explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3110: Global Ranking

2025-12-27T17:14:39Z

2001:4C4D:12CD:AB00:3470:4329:A9AA:A03F: /* Meta-leaderboard */ new section

I'm 1300 rated on chess.com, and it says I'm better than 93% of all players. Why, then, am I still called "Intermediate?" Shouldn't being better than 93% of players make you advanced? [[Special:Contributions/67.160.217.239|67.160.217.239]] 03:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
:Probably because Magnus Carlsen is 2839 in live rating right now and has been 2889.2 is 1300 chess.com even equivalent to FIDE 1300? I've been 1810s Lichess without the question mark for provisional rating which is equivalent to 1410s to 1510s chess.com and haven't even studied much chess. Like if someone plays a King or Queen's Gambit against me I don't know what to do beyond general opening principles. I know it's futile and bad to try to keep the Queen's Gambit pawn and both Queen's Gambit Accepted and Declined are good moves but I'm probably making a move at least as suboptimal as the Philidor Defense within the next few moves. I know Nf6 is most common top level response to 1d4 (I don't play 1d4) but I don't know what to do after that I seem to do better if I respond Double Queens Pawn Game. I don't know how to play or defend 1c4 I just know 1c4's not bad and can cause a reversed Sicilian. I sometimes have to resign endgames someone of my rating should win cause I don't know what to do and don't find out I'm fucked till after I do the fucked move. I independently rediscovered (not from being fucked like how I learned of Blackburne) some massive moves that crush folks as high as "defends weak tricks like Scholars" but they don't fall for it above a certain rating. Some Internet players are really bad. Not so much on lichess but on another site vs the lowest rateds I could eat rooks through fianchettoes without bishops or undefended b2/7 and g2/7 pawns or O-O-O check to knight fork king+rook then they move to the only square where I could then knight fork their K+other R even though every other legal move was far better crazy bad play like that. I think that was the guy who said he was "high on weed lol". The worst players will let you do things like queen to the side then fork K+R through the bishopless fianchetto (it's sometimes copying your i.e. g3 without knowing should fianchetto Bg2. It's really fun when you advance all pawns to same rank and they do they same 2 ranks over even though both are bad plans then you wreck them cause they're rated hundreds at best. Also really cool is when you X-ray attack or win a piece with a skewer or pawn fork or a player is so bad they let you move a piece in line with their king behind a shield even though they don't have to then you eat a defended piece with the shield piece by discovered check I've even done that with double check. Then I miss stronger play and go back to higher rated opponents. [[Special:Contributions/2600:387:15:4B31:0:0:0:6|2600:387:15:4B31:0:0:0:6]] 05:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
:The rating system used at chess.com is a variant of the {{w|Elo_rating_system|Elo rating system}} in use in organized chess since 1960. "Elo ratings measure the results within a closed pool of players rather than absolute skill." In the years BIE (Before the Internet Era), that "closed pool of players" consisted of those who participated in tournaments, a small subset of people who play chess. The ratings attempt to identify players of approximately equal skill level, useful for such things as tournament seedings or groupings, and it makes sense that the numbers established when the system was 'trained' primarily on tournament players have persisted to the present, despite the massive increase in the number of players in the pool, most of whom are of low skill. Thus, a 1300 ranking is "intermediate" in terms of tournament players, but in the 93rd percentile of all players. [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:A0C4:5767:423F:40FA|2605:59C8:160:DB08:A0C4:5767:423F:40FA]] 05:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
:Because you're intermediate between the people who are better than you and the people who are worse than you.[[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Unless the used chess platform prohibits users to create multiple accounts (and very effectively enforces that) and removes deceased players, it is very likely that there are fewer than 7,144,999 real persons ranked above Cueball. --[[Special:Contributions/134.102.219.31|134.102.219.31]] 13:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
: Maybe Cueball used a bot to create a few million of them so that he could game his way to the top of his meta-ranking. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 13:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
:: Stephen Pile, founder of the Not Terribly Good Club of Great Britain, was expelled for writing the bestselling Book of Heroic Failures. Likewise, I think being at the top of any leaderboard should disqualify you for Randall's meta leaderboard. I propose a meta meta leaderboard, based on scoring low on both the chess thing AND Randall's board. Pretty sure that everybody would score the same aggregate and would be both on top of AND at the bottom of this board, ex aequo. Easy to program, too.[[Special:Contributions/193.32.249.136|193.32.249.136]] 15:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
::: ''That'' takes me back. I actually got a copy of the BOHF as a prize, at school (''not'' entirely sure whether there was a hidden message there), possibly for a book review I did (I thought maybe it was my one of Foundation And Earth, but that wasn't even published until I was in a different place... so not that... or I failed temporal mechanics ''spectacularly''...). [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228|92.23.2.228]] 18:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

== Meta-leaderboard ==

Would a meta-leaderboard that ranks leaderboards by length be more interesting? (Obviously it could be placed in itself if long enough.) [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4D:12CD:AB00:3470:4329:A9AA:A03F|2001:4C4D:12CD:AB00:3470:4329:A9AA:A03F]] 17:14, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

2880: Sheet Bend

2025-12-27T16:55:13Z

2001:4C4D:12CD:AB00:3470:4329:A9AA:A03F: /* Explanation */ .

{{comic
| number = 2880
| date = January 12, 2024
| title = Sheet Bend
| image = sheet_bend_2x.png
| imagesize = 317x244px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = A left-handed sheet bend creates a much weaker connection, especially under moderate loads.
}}

==Explanation==
This is the seventh installment in the series of [[:Category:Cursed Connectors|Cursed Connectors]] and presents Cursed Connectors #46: The Sheet Bend. It follows [[2642: Meta-Alternating Current]] (#120) after about 1.5 years. This is the longest break between two connectors, and so far it is also the last to be released. At the time of release this was also the lowest number used for a cursed connector, replacing [[2495: Universal Seat Belt]] (#65) (with [[2507: USV-C]] (#280) being the one with the highest number).

This comic shows two double-core cables being joined in a knot to make an electrical connection. The knot used to tie the two halves of the cable is a {{w|sheet bend}}, which is often used to join two ropes of different thicknesses, and explains the name for this type of cursed connector, which seems to be made by ensuring each cable end is terminated with identical electrical connections to the outer sleeving in a manner similar to various 'ring' connections in {{w|Phone connector (audio)|'phone' connectors}}, but as significantly longer and more separated sleeves.

In contrast to more normal methods, [[Randall]] has proposed yet another of his 'cursed' connectors. This one requires ''no'' additional plugs, sockets, enclosures or even tools to use. Any two cables with such ends can be brought together and simply knotted together. This particular knot, and the specific spacing of its two external conductors, appears to be chosen in order to rather elegantly create consistent connections between the respective contacts, with a minimum of fuss.

However, there are potentially many unaddressed but conspicuous problems with this connection method, thus rendering it a 'cursed' connector. Among the issues are:
* The need to have suitable ends to any cables, which would involve issues in the manufacture (and the materials used) as cable's cores must be separately tapped and reliably connected to an external length of conductive sleeving.
* The consistent ability of a cabler to tie the correct knot, which is a skill that will need practice. Done wrongly the electrical connections may not be made correctly, or at all (including as discussed in the title text).
* Even if initially tied correctly, knots can slip or distort when subsequently pulled more taut.
* Even if the user is a competent and consistent knot-tier, this is inherently more effort, and therefore less convenient, than the more usual practice of simply pushing two connectors together.
* The external conducting patches of the cable are an uncommon feature of electrical junctions, with issues in both high-power and low-power situations.
** If the cables are supposed to carry high voltages, any bare conductors ought to be safely isolated from easy contact with equipment/people. In particular, plugs and sockets that carry anything approaching mains-voltages have active and passive elements integrated which protect the person connecting or disconnecting the equipment. There is no physical precaution visible to protect the person tying or untying the cable from potential shock. Instead, they must rely upon the ''other'' end of the potentially 'live' cable being disconnected. And, when left unattended, there would continue to be a high risk of injury (including death), fire or more basic damage due to the lack of any proper physical isolation.
** Low-voltage cables that pass signals between equipment (e.g. networking data or audio signals) are susceptible to external contact disrupting the flow. Random static charges, built up and transfered into the connector, instead make other equipment or people the potential threat to the cabled-up equipment, causing disruption to the normal purpose of the cable, where a more standard plug-and-socket/hard-wired connection would not.
* The bending, twisting and rubbing of the cables each time the cables are connected and disconnected will very likely cause wear and damage over time.
* The knot provides a possible snag point by which the cable could be caught; anything which catches or tugs on the knot could cause disconnection.

The title text says that a left-handed sheet bend would provide a weaker connection. The difference between a left-handed and right-handed sheet knot is that the two free ends of the knotted 'cords' are in the same orientation for a right-handed sheet knot (here, both on the lower side of the image), but on opposite sides for a left-handed sheet knot. A left-handed sheet bend provides less strength to the knot, due to the possibility of distorting (e.g. {{w|Knot#Capsizing|''capsizing''}}) and/or allowing one or both cables to pull through the knot.

This makes the title text a pun on the double meaning of "moderate load", which could be a moderate amount of physical tension applied through the cables ''or'' a moderate amount of electrical current passing through them. Together, it would be expected that tension drawing two conductive surfaces together would create less resistance between them, strengthening the electrical connection as well, but only if the knot holds as expected.

A knot was also the subject of the relatively recent [[2738: Omniknot]].

==Transcript==
:[Above the drawing there is a header. Below the header there is a double-core wire going in from the left and stopping just past the middle of the picture. It shows how the inside of the wire looks and how the silver and golden wires inside are connected to two rectangular pieces of silver and golden material respectively. The golden piece is to the left and the silver piece to the right, closest to the end of the wire. Beneath this wire is shown two double-core wires forming a knot of the sheet bend type. Here it becomes clear that the silver and golden pieces are on the outside of the wires (but connected to the wires running inside the wires). In the knotted part of the wires gold touches gold and silver touches silver, without them touching the other color. Beneath this knot there is a label for the connector.]
:Cursed Connectors #46:
:The Sheet Bend

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Cursed Connectors]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]