explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1714: Volcano Types

2016-08-01T16:23:28Z

199.27.133.107:

Actual antlions, not to be confused with the antlions from Half-Life 2. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.62|173.245.52.62]] 15:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think pedant's bane actually has them labelled correctly. It's just that the picture is upside down and you've reversed the figure and the ground in your mind. Were it right-side-up, you'd see It's actually a drawing of a teeny pool of underground magma at the bottom of an antlion's trap, spouting up a fountain of lava.

1574: Trouble for Science

2015-09-15T02:31:04Z

199.27.133.107: Added a better explanation than 'this is a joke' and did some proofreading

{{comic
| number = 1574
| date = September 7, 2015
| title = Trouble for Science
| image = trouble_for_science.png
| titletext = Careful mathematical analysis demonstrates small-scale irregularities in Gaussian distribution
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|More details in each article, especially the humor/irony in the first one about antibodies.}}
The comic highlights the fact that several well-publicized scientific critiques have recently been published that raise questions about some commonly accepted scientific methods. For scientists, these critiques serve as reminders of the dangers of overconfidence in any method, hopefully leading those who have naively accepted results to remember that any scientific conclusion is by its very nature tentative and limited by methodological reliability. However, popular press reporting of these papers may lead a general public of modest scientific literacy to the impression that science might be in trouble, as implied by the title. Some of these methodological issues and shortcomings are well-known in the scientific community but are – for better or worse – the best toolkit science has at its disposal today. This is however greatly exaggerated by the last (fictional) headline, which suggests that Bunsen burners in fact have a cooling effect, which is of course absolutely ridiculous, but would nevertheless change one more fundamental scientific belief drastically. Additionally, each headline contains irony or a double meaning for comical effect.

The title of five scientific articles are shown:

;Many commercial antibody-based immunoassays are unreliable
This sentence is true. See Kebaneilwe Lebani, [http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:352531 Antibody Discovery for Development of a Serotyping Dengue Virus NS1 Capture Assay], 2014. In this PhD thesis, 11 references are given.

;Hypothesis testing and the use of p-values
In empirical research, we are usually interested in effects / results / relationships in a population. However, for practical reasons, only smaller subsets of populations are available to us. These are called samples. Usually an effect of interest is tested using a sample. The purpose of hypothesis testing is to determine whether the observed effect (or lack of effect) in a sample is a random artifact of our particular sample, or whether there is a good chance that it also exists in the population.

Generally a null hypothesis states that there is no effect in the population while the alternative hypothesis states that there is an effect.

P-values are used in hypothesis testing. The p-value is the probability of observing an effect / result / relationship in your sample data, given that no such effect / result / relationship exists in the population. It is based on the sample data and the particular statistic (such as sample average, t, or F). A statistic is the result of a calculation based on the sample. A p-value can be calculated for each statistic of interest. Formally, the p-value is the probability of observing a test statistic equal to or greater than the one based on the sample data, given that the null hypothesis is true.

The threshold for p-value cutoff, α, is pre-specified (usually 5% or 1%, which is more conservative). When the p-value is lower to or equal to α, the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis. When it is higher than α, the null hypothesis is retained.

;Problems with the p-value as an indicator of significance
The value used for ''α'' has been proposed by [http://web.lru.dk/sites/lru.dk/files/lru/docs/kap9/kapitel_9_126_On_the_origins.pdf Fisher] and is arbitrary.

The use of p-values as a measure of statistical significance is frequently criticized, for example in [http://wiki.bio.dtu.dk/~agpe/papers/pval_notuseful.pdf Hubbard and Lindsay]. Randall has demonstrated this problem in the past in [[882: Significant]].
;Overfeeding of laboratory rodents compromises animal models

[http://tpx.sagepub.com/content/24/6/757.full.pdf Keenan et al.] makes this case. Additionally, the word model takes on two meanings. In one sense, a model can refer to a scientific description that makes sense of a phenomenon; in another sense, model can refer to an individual whose job it is to demonstrate fashions, typically fashionable outfits. Fashion models are notorious for being exceptionally thin, and so overfeeding would compromise their job as a model.

;Replication study fails to reproduce many published results
A [https://explorable.com/replication-study Replication Study] is a study designed to duplicate the results of a previous study by using the same methods for a different set of subjects and experimenters. It aims to recreate the results to gain confidence in the results of the previous study as well as ensuring that the findings of the previous study are transferable to other similar areas of study.

Randall is probably referring to this recent study described in Nature: [http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test]
It might also be a reference to at least 3 studies mentioned here: http://www.jove.com/blog/2012/05/03/studies-show-only-10-of-published-science-articles-are-reproducible-what-is-happening. There is also irony in the phrasing of the title because in biology replication is a form of reproduction.

;Controlled trials show Bunsen burners make things colder
The theme of this comic is that commonly accepted scientific methods can be unreliable, and the joke here is that a Bunsen burner, a device intended to heat things, is newly discovered to always cool things instead, which would be absurd.

This situation is, however, possible in high-temperature cases. There is probably some methodological error if putting something over the Bunsen burner flame (which is between 1000K and 2000K) makes it colder. If that thing were already much hotter than the flame (more than 2000 Kelvin), the Bunsen Burner's flame would equalize the temperature between the flame and thing resulting in cooling. It's also possible that if the "controlled trial" involved a Bunsen burner that was not lit, but was turned on to allow gas to flow, it would have a cooling effect as the gas expanded from the line pressure to atmospheric pressure.

Alternatively, a trial could be set up to test something against a Bunsen burner on the one hand, and an even hotter flame on the other hand. As compared to that hotter flame, the Bunsen burner would not heat up the tested material as much, resulting in something being made "colder" than the alternative.

;Careful mathematical analysis demonstrates small-scale irregularities in Gaussian distribution

This is another joke of a premise that is obviously untrue. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_function Gaussian distribution] is a mathematical construct that is generally known as the bell curve or the Normal distribution. As it is an ideal mathematical construction, by definition, it cannot have any irregularities -- similar to how the equation y = 2x + 1 cannot have small-scale irregularities. The joke probably alludes to the fact that many types of observations are frequently initially modeled as a Gaussian distribution, though on careful observation the actual distribution of outcomes will often deviate from a pure Gaussian distribution.

==Transcript==
:[Five panels, each with the top part of a scientific article, where only the title is legible. Below is the list of authors and subheading and text in unreadable wiggles.]

:Many Commercial Antibody-Based Immunoassays Are Unreliable

:Problems With the p-Value as an Indicator of Significance

:Overfeeding of Laboratory Rodents Compromises Animal Models

:Replication Study Fails to Reproduce Many Published Results

:Controlled Trials Show Bunsen Burners Make Things Colder

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]

1517: Spectroscopy

2015-04-27T23:10:51Z

199.27.133.107: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1517
| date = April 27, 2015
| title = Spectroscopy
| image = spectroscopy.png
| titletext = Although right now I'm more excited about ESPRESSO's radial velocity measurements, so I'm listening to This Kiss, her song about measuring "centrifugal motion" on "a rooftop under the sky".
}}

==Explanation==
This comic mixes the method of using ''{{w|spectroscopy}}'' to detect {{w|oxygen}} on {{w|exoplanets}} (planets outside our {{w|Solar system}}) with [http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/faithhill/breathe.html the lyrics] for the {{w|Faith Hill}} song "{{w|Breathe (Faith Hill song)|Breathe}}" (listen to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCmsZUN4r_s "Breathe" on YouTube]).

From the lyrics:
:''I watch the sunlight''
:''dance across your face''
:''I can '''feel''' you breathe''
In the comic the word '''feel''' has been changed to '''see'''. The two first panels are one line in the song. The last line is from the chorus and is repeated five times during the song, although not right after the first two lines.

In the first and second panel the singer examines the spectra of a remote planet by ''watching the sunlight'' during the transit of the planet as this sunlight ''dances across the planet's face''. Finally we determine that breathable oxygen exists. Since we cannot (as Faith can) ''feel'' the planet we have to ''see'' it. And by doing this ''I can see you breathe''.

Measuring the light output of stars (spectra) we are able to determine a number of details of the star, including rotation, relative radial velocity, chemical composition, temperature, and to some degree, distance and size. When a planet, as pictured, moves between the star and the observer, then by looking at the spectrum received, the viewer is able to determine the contents of the planet's atmosphere from the specific wavelengths of light that are {{w|Absorption spectroscopy|absorbed}} in this. If it turns out that the atmosphere absorbs the lines corresponding to molecular oxygen (O2) this is a clear indication that the planet has large quantities of breathable oxygen (but {{w|Exoplanet#Abiotic_oxygen|not necessarily life}}). Since for most (though {{w|Anaerobic_organism|not all}})
forms of life as we know it to exist and breathe, there must be oxygen in large amounts in the atmosphere, it is clear why [[Randall]] would be interested in exoplanets with oxygen.

This comic came out four days after this article about [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/23/nasa-nexss-search-for-life_n_7123788.html NASA's New NExSS Initiative]. {{w|NASA}} will search for signs of life on other planets, for instance by using "the light passing through the atmospheres of these exoplanets". And they "will study chemicals that have been detected on other worlds, such as oxygen and methane, to see if they were produced by biology".

The title text refers to determining {{w|radial velocity}} in the {{w|ESPRESSO}} program (Echelle SPectrograph for Rocky Exoplanet- and Stable Spectroscopic Observations). By noting that the radial velocity of the star changes slightly as the planet that orbits it moves around the star (centrifugal acceleration), the ESPRESSO program should be able to detect the masses of planets as they are moving towards the Earth in their orbit around their distant stars. The ESPRESSO program is so precise that it should be able to detect {{w|Terrestrial planet|planets as small as Earth}} and the other of the Solar systems inner planets.

Randall is now even more excited about ESPRESSO than he is about the oxygen levels, because it is now possible to detect these "very" small planets. So he is no longer listening to "Breathe", but to another Faith Hill song: "{{w|This Kiss (Faith Hill song)|This Kiss}}" (listen to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dls_cBmUt7Q "This Kiss" on YouTube]).

From the [http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/faithhill/thiskiss.html lyrics]:
:''It's centrifugal motion''
:''On '''the''' rooftop under the sky''
The first line is part of the chorus and it is repeated four times. But not in connection with the second line, which is changed a bit, so '''the''' is changed to an '''a'''. Also the "on" is not part of the quoted line in the title text.

The song is not about measuring but, of course, about the (a) kiss. Since the ESPRESSO is part of the {{w|Very Large Telescope}}, it is located on the {{w|Cerro Paranal}} mountain in the {{w|Atacama desert}} in {{w|Chile}} at an elevation of 2,635 meters (8,645 ft.) above sea level. So it could be said that it is measuring on a rooftop under the sky. Although it is radial velocity it measures not {{w|Centrifugal force|centrifugal motion}}, the object it does measure will all be experiencing this {{w|fictitious force}} (also see [[123: Centrifugal Force]]), as the planets are in orbit around a star.

Randall has previously made [[:Category:Exoplanets |several references to exoplanets]] in his comics, most notable are the two comics with the same name: [[786: Exoplanets]] and [[1071: Exoplanets]]. The latter comic came out when there were exactly 786 exoplanets found. Today more than 1900 have been discovered (1915 as of Wikipedia on the release day of this comic), much more than twice that amount. And now they can find even smaller planets, and detect the atmosphere since the first exoplanet comic came out in 2010.

==Transcript==
:[A dark panel with a bright star in the center. To the left a planet (drawn as a new moon) approaches the star. Text is written above in white with two musical notes, one on each side of the text.]
:I watch the sunlight

:[Same image but now the planet {{w|Transit (astronomy)|transits}} the star. Small lines around the planet indicate the atmosphere, as seen from the light from the star passing through it. Text is again written above in white with two different musical notes, one on each side of the text.]
:Dance across your face

:[A white frame with a black line. It Is the spectrum of the planets atmosphere. Two distinct absorbtion peaks are visible. The first one is labeled with an arrow. Text is again written above, now in black, with two, again, different musical notes, one on each side of the text.]
:I can see you breathe
:Label: O2

:[Below the panels is the following caption:]
:'''Faith Hill on exoplanet spectroscopy'''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Exoplanets]]

1493: Meeting

2015-03-06T21:32:44Z

199.27.133.107: /* Explanation */ - simplify wording, remove needlessly specific examples

{{comic
| number = 1493
| date = March 2, 2015
| title = Meeting
| image = meeting.png
| titletext = Here at CompanyName.website, our three main strengths are our web-facing chairs, our huge collection of white papers, and the fact that we physically cannot die.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Beret Guy]]'s business, as previously seen in [[1032: Networking]] and [[1293: Job Interview]], is going well, although it is unclear why. The common theme in these three comics is that Beret Guy misuses common business cliches. The following are examples and phrases that [[Randall]] is likely making a joke about:

* "If you're reading this, the webserver was installed correctly." When a web server is installed automatically (like apache using apt-get), it typically comes with a minimal configuration meant to deliver a single page saying all is working fine. Usually, a company will then configure the web server to provide actual meaningful content. It appears that in this case Beret Guy's company kept the page as is, but also trademarked the sentence as the company's motto, and proudly displays it under the company logo.

* "CompanyName.website": Companies are usually given descriptive or evocative names; Beret Guy's company, meanwhile, has been given a generic placeholder name that explains nothing about the company or website except that it is a company with a website.

* "Welcome to a meeting!" The usual way to start a meeting is to welcome the participants by telling them in which meeting they are (e.g. "Welcome to the meeting on ..."). Here, the complete lack of specifics in this sentence is an indication that the meeting has, in fact, no purpose at all, except to be just "A meeting". It could also mean that Beret Guy does not know the proper way to welcome people to a meeting.

* "I'm almost out of words so I'll keep this short." A common theme in the busy world of business is lack of time, so "I'm almost out of time" would be a valid reason for keeping a meeting short, rather than a finite quantity of words. Aside from the fictional movie [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Thousand_Words_%28film%29 A Thousand Words] or people taking a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vow_of_silence Vow of Silence], people usually don't have a particular quota on the number of words they have or can use.

* "Just wanna touch bases." Often business professions will contact a customer to "touch base," meaning to check in for a status update. The use of the plural "bases" suggests Beret Guy does not know what this means. This could also be a word play on the expression "Cover some bases".

* "Self-driving car project" Google has been working on self-driving cars, which usually shouldn't be lost track of and found by the police. The fact that it was launched "by accident" is concerning. It could mean the car was turned on by mistake and then left unattended, or perhaps that a driver of one of their cars fell asleep or otherwise stopped controlling the vehicle, but it is not clear because the accidental launch may refer to the project itself rather than the car. The involvement of the police during carpool hours implies that the car crashed or otherwise obstructed traffic. What's especially ironic is the implication that the employees were carpooling (sharing a single vehicle for their commute, for reasons of efficiency/economy) in the self-driving car, and yet this carpool activity ended with the car setting off with nobody in it at all. This is considered to be a good result because the whole project is an accident, and 90 miles before crash is a good result for a self-driving car when you didn't even know you built a self-driving car.

* "Sales, any luck figuring out who our customers are?" In the real world, when companies want to find out "who [their] customers are", they are talking about learning more about their existing customers in order to more closely match these customers' needs, and to discover ways to attract more of them. Here, Beret Guy and [[Ponytail]] apparently use the phrase literally -- they have no records of making any sales. In a normal enterprise money doesn't usually appear from nowhere, and most businesses would be very unsettled if their cash flow was from an unknown source. Additionally, the company would not be able to comply with government regulations that require it to report information regarding its income for tax purposes. In addition to being fined for failure to properly report its income, the company would be investigated as a suspected money laundering enterprise.

* "Cool red beetle in the hallway" Beret Guy might be referring to seeing an insect. But given his continually surreal world, he might have instead seen a red Volkswagen Beetle, meaning there is an actual car in the hallway. This also matches with the "self-driving car project", potentially explaining why the car is inside the building. Randall's all-caps lettering hides the "beetle" versus "Beetle" distinction.

* "Bug tracker" usually refers to systems for tracking discovery, analysis, and fixing of software bugs (errors and problems), not the location of physical objects (be they insects or Volkswagen Beetles which are nicknamed "bugs").

* "Web-facing" (title text) usually refers to software or a server that is connected to the internet using a web interface. However, in this case the term is applied to chairs placed in front of a computer with internet browsing capability.

* "White papers" (title text) are usually policy recommendations, but here Beret Guy is likely talking about actual (near-worthless) blank white pieces of paper.

* "Main strengths" (title text) typically refer to one's skills, but "we physically cannot die" refers to the fact that incorporated companies are in a sense anthropomorphised—they're legally treated as "persons", with the ability to sue and be sued in civil courts. Or that Beret Guy is literally immortal, in which case that would indeed be a great asset which could be used in a variety of ways, from things like making a one man army (though he could still be captured or incapacitated) to investing for a long long time. On that note, if Beret Guy IS immortal, perhaps many (many) years ago (before his mind got wonky?) he might have invested a lot of money and is finally noticing the large amount of interest that has accrued. This would partly explain why there is lots of money coming in without any customers.

There is an alternative explanation for the company portrayed: it is run by computers. This explains the misinterpretations of language, the empty chair, the non-traceable money (perhaps from other computers) and the self-driving car project.

==Trivia==
"CompanyName.website" is actually a domain name that was registered on 2014-11-20 and [http://companyname.website which redirects to xkcd.com]. Presumably, it is owned by Randall, for the same reason as in [[305]].

==Transcript==
:[Beret Guy is shown in silhouette. Above Beret Guy there is a black sign with white (and grey) text. Above this is his address to those in the meeting:]
:Beret Guy: Welcome to a meeting! I'm almost out of words, so I'll keep this short. Just wanna touch bases.
:[White text in the black sign (''.website'' in grey):]
:CompanyName.website
:''If you're reading this, the web''
:''server was installed correctly.''TM

:[Beret Guy stands in front of an office chair and a table talking]
:Beret Guy: First, a few updates. We've learned from the state police that the self-driving car project we launched by accident during this morning's carpool has come to an end about 90 miles outside of town. Very exciting!

:[Pony tail sits at the table.]
:Beret Guy [off-panel]: Profits are up. Sales, any luck figuring out who our customers are?
:Ponytail: Nope. Money keeps appearing, but we have no idea how or why.
:Beret Guy [off-panel]: Great!

:[Back to the situation from frame two]
:Beret Guy: Oh, and one last thing— I saw a cool red beetle in the hall. Can someone add it to the bug tracker?
:[person off-panel]: Just did!
:Beret Guy: Thanks!

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Beret Guy's Business]]

Talk:292: goto

2014-12-30T20:36:03Z

199.27.133.107:

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

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

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

Talk:292: goto

2014-12-30T20:35:47Z

199.27.133.107:

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

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

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

Talk:292: goto

2014-12-30T20:34:41Z

199.27.133.107:

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

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

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

Talk:1024: Error Code

2014-10-22T04:34:47Z

199.27.133.107:

The joke is probably that "sit by a lake" is the name of the tune corresponding with motherboard error -41

Motherboard error codes are not numbered like other error codes are. Motherboard error codes are just referred to by how the beeps sound (ex. 1 long, 2 short) [[User:Luke1042|Luke1042]]

Personally, of all motherboard beeping codes, I always liked "No beep = Power supply, system board problem, disconnected CPU, or disconnected speaker...." (Well, when not suffering it myself. And even then I could stand it when it was just the latter and thus of no ''immediate'' consequence...) [[Special:Contributions/31.111.103.76|31.111.103.76]] 22:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

: Well then, laptop computers dont beep at all, I guess that must mean that something is always missing --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.111|108.162.250.111]] 03:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

::Yes. You are missing a Desktop. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.60|108.162.216.60]] 20:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)BK201

This is one of my favourite xkcd comics, it makes me take a long breath and just chill out a bit. Probably the only comic that could be described as 'relaxing' [[Special:Contributions/77.103.5.201|77.103.5.201]] 20:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the beep codes thing is archaic. Most new computers built since the early to mid-2000s haven't made a beep - instead, the trend has been to rely on visual codes from built-in LEDs (and, later on, from pairs of eight-segment displays relaying hex codes). So a modern code will run from 00 to FF - but it will also be completely silent. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.216|141.101.81.216]] 11:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

: Every computer ever booted in my presence, some before many during and a few shortly after stated time period as well as several brand new this year, has beeped at the end of the POST, with one exception. That one would have beeped, but it's PC speaker was removed because it annoyed the owner. So I don't think hex code error indicators have quite made beepcodes "archaic".--[[User:guest|guest]] 08:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

::I built my own computer about a year ago, with a motherboard that was quite modern. It definitely uses beep codes. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.107|199.27.133.107]] 04:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The guy at the computer is [[Cueball]], isn't he? So Cuball and friend is the common way here. If not, the the category [[:Category:Comics featuring Cueball]] has also to be removed. But I don't see that. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone got any idea what the yellow things in the lake are? They look like they should be significant? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.94|141.101.104.94]] 05:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

: Those are lily pad flowers. Before they bloom they look like small balls, and some are yellow[https://www.google.com/search?q=yellow+lily+pad+flower&tbm=isch].

The guy at the computer should say at the first panel "That's UNhelpful" instead of "That's helpful", shouldn't he? Or maybe I don't know something in english? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.185|108.162.254.185]] 09:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's called a sarcastic comment, though it's technically irony. It's very common for english speaking people to say "well, that's helpful" when the intended understanding is exactly the opposite.--[[User:guest|guest]] 08:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)