant}}'', in which they move around an opposing pawn that had moved forward two squares on the previous turn. Other pieces have different rules.

{{w|Obi-Wan Kenobi}} is a character from the movie series ''{{w|Star Wars}}'' who played the mentor figure to the protagonist, {{w|Luke Skywalker}}. One of his pieces of advice to his mentee was to relax and listen to his subconscious in strenuous times. However, Obi-Wan gave this advice because Luke was connected to The Force, a mystical energy in the ''Star Wars'' universe that connects to the entire universe; not being a part of the ''Star Wars'' universe, Cueball is unable to tap into it. The Force does have similarities to real-life concepts used in various Eastern philosophies, but they are not typically used to play chess, whose strategy is more based in logic and planning than instincts.

The title text refers to a scene in the chess movie ''{{w|Searching for Bobby Fischer}}'', in which Sir Ben Kingsley's character dramatically sweeps the pieces off the board and instructs his student to see the pieces in his mind, which the child proceeds to do. Randall considers this impractical, presumably for similar reasons as the Obi-Wan example above.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan are playing chess; Cueball is leaning forward over the chessboard.]
:Cueball (thinking): Why is chess so hard? Maybe the answers lie within me. Maybe I just need to let go, relax, and let my instincts and subconscious speak.

:[Cueball leans back and places his hands to his head.]
:''MeDiTaTe''

:Cueball's subconscious: Knight to G-4

:[Beat panel.]

:Cueball: That's not even a legal move.
:Cueball's subconscious: Okay, hold on. How do the pawns capture, again?
:Cueball: Man, Obi-Wan was full of crap.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Chess]]
[[Category:Star Wars]]

471: Aversion Fads

2018-02-26T20:50:00Z

198.41.230.172: /* Explanation */ FIXED WORD PROBLEMM

{{comic
| number = 471
| date = September 3, 2008
| title = Aversion Fads
| image = aversion_fads.png
| titletext = Hey, are you friends with any hamsters? This kite needs a passenger.
}}

==Explanation==

Here, we see [[Cueball]] and his Cueball-like friend, who are grossed out that there is a {{w|furry}} (noted by the kid's fox ears and tail) near them. These people most likely have bought into the stereotype of furries, and as such, are showing their disgust towards what they perceive the fandom to (wrongly) be. [[Megan]] then calls for the furry to help her with her kite. The way this turns out, she also thinks that furries are “weird as hell”, but she is also irritated by the fact that a lot of people on the Internet are involved with a lot of weird things that may gross out or otherwise offend the general population, yet the Internet in general frequently mocks furries for engaging in essentially the same things. This hypocrisy bothers her, so she takes whatever opportunity she has to defend furries, who are, after all, people of the Internet.

Hearing this, the furry brings up {{w|The Lion and the Mouse|the fable of the lion and the mouse}} (from {{w|Aesop}}). This fable talks about a lion who spares a mouse from being eaten, since the mouse's promise that he would repay the lion gave the lion a good laugh. In the story, the lion later gets caught in a trap and the mouse chews through the cords, freeing the lion. The furry now has a debt to repay Megan, but before we can get to that Megan curtails the simile. She assumes that the furry will perceive the story to be about animal bondage relationships, and be aroused by this. Given the knowledge of this wiki's editors about furries, however, it should be noted that this will very likely '''not''' arouse the furry.

In the title text, Megan realizes that her kite needs a passenger. So, she asks the furry if he has any hamster friends. This likely refers to real hamsters, which could be tied to the kite. However, this being a furry, it could also refer to people who have hamster “fursonas” — a “fursona” is the type of animal that a furry pretends to be. Such a person would still have the weight of a regular person and therefore unsuitable for flying on the kite after tied (given the kite's size as depicted and assumptions about usual kite materials). This may be a reference to [[20: Ferret]].

==Transcript==
:[Two Cueball-like guys stand together as a young guy dressed up with small ears and a tail approaches.]
:Cueball: Oh God, a furry. Don't let it touch you.

:[The furry hears someone call out to him.]
:Off-screen: Hey, kid.

:[Megan is seen preparing a kite to be flown.]
:Megan: Forget those assholes. Come help me.

:[The furry begins to help Megan set up the kite.]
:Furry: Thanks. So you're cool with furries?

:[The two are now standing far appart the furry with the kite and the line going over to Megan.]
:Megan: Well, I think your fetish is weird as hell. It just bothers me how you're this designated Internet punching bag among people who are otherwise down with weird fetishes. So I stick up for you when I can.

:[The kite now successfully up in the air and Megan pulls the line with both hands moving backwards.]
:Furry: Well, thanks. I owe you one.
:Megan: It's no big deal.

:[Megan stops some distance from the fury holding the line with one hhand. The fury lift one hand up apologising.]
:Furry: No, this is like the lion and the mouse.
:Megan: ...Listen, can we pick a comparison less likely to turn you on?
:Furry: Sorry.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Furries]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

471: Aversion Fads

2018-02-26T20:48:47Z

198.41.230.172: EXPLAINED THE FURSONANS AND IMPROVED FORMATTING

{{comic
| number = 471
| date = September 3, 2008
| title = Aversion Fads
| image = aversion_fads.png
| titletext = Hey, are you friends with any hamsters? This kite needs a passenger.
}}

==Explanation==

Here, we see [[Cueball]] and his Cueball-like friend, who are grossed out that there is a {{w|furry}} (noted by the kid's fox ears and tail) near them. These people most likely have bought into the stereotype of furries, and as such, are showing their disgust towards what they perceive the fandom to (wrongly) be. [[Megan]] then calls for the furry to help her with her kite. The way this turns out, she also thinks that furries are “weird as hell”, but she is also irritated by the fact that a lot of people on the Internet are involved with a lot of weird things that may gross out or otherwise offend the general population, yet the Internet in general frequently mocks furries for engaging in essentially the same things. This hypocrisy bothers her, so she takes whatever opportunity she has to defend furries, who are, after all, people of the Internet.

Hearing this, the furry brings up {{w|The Lion and the Mouse|the fable of the lion and the mouse}} (from {{w|Aesop}}). This fable talks about a lion who spares a mouse from being eaten, since the mouse's promise that he would repay the lion gave the lion a good laugh. In the story, the lion later gets caught in a trap and the mouse chews through the cords, freeing the lion. The furry now has a debt to repay Megan, but before we can get to that Megan curtails the simile. She assumes that the furry will perceive the story to be about animal bondage relationships, and be aroused by this. Given the knowledge of this wiki's editors about furries, however, it should be noted that this will very likely '''not''' arouse the furry.

In the title text, Megan realizes that her kite needs a passenger. So, she asks the furry if he has any hamster friends. This likely refers to real hamsters, which could be tied to the kite. However, this being a furry, it could also refer to people or people who have hamster “fursonas” — a “fursona” is the type of animal that a furry pretends to be. Such a person would still have the weight of a regular person and therefore unsuitable for flying on the kite after tied (given the kite's size as depicted and assumptions about usual kite materials). This may be a reference to [[20: Ferret]].

==Transcript==
:[Two Cueball-like guys stand together as a young guy dressed up with small ears and a tail approaches.]
:Cueball: Oh God, a furry. Don't let it touch you.

:[The furry hears someone call out to him.]
:Off-screen: Hey, kid.

:[Megan is seen preparing a kite to be flown.]
:Megan: Forget those assholes. Come help me.

:[The furry begins to help Megan set up the kite.]
:Furry: Thanks. So you're cool with furries?

:[The two are now standing far appart the furry with the kite and the line going over to Megan.]
:Megan: Well, I think your fetish is weird as hell. It just bothers me how you're this designated Internet punching bag among people who are otherwise down with weird fetishes. So I stick up for you when I can.

:[The kite now successfully up in the air and Megan pulls the line with both hands moving backwards.]
:Furry: Well, thanks. I owe you one.
:Megan: It's no big deal.

:[Megan stops some distance from the fury holding the line with one hhand. The fury lift one hand up apologising.]
:Furry: No, this is like the lion and the mouse.
:Megan: ...Listen, can we pick a comparison less likely to turn you on?
:Furry: Sorry.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Furries]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

Talk:1911: Defensive Profile

2018-01-22T13:10:44Z

198.41.230.172: I THINK THE CURRENT ARTICLE IS PRETTY GOOD

This reminds me of his "free speech" comic. In both, he implies that if people get mad at you for what you say, you must be the one in the wrong. He also implies that people who make that kind of statement "don't understand" why people take offense. That makes very little sense. If they say something like that, they must understand why some people dislike them. Quite possibly they even enjoy having that effect. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 21:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

: That brings new meaning to "objective truth". In the modern world it certainly seems sometimes that relativism reigns supreme. Let's see... If we all get angry at Randall, is Randall wrong? [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.40|198.41.238.40]] 07:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

: Huh. What a bizarre comment. The underlying idea that (some) people know exactly why what they are saying makes people angry and actually enjoy it. (These people are commonly called "assholes.") But I see no correlation in this and your interpretation of his freedom of speech comic. And your interpretation is very far off from what said comic said. It said that "if the best argument you have is that your comment is freedom of speech, it must be a bad argument." Freedom of speech lets you say what you want, but you still have to actually defend your argument. You don't get to just say "freedom of speech" and win the Internet. Nothing about anger making it wrong. [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 08:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

: I don't have an account yet, but I just wanted to respond to Trlkly, actually the 1st Amendment/Freedom of Speech is the Right to NOT have the Government regulate your speech; this still actually leaves open a wide variety of ways in which your speech/conduct can be regulated by private persons and organizations. This is what is meant by 'Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence', and *doesn't* in particular refer to needing to *backup* your arguments/speech with a valid reasoning; that's a separate point of concern. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.117|162.158.74.117]] 20:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Raenir Salazar.

Chrome with the official Google Translate extension allows just this kind of view translation of a selection only. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.221|172.68.253.221]] 03:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The first one works, somewhat. But the second one? What does "drama free zone" and "make people sad" have to do with one another? Drama (in this sense) is about anger, not sadness. And I don't think it's necessarily a horrible thing that you aren't good at dealing with people who get angry at you. Why assume everyone is a bad person? [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 08:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

: I think that part refers to the "Geek Social Fallacies", one of which is that "addressing conflict" is the same as "cause drama" - failing to realize that addressing conflict is the way to SOLVE it, reducing drama in the long run. If a person thinks like that, telling them that you disagree/are offended by their comment would likely make them confused, angry and defensive, with no idea how to handle and overcome the conflict. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.68|162.158.88.68]] 21:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

: I disagree with the statement "Drama (in this sense) is about anger, not sadness." The term "drama" is invoked on social media for any emotional response the invoker feels is too large to be warranted by the situation. So being excessively (in the eyes of the person invoking) sad is equally "drama" as being excessively angry. The comic and explanation don't necessarily imply that it makes you a horrible person either, just that many people's attempts to avoid drama (which seems like a noble goal on the surface) are actually their inability to deal with problems they might have caused and are far less noble on close inspection. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 20:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The last paragraph (relating to Donald Trump and Twitter) seems out of place. It doesn't serve to describe the comic, and fails to establish context. Thoughts on deleting it completely? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.211|162.158.69.211]] 18:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

: I agree. While I get that Randall doesn't support Trump - just look at [[1756: I'm With Her]]. That doesn't mean that he has to be shoehorned into the description for any comic that deals with anything even vaguely political [[User:Figvh|Figvh]] ([[User talk:Figvh|talk]]) 23:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

: I think it does not "fail to establish context"; the opposite actually. And therefore should be maintained. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.27.12|172.68.27.12]] 20:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

: I agree, this particular comic makes no reference to political views or current affairs. It is much more likely that this comment is based on personal experiences. The only links to Donald Trump are that this a comment about social media when there has been a recent news article relating to Trump and social media and that the topic is about defensiveness, which Trump is often accused of. Both are likely to be purely coincidental, given Trump has always been highly active on social media and the accusation of defensiveness could be applied to millions of people.

: Guy above, don't forget to sign your comments. Anyway, I think the fact that the comic looks like Twitter, as described in the article, makes this news item notable, especially as it provides an alternative explanation as to why Randall might want to portray "offensive" people on Twitter as insecure, as said in the article. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.172|198.41.230.172]] 13:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

One should also note that the comic number is 1911, the famous handgun made by Colt adding another meaning to the term defensive profile.

Title text

2018-01-22T12:12:02Z

198.41.230.172: MOBILE SITE

The '''title text''' is an {{w|HTML attribute}} [[Randall]] puts on almost every xkcd image which normally adds something tangentially relevant to the topic of the comic. In some of the early comics, the title text was used to explain the joke (Such as [[5: Blown apart]]). It can be accessed via hovering the mouse pointer over the image on the main site or clicking the Alt Text button on the mobile site.

Strictly speaking, calling this the 'alt text' is incorrect, as Randall uses the 'title' attribute rather than the 'alt' attribute in the HTML sources (cf. {{w|Wikipedia:Alternative_text_for_images|Wikipedia's entry on "Alt text"}}). But Randall himself refers to it as Alt text in [[45: Schrodinger]] and in his page with details about the comic including Randall's transcript. See more on how to access the title text on a mobile device where hovering is not possible here: [[xkcd#Transcript_on_xkcd|Transcript on xkcd]].

In case on a tablet that cannot display the title text, it can be found in the [[Transcript on xkcd]]. xkcd's mobile site (m.xkcd.com) also displays the title text with a button near the comic title.

[[File:tt.png|left|The title text for 377: Journal 2]]

The title text for [[377: Journal 2]]

[[Category:Meta]]

Talk:1944: The End of the Rainbow

2018-01-22T12:04:23Z

198.41.230.172: SOME WEIRD IDEA I HAD

Hey, an early comic that I understand! Typed up a transcript (though the description of the first panel was already there, and the empty explanation already had the Incomplete Explanation set as "Created by a LEPRECHAUN"), but using an iPad and typing in Notes to avoid editing conflicts, so I can't see the comic while I'm typing. So the inherent magic of the Telephone Game comes into play, where the mind likes to summarize and put into different words, LOL! I think I managed to get it completely accurate, though. I'll see if I can come up with an explanation shortly. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 07:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If you think about leprechauns while thinking about pots of gold then there will indeed be leprechauns at both ends.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.125|162.158.166.125]] 08:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a *huge* difference between 10^-7 and 10^7... just fyi[[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.82|162.158.2.82]] 08:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
:This is one of those cases where the phrase "Orders Of Magnitude" comes in, LOL! Kind of glad someone else beat me to providing an explanation now, not my goof. LOL! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 08:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that the part about solar gold volume is correct. The density used only applies to gold in solid state in room temperature, and the Sun is neither. In a way, gold indise Sun has the volume of the Sun itself. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.168|162.158.90.168]] 10:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
: Yes I realized that a few minutes after posting my original edit, and added a parenthesis to explain that I used the volume that much gold would have on Earth-like conditions. Not that the fact has any concrete application anyway, but I thought it would show that the claim that there is more gold in the Sun than water on Earth can't simply be pictured as an ocean volume of gold. Maybe there's a sea somewhere that's about the right volume and you could say "taking all the gold from the Sun would fill <that particular sea>" [[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.16|141.101.88.16]] 11:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

:There may be more gold in the sun than water in the oceans but the oceans have a higher concentration of gold than the sun does. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.136|172.69.62.136]] 11:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Leprechauns live on the night side of the Sun to avoid being incinerated, that's why we can't see them from this side.
Zetfr 12:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
:The night side... Of the sun... Is there a cartoon about this? I feel like there needs to be a cartoon about this. Just one observation: On the night side of the sun, there's no moon? Or if there is, what's lighting it up? ;D This is even better than the "dark" side of the Moon.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
::Reminds me of this [https://www.reddit.com/r/vexillology/comments/7awoek/nepal_space_exploration_flag/dpdetpi/ Reddit conversation] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.138|162.158.167.138]] 09:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

"far more than a [...] leprechaun's pot of gold" - I'm pretty sure a leprechaun's pot of gold is self-refilling, and therefore infinite.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.204|162.158.111.204]] 13:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
:Oh no, the pot is just a container they had handy; The pot of gold is the measure of their ransom. ... No idea why I feel so sure of that. I don't think I want to re-read all the lore I studied as a kid to find the source...
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

did anyone else notice that the cone from the clouds to your eye isn't actually a cone, since it's slightly truncated at the point, otherwise we'd see an ideal point (i.e. not see it.) just me, then. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.170|162.158.88.170]] 13:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
:Wellllllll the cone comes to a point inside your eyeball, assuming you have perfect far vision, and then redisperses to project the image onto your retina upside-down and backwards. But we're really starting to split the hairs of 'what is a rainbow' here, as the rainbow is visible from a wide variety of vantage points, and the paths of light (and positions at which the light bounces off the cloud particles) are all different, some minutely, some vastly. Our eye is not a pinhole camera, and different views of the rainbow will enter it and hit the retina at slightly different spots. But the rainbow isn't this set of particular projections. It seems more arguable that the rainbow is either the rough set of cloud vapor that happens to reflect the light from the areas the rainbow is visible combined with this light reflected (a partial, fuzzy circle, and a partial, fuzzy cone) ... or simply the phenomenon of the water and light forming this image to us. Where is the rainbow???? If you move closer, it will move too! It's over there if and only if you are over here. It's certainly in that direction ... right? Or is it just in your brain? Maybe the rainbow is in your eyes for perceiving scattered light at all. Rainbows kind of violate the consensus we've come to in language about referring to objects. Perhaps they show that our language is insufficient to describe all of our experiences accurately. It looks pretty in the sky over there. That's a rainbow! It looking pretty in the sky with a curved band of color. Like a blur. Where is the blur? Okay; now I agree with Randall; the rainbow exists on your retina, and in the projected image you see, which forms a cone shape. But somebody else can see the same rainbow, and their cone is different! So clearly that's insufficient. It's like having the idea of a shared projected image. Like a reflection. Where is the reflection? There we go. Perhaps if the reflection is in the mirror, the rainbow is in the clouds.[[User:Baffo32|Baffo32]] ([[User talk:Baffo32|talk]]) 18:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the logic of the title text is: gold is at the other end of the rainbow is there, because in that moment the person (his/her brain) is thinking about the gold. To put in a dumber way: when you think about gold, then gold is in your brain, ergo if your brain is one end of the rainbow, and you're wondering if there's gold at the end of the rainbow, then in a self-fulfilling way, it is. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.238.82|162.158.238.82]] 13:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC) .tnm

:I don't think the current title-text explanation makes any sense: The title-text portion of the comic doesn't seem to reference leprechauns at all. Was the comic edited after being posted?
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

:I fixed the title text explanation. Also does this comic imply that if someone thinks about carnivorous giant neon zombie tomatoes while looking at a rainbow, then they exist at one end? ;) [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 15:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the numbers are completly wrong, 0.3 parts per trillion probably comes from [https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-gold-in-the-sun-If-so-how-much-gold-could-be-contained-in-it here] (because the same article was used as a reference at some point in the history of the explanation), but I think this is the ratio of atoms, not mass. The answer on quora uses the same value of 0.3 parts per trillion but instead of 6*10^17 kg of gold, deduces from that number that there is 10^20 kg of golds. One atom of gold is ~195 times as heavy as one atom of hydrogen, and since the Sun is mostly hydrogen and also some heavier elements, the mass of gold over the average mass of atoms in the Sun should be a little below 195. The ratio between 10^20 and 6*10^17 is 167.
There's still a ratio of 20 between that value (10^20 kg) of the mass of gold on the sun and the one [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(abundance+gold+sun)+*+(mass+sun) from wolframalpha], and I'm quite expecting Randall to have used the latter, which is of 2 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers quintillion] tons of gold on the Sun, IE "quintillions of tons" as expressed by Megan. Maybe that value is wrong, but I think it should be mentionned to show that Randall probably didn't just make up a number. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.16|141.101.88.16]] 17:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
:I've attempted to get to the bottom of this - Wikipedia gives limited sources. A search for [[https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(abundance+gold+sun)|(abundance+gold+sun) on WolframAlpha]] gives 10^-7% by mass, but again, their references don't seem to support that (at least from a brief scan). Quora cites [[http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1968PASAu...1..133A&data_type=PDF_HIGH&filetype=.pdf&type=PRINTER&whole_paper=YES|a 1968 paper] but I can't read that very well - I've attempted to analyse their data but I'm afraid I've been unable to determine how Quora reached their ".3 parts per trillion" from that paper. (I might drag out some textbooks and try again later.) In any case these two numbers are in wild disagreement, even if we assume Quora meant atomic ratios and multiply their number by 197 (atomic mass of gold; gold only has one stable isotope).
:As mentioned, WolframAlpha's number gives 2.0x10^21 kg, or 2 quintillion tonnes, whereas Quora's gives 6.0x10^17 kg, or 0.0006 quintillion tonnes (0.12 quintillion tonnes if we mutiply by 197).
:Of course, none of these results are small! I'd be happy with a pot of gold of even half a quadrillion tonnes. [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 20:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

How can 'more than' be off by a factor of anything, given that it's non-specific? It could be 'fractionally more than' or 'a thousand times more than'.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.204|162.158.111.204]] 18:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
:In this case, because the true amount is LESS than, not more than. (The author of that part of the explanation assumed the minimum amount that could be called "quintillions" is 2 quintillion, and the calculated true amount is 4000 times smaller.) [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 20:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've got a different quibble about sizes here. Despite the fact that the sun is so far away from the earth that it appears as a relatively small disk in the sky, the sun is thousands of times LARGER than our planet. As such, the longer cone in Megan's explanation is such a gross oversimplification of the way light from the sun works as to be wildly inaccurate. If anything, this cone should be reversed (larger at the sun's end) to illustrate the portion of the sun's light energy that actually hits the whole planet, let alone just the area that any person is looking at when they see a rainbow. (Granted, the angle of the cone would be extremely shallow due to the distances involved, but it would still be larger-to-smaller, not smaller-to-larger as explained here.) The cone as she describes it only makes sense if we're talking about a very small portion of the sun's surface emitting that light. It's unclear to me if this was meant to be a flawed, oversimplified or metaphorical explanation (in which case it's not very clear), or if Randall was actually attempting to explain how this works, but this particular comic feels pretty far "off" to me in that respect, compared to similar comics he's done in the past. [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 02:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
:That occurred to me as well. The cone is just from a single point (in the comic's diagram, the centre of the apparent disc of the sun).
:A ray diagram would show that each ray traces a single path, which means it does in fact come from a single point on the sun. For a given colour, therefore, this is correct; the various paths for the rainbow's ring of colour would indeed trace out a cone, from a single point. Other colours would trace out a different cone, but the difference would be the arrival point (on your retina), not the departure point (on the sun).
:My explanation is slightly lacking, in that (a) I haven't considered the variable distances to each individual raindrop, and (b) a verbal description is nothing compared to a diagram. I may try to draw one later, if I have time. [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 18:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
::The color a cell on your retina sees is not from a single ray. It's from multiple rays that have passed through the area of your pupil, from the area of the sun disc, through the areas on the surfaces of the water molecules that produce the correct angles for each combination of points in your pupil and on the sun given the index of refraction for the water. That's why rainbows look so blurry! [[User:Baffo32|Baffo32]] ([[User talk:Baffo32|talk]]) 20:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
: I think the reality is that it isn't a two-ended cone, it's just... a cone. Wide end at the sun, point on your retina, rainbow is where the cone is bent back, bounced in your direction. Megan's explanation is probably just a simplification due to it being difficult to think of the sun as anything but a point. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 00:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
:: Given the sun's great distance from the Earth and the Earth's minuscule size in proportion, it is safe to assume that all light rays from the Sun are parallel. This is an assumption made in countless contexts and is close enough to reality for all practical purposes. As such, you've got parallel rays from the sun that get refracted by the rain drops, causing some wavelengths to focus on your retina, forming a cone (with the point at the focal point of your eye's lens). So the shape we're probably really talking about is a cone from your eye (apex) to the apparent position of the rainbow and a cylinder from there to a similar-sized circle on the sun's photosphere. At least it seems plausible to me. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 21:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Extra credit to Baffo32 for "the value of gold would plummet astronomically". :o) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.204|162.158.111.204]] 23:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The accuracy of Megan's statement is being discussed in https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/24590/how-much-gold-is-there-in-our-sun and their conclusions are contradicting the one published here. I haven't still checked but I think somebody should.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 11:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Relating to the trivia section, couldn't you hold the gold and increase the supply at roughly the growth rate of the economy, which would keep the value consistent? (I mean, technically you couldn't store that much gold, but since we're considering selling it I think we can assume you have a Bag of Holding or something and can store it.) I don't know if I'm misunderstanding economics with this idea though. Also, I don't know how long it would take to sell everything with that strategy, but I imagine you could get your future generations into the scheme, and they could profit too. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.172|198.41.230.172]] 12:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:1795: All You Can Eat

2017-02-08T16:02:17Z

198.41.230.172:

What?? I think something bugged it. It's showing my edit in the editor but the viewer is different entirely. ??? [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 16:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
:If that happens, it means the cache hasn't updated itself yet. Refresh a few times until your edit appears. Alternatively someone may have undone your edit - look at the "View History" tab. [[User:Chloroplaster|Chloroplaster]] ([[User talk:Chloroplaster|talk]]) 17:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

does alt-text refere to the fact that they forcefully make him hit some posterboard at the pirntshop because of his prank? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.102.10|172.68.102.10]] 16:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
:Not really, because that wouldn't be "absent-minded" of him. [[User:Chloroplaster|Chloroplaster]] ([[User talk:Chloroplaster|talk]]) 17:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Added the title text to the explanation. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|'''JayRules''XKCD''' ]][[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|what's up?]] 17:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think snake owners buy mice for their snakes. Not sure if they ever use pet mice... I think they're supposed to use mice that are drugged, but I wouldn't be too surprised if people have bought pet mice to feed their snake. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.17|108.162.238.17]] 19:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
: You don't feed your snake drugged animals, any more than you would feed it poisoned ones, as they would make it sick. Not sure about the U.S, but in Australia, it's illegal to feed the snake live rats. We buy them pre-frozen and thaw them as needed. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.53|108.162.250.53]] 22:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
:: Trivia about people eating cats (and sometimes dogs): When times are hard people tend to eat anything they can catch. This includes cats. That's why - in this context - a cat in German can be a "Dachhase" (''roof rabbit'') or "falscher Hase" (''false'' or ''fake rabbit'') - interestingly the last one is also an expression for a meat loaf made from ground beef... Do other languages have similar terms? --[[User:Felis Catus|Felis Catus]] ([[User talk:Felis Catus|talk]]) 08:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The odd thing (possibly just British quirkiness) is I have seen "All You Can Eat" (AYCE) offers for non-food products or services. An AYCE beauty salon would mean as many of their services (aka the full works) as you want in one visit. AYCE car tyres would mean four tyres, valves, balancing, fitting and tracking. Never actually seen this as even economy tyres vary too much by size! So not as silly as it appears, except Randal is too literal. YMMV [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 21:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
: Works with virtual things, too: my British SIM card has an All-You-Can-Eat data option... --[[User:Felis Catus|Felis Catus]] ([[User talk:Felis Catus|talk]]) 08:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sam the Firefly book should probably be mentioned. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.155|162.158.79.155]] 04:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the extremely detailed graphic description in the transcript? Whether the transcript is for search engines or visually impaired readers, I find these details unnecessary and rather annoying. Unless others disagree, I suggest transcripts should only contain visual information that is strictly necessary to understanding the comic.
Zetfr 09:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
: It is done for people who are partially-sighted, who use "Explain XKCD" as their way to view the comics. (This was previously mentioned in the discussion of the tagline for this website.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.112|141.101.98.112]] 11:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure the first sign really would be A...k- Randal rarely uses lower case and his "K's" are rarely that shape. Also, the difference in height could equate to just his normal lack of uniformity in the size of his writing. It does fit with how he writes an X though. --[[User:Takigama|Takigama]] ([[User talk:Takigama|talk]]) 15:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

An all-you-can-eat hair salon actually makes sense... In the Netherlands (You know, from "drain the oceans") you can eat "kapsalon", translated "Hair salon". I' m pretty sure a " all you can eat " kapsalon place could actually exist here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapsalon (A hairdresser invented it by ordering his favorite food from a nearby place, they labeled it "kapsalon" ("hair salon") because it was intended for the next-door hair salon, then others ordered the same dish and the name stuck.) Quite funny, "kap" has many translations, including ones more related to lumberjacks than barbers...-- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.209|141.101.104.209]] 14:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that some cultures are known for eating {{w|Cat meat}}.
[[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.172|198.41.230.172]] 16:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)