explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1252: Increased Risk

2013-08-16T12:33:05Z

76.64.65.200:

I think this is to address the old chestnut of "<something> will ''double'' your risk of getting cancer!", or the like, where the risk of getting that cancer (in this example) is maybe 1 in 10,000, so doubling the risk across a population wouldmake that a 1 in 5,000 risk to your health... which you may still consider to be an acceptable gamble if it's something nice (like cheese!) that's apaprently to blame and you'd find abstinence from it gives a barely marginal benefit for a far greater loss of life enjoyment. Also, this sort of figure almost always applies towards a ''specific form'' of cancer, or whatever risk is being discussed, meaning you aren't vastly changing your life expectancy at all. In fact, the likes of opposing "red wine is good/bad for you" studies can be mutually true by this same principle (gain a little risk of one condition, lose a little risk from another). (Note: I don't know of any particular "cheese gives you cancer!" stories doing the rounds, at the moment. I bet they have done, but I only mention it because I actually quite like cheese. And I probably ''wouldn't'' give it up under the above conditions.)

It's also possible that this covers the likes of "<foo> in <country> is 10 times more dangerous than it is <other country>" statements. Perhaps ''only'' ten incidents happened in the former, and a single instance in the latter, out the ''whole'' of each respective country. Or a single incident occured in both, but the second country is ten times the size, so gets 'adjusted for population' in the tables. And, besides which, that was just for one year and was just a statistical blip that will probably revert-towards-the-mean next year.

Finally, for a given risk of some incident happening on the first two trips, with no 'memory' or build-up involved, it pretty much is half-as-likely-again for the incident to have happened (some time!) in three separate trips. (Not quite, if those that lose against the odds and get caught by the incident the first or second trip never get to ''have'' a (second or) third trip... but for negligable odds like thegiven example, of the dog with the handgun, it's near-as-damnit so.) [[Special:Contributions/178.104.103.140|178.104.103.140]] 11:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Where did "dogs with shotguns" come from? I only saw "handgun" in the comic. Besides, I interpreted the risk as being hit by a negligent discharge from the handgun, not being deliberately attacked by the dog. Also, since probabilities are the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 inclusive, there are an uncountable number of them. "A x% increase in a tiny risk is still tiny" is an inductive statement, which means it could only be used to argue that a countable set of numbers is tiny. [[Special:Contributions/76.64.65.200|76.64.65.200]] 12:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1252: Increased Risk

2013-08-16T12:24:20Z

76.64.65.200:

I think this is to address the old chestnut of "<something> will ''double'' your risk of getting cancer!", or the like, where the risk of getting that cancer (in this example) is maybe 1 in 10,000, so doubling the risk across a population wouldmake that a 1 in 5,000 risk to your health... which you may still consider to be an acceptable gamble if it's something nice (like cheese!) that's apaprently to blame and you'd find abstinence from it gives a barely marginal benefit for a far greater loss of life enjoyment. Also, this sort of figure almost always applies towards a ''specific form'' of cancer, or whatever risk is being discussed, meaning you aren't vastly changing your life expectancy at all. In fact, the likes of opposing "red wine is good/bad for you" studies can be mutually true by this same principle (gain a little risk of one condition, lose a little risk from another). (Note: I don't know of any particular "cheese gives you cancer!" stories doing the rounds, at the moment. I bet they have done, but I only mention it because I actually quite like cheese. And I probably ''wouldn't'' give it up under the above conditions.)

It's also possible that this covers the likes of "<foo> in <country> is 10 times more dangerous than it is <other country>" statements. Perhaps ''only'' ten incidents happened in the former, and a single instance in the latter, out the ''whole'' of each respective country. Or a single incident occured in both, but the second country is ten times the size, so gets 'adjusted for population' in the tables. And, besides which, that was just for one year and was just a statistical blip that will probably revert-towards-the-mean next year.

Finally, for a given risk of some incident happening on the first two trips, with no 'memory' or build-up involved, it pretty much is half-as-likely-again for the incident to have happened (some time!) in three separate trips. (Not quite, if those that lose against the odds and get caught by the incident the first or second trip never get to ''have'' a (second or) third trip... but for negligable odds like thegiven example, of the dog with the handgun, it's near-as-damnit so.) [[Special:Contributions/178.104.103.140|178.104.103.140]] 11:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Where did "dogs with shotguns" come from? I only saw "handgun" in the comic. Besides, I interpreted the risk as being hit by a negligent discharge from the handgun, not being deliberately attacked by the dog. [[Special:Contributions/76.64.65.200|76.64.65.200]] 12:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1247: The Mother of All Suspicious Files

2013-08-05T13:43:57Z

76.64.65.200: Created page with "LNK and ZDA...Link and Zelda? ~~~~"

LNK and ZDA...Link and Zelda? [[Special:Contributions/76.64.65.200|76.64.65.200]] 13:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1246: Pale Blue Dot

2013-08-03T01:21:32Z

76.64.65.200:

To call this a "simple call for funding for space exploration" completely misses the point of the Ba'al theology with which it is intertwined.

:I think it completely misses all the points of the comic. --[[User:Kronf|Kronf]] ([[User talk:Kronf|talk]]) 11:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

:This comic makes philosophical claims that cannot be falsified. Randall can't be serious about the soul eater. That's so dark. Theology? Sort of. But quite undeveloped. More like mythology. Does make one wonder: Why is there ''really'' something rather than nothing? ''— [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 12:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)''

:Took at shot at adding something on this. (Long-time reader, first-time editor. Will create account at some point.) --[[Special:Contributions/173.13.203.241|173.13.203.241]] 14:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

:(I wrote the following this morning, before anyone else had made any Talk/Discussion points, but then rushed out without saving it properly. Probably now not relevent, but here you are anyway...)
:"This is a simple call for funding of space exploration."??? I'd say that (whatever Randall, and I, think about the importance of funding space research) it's more an affectionate parody of the "Consider this pale blue dot..." speech, which it subverts by suggesting that arguably the ''most'' intellectually interesting image of the planet is indistinguishable from a manufacturing error in a LCD array (presumably in a computer projector) ''or'' from the kind of photo you get when you don't take the lens-cap off of a digital camera. Or so my take on it, is... [[Special:Contributions/178.98.215.19|178.98.215.19]] 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
::I did a deeper explain later, but Ba'an connects to this sentence. So that has to be explained, too. But in general you are correct.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Randall is talking about Stargate and the character {{w|Ba'al_(Stargate)#Ba.27al|Ba'al (Stargate)}}. This even does make more sense on the last sentence at the title text. While we have two theories on this the comic is incomplete.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
: I disagree. I don't believe Ba'al from Stargate was ever called "Ba'al the Annihilator" or "Ba'al, the Eater of Souls". I think Randall's just making up it up. [[Special:Contributions/76.64.65.200|76.64.65.200]] 17:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
: I also disagree, though the description as stands is currently incorrect. "Ba'al" is not a specific deity in the Northwest Semitic pantheon, certainly not one "associated with demonic or otherwise evil forces", it's a title that had been used for several different deities. However the name is often included in Jewish and Christian demonology where it probably got its "evil" connotation. [[Special:Contributions/69.28.44.231|69.28.44.231]] 18:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
::I absolutely disagree to you. Randall calls the US Congress for a higher budget, just to enhance our level on space technology. This really does not map to historical religions. And: Ba'an at Stargate is also a Lord. My two NASA budget cents.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
::: My disagreement with your suggestion didn't owe anything to the objections I raised about the historicity of the term "Ba'al". I don't think that his reference was to any specific deity in any particular pantheon, fictional or otherwise. The whole point of the alt-text is an ironic context for the motivation for space exploration; Sagan especially was an advocate of space exploration for the sake of knowledge and human progress, so the quasi-religious/mystical and nihilistic mantra here is in stark contrast to that (expected) rationale for exploration, and I think it's fitting given the initial premise: the insignificance of Earth against the cosmos. I really don't see the clause "to join with Ba'al" having anything to do with 'leading humans to the same technology level Ba'al' since it assumes Ba'al is a technological entity which only stems from the Stargate interpretation. [[Special:Contributions/69.28.44.231|69.28.44.231]] 20:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
::: ^ +1. About Stargate, I can't claim to know what happens in season 9 and 10, but I've seen every episode in 1-8 and I've never seen him referred to as "Ba'al the Annihilator" or "Ba'al, Eater of Souls". I grant that the Ba'al from Stargate is a System Lord, and a pretty badass one, but how does that help you prove your point? If Randall was trying to allude to Stargate, I think it would be much more obvious, like "Lord Ba'al" or something. The name "Ba'al" has been present in mythology long before Stargate used it. [[Special:Contributions/76.64.65.200|76.64.65.200]] 01:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1246: Pale Blue Dot

2013-08-02T17:25:49Z

76.64.65.200: