explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:949: File Transfer

2017-05-05T01:22:38Z

Boct1584:

About three years ago, I stumbled across this comic during an xkcd re-read, and I immediately thought "Hey, the small business I work for could make GREAT use of Dropbox!" Today, my boss says that bringing Dropbox to her business is one of the best ideas I've ever had. [[User:Boct1584|Boct1584]] ([[User talk:Boct1584|talk]]) 01:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Years ago the usb drive was a floppy disc and the transfer was called "sneaker net".
This "solution" is much, much older than the web.
Also, why would TBL shed a tear? What's an HTML server got to do with file sharing? Do you think Randall meant Tommy Flowers?{{unsigned|‎188.29.119.251}}
:You are right. I deleted the sentence about Tim Berners-Lee, because the comic shows a perfectly legitimate use of the internet: transferring a 25 Mb file, which is much complicated than it should be. [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 21:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
:He wasn't really right, and the title text should still be explained. I have done so. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 20:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Just split the file into two pieces and send them in two emails. [[Special:Contributions/123.24.93.198|123.24.93.198]] 10:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
:With a chisel? Not everybody has a chisel around the house, these days. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 20:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually Dropbox has [https://www.dropbox.com/home a web interface], you don't need to download any program. Still, both need to have Dropbox account. --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 15:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
:Yes. Yes, you do. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 20:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Guys, dropbox supports link-sharing, for users without an account. Although, that feature probably wasn't around at the time this comic
was written. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.73|173.245.55.73]] 02:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Duke: I THINK that the TIM BERNERS LEE part is not just to do with the protocols. If you had to send it to your friend's laptop , you *could* mail it your friends email id rather than to yourself, essentially using the email service in the *right* manner. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.237|141.101.81.237]] 07:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hah, now we have darkhttp. Just download and install (a matter of seconds), execute (give root-of-to-share folder) and forward the ports on your router (2mins max). This should be rather easy :-). Alternatives could be also tftp etc. Or send something via GDrive^^[[Special:Contributions/108.162.253.174|108.162.253.174]] 10:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:949: File Transfer

2017-05-05T01:22:01Z

Boct1584:

About three years ago, I stumbled across this comic during an xkcd re-read, and I immediately thought "Hey, the small business I work for could make GREAT use of Dropbox!" Today, my boss says that bringing Dropbox to her business is one of the best ideas I've ever had. [[User:Boct1584|Boct1584]] ([[User talk:Boct1584|talk]]) 01:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Years ago the usb drive was a floppy disc and the transfer was called "sneaker net".
This "solution" is much, much older than the web.
Also, why would TBL shed a tear? What's an HTML server got to do with file sharing? Do you think Randall meant Tommy Flowers?{{unsigned|‎188.29.119.251}}
:You are right. I deleted the sentence about Tim Berners-Lee, because the comic shows a perfectly legitimate use of the internet: transferring a 25 Mb file, which is much complicated than it should be. [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 21:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
:He wasn't really right, and the title text should still be explained. I have done so. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 20:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Just split the file into two pieces and send them in two emails. [[Special:Contributions/123.24.93.198|123.24.93.198]] 10:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
:With a chisel? Not everybody has a chisel around the house, these days. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 20:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually Dropbox has [https://www.dropbox.com/home a web interface], you don't need to download any program. Still, both need to have Dropbox account. --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 15:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
:Yes. Yes, you do. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 20:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Guys, dropbox supports link-sharing, for users without an account. Although, that feature probably wasn't around at the time this comic
was written. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.73|173.245.55.73]] 02:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Duke: I THINK that the TIM BERNERS LEE part is not just to do with the protocols. If you had to send it to your friend's laptop , you *could* mail it your friends email id rather than to yourself, essentially using the email service in the *right* manner. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.237|141.101.81.237]] 07:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hah, now we have darkhttp. Just download and install (a matter of seconds), execute (give root-of-to-share folder) and forward the ports on your router (2mins max). This should be rather easy :-). Alternatives could be also tftp etc. Or send something via GDrive^^[[Special:Contributions/108.162.253.174|108.162.253.174]] 10:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1314: Photos

2015-08-20T19:25:11Z

Boct1584:

Having my first experience with a White Hat-like person as we speak. Specifically, he's complaining that I'm playing in a Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition campaign instead of a 3.5/Pathfinder campaign. [[User:Boct1584|Boct1584]] ([[User talk:Boct1584|talk]]) 19:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a reference to this video or one of many of the same ilk.
http://www.artthesystem.com/2013/12/after-i-saw-this-i-put-down-my-phone.html?m=1

Which is doing the rounds on social media sites at the moment {{unsigned|‎Gernant}}

Heard on a french radio show (Les grosses têtes) : A study made on student split in two group in an exposition : one group would photograph what they like, another one would photograph a certain set of pictures.
The study found that the ones who could photograph pictures they like, wasn't able to remember the pictures they liked.
The ones who wasn't able to photograph picture they liked, remembered it better.
I don't have link, sry, but white hat is proven right in this case. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.189|173.245.53.189]] 09:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Juluan

:I think BOTH have point here. Trying to document your life IS distracting, especially if you overdo it (and make a lot of selfies), on the other hand it IS possible to enjoy your life and still take pictures. Except if something happens only once and quick: in that case, if you try to take picture, you won't be able to enjoy it ... and you might fail to take the picture in correct moment anyway. I recommend video in such case :-). -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

::Agreed, both are right. If you want to take an abundance of photos, go ahead. '''However''', there are limits. If your doing so would spoil it for someone else, then limit yourself. Practice the same basic courtesy that should prevent you from talking out loud or texting during a movie. You're in a public place with other people who want to enjoy what's going on. They came to see the concert, not a sea of glowing rectangles (making a recording which will never be watched). [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.89|199.27.128.89]] 18:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

::I thought of that study, too... The first valid link I found was http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/is-facebook-making-us-forget-study-shows-that-taking-pictures-ruin-memories-8994917.html (of course being hampered by various variations of each of "memory" and "photograph" not being ''very'' rare in combination ( GoogleFu Golf, anyone? ;) ), but once I got there I found it was widely covered in the online media). But I'm not sure whether this inspired Randall in this case, because of (or even ''despite'') the off-kilter reinterpretation. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.223|141.101.99.223]] 18:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
:PS: The title text seems like obvious irony to me. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

::The same could be said of many things. If you approach every social interaction as an opportunity to promote your campaign for mayor, or you duck out every few minutes for a cigarette, or you keep thinking you'd rather be at home watching the game and it's not like you need to be here anyway because these are all ''her'' friends, you're going to be similarly distracted. It's not about cell phones, it's about priorities. I've spent several dinners with friends sitting around a table all looking at our phones, but we're not ignoring each other, we're sharing pictures and playing board games together. [[User:Fryhole|Fryhole]] ([[User talk:Fryhole|talk]]) 19:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I remember taking a few photographs of food that is WAY too fabulous in presentation. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 16:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
: Just my opinion, but taking pictures of food-as-art makes more sense than taking pictures of your dinner. [[User:Fryhole|Fryhole]] ([[User talk:Fryhole|talk]]) 19:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to know Black-Hat's opinion on the subject. --[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 18:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

:I'll try to channel my inner Black Hat to answer that: "Being a trained photographer teaches you to limit your perception to what you see through the lens and to think about how your picture is going look, and you lose sight of the bigness of the sunset and the feeling of the moment. But being camera free you're always going to wonder what the cameraman captures in the mechanical process of handling the camera, in the task of composing the picture in their head and in the frozen slice of sunset they get to keep. No matter how you try to enjoy the magic of the sunset, you're going to miss something that no one will ever be able to share with you, and see something you'll never be able to share with anyone else." [[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.8|141.101.81.8]] 21:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

::That doesn't sound much like Black Hat to me. Wouldn't he just try to steal the camera? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 01:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

::: I think that Black Hat would be more "Being a trained photographer teaches you to limit your perception to what you see through the lens and to think about how your picture is going look, and you lose sight of me stealing your car." [[User:Kyt|Kyt]] ([[User talk:Kyt|talk]]) 02:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Did anyone even read that abstract ( http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/12/04/0956797613504438.abstract ) ? It actually supported Cueball more than it did White Hat. If you just take a picture *instead* of looking seriously at the subject, then yes of course you won't have strong memories of it. But if you analyse the subject with the purpose of taking an effective picture, then there is no such impairment. Plus, you have a photograph. I'm removing the 'great irony' part of the explanation. Note that the rest of it is still very poor. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 02:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to improve it - sorry I still don't like it much, but perhaps others can pile on. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 02:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That just means they're both right (sans the 'correcting' peoples experience, but they're both guilty of it so moot point). White hat only edges out because his original posit was simply taking pictures robs you of memory, while Cueball was talking about ''trying'' to take pictures ignoring White Hats argument and going off on a tangent (ala White Hat). {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.117}}
:Not a tangent. He said "instead of just enjoying the view", as in "only enjoy the view". He presented a false dichotomy, and Cueball called him out. Basically, White Hat's argument was built on false premises from the beginning. Instead of addressing the argument directly (which was pointless given the false premises), he proceeded to smash away those premises by showing that you can easily do both, and possibly both more effectively than separate. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 16:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with this statement: ''This is expressed through irony by counter-statement. For just a few extra seconds, it must be admitted.'' Yes it is irony, but I believe the previous explanation was better. Here it was stated that the irony was to show how silly White hats problem with the sunset was - because his reason for it, would be as silly as this one with the chewing. I do not believe at all that this should be something Randall means. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Another commendable hidden-recursion-themed strip: Cueball is ultimately merely one-upping White Hat. White Hat enjoys directly experiencing life, but does not enjoy documenting life. But the thing White Hat enjoys most of all is spotting others "doing it wrong." Cueball, in turn, opines that by doing so, White Hat is also "doing it wrong." However, unlike White Hat, who appreciates all the wrong-doing from a distance, Cueball becomes indignant and confronts White Hat. Now who's the condescending stranger? But then: the well-timed "click," suggesting that Cueball's rant was dissimulation, with the true intent of putting White Hat off-balance for a photo op. If Cueball had facial features, I expect that we'd see the knowing smirk of "I see your game, and I too can play it. But when I do it, I take photos." Brilliant again, Randall! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.52|108.162.237.52]] 16:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:621: Superlative

2015-06-26T14:38:15Z

Boct1584:

A clever comic, but makes it all too clear to me how much more like this guy I am, than Dos Equis man. Cut it out, Randall! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 20:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only one who never saw the Dos Equis commercials when they were on TV, and thought upon seeing ''The Most Interesting Man In The World'' in Internet meme-age, that it was actually ''George Zimmer, Founder & CEO of The Men's Wearhouse''? [[User:Boct1584|Boct1584]] ([[User talk:Boct1584|talk]]) 14:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:621: Superlative

2015-06-26T14:37:45Z

Boct1584:

Talk:291: Dignified

2015-05-04T11:21:20Z

Boct1584:

I don't understand the, "We need a template for what-if" in the Incomplete tag. I don't really deem this incomplete, but I'd need another opinion to remove it. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 18:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
:It's removed.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
::Dgbrt, just Google "Harrison Ford staples hat" and you'll see what I was talking about. Evidently it was a scene in the "Making of" special. 173.245.54.62 08:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Harrison Ford fan
What would the equivalent phrase be for someone who was delivered by Cesarean section? [[User:Boct1584|Boct1584]] ([[User talk:Boct1584|talk]]) 11:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1328: Update

2015-04-21T17:09:27Z

Boct1584:

Note that 1.) web browsers usually can remember opened tabs (and even scroll position) and reopen them automatically on start, and/or ask if reopen those tabs if browser was not closed cleanly 2.) MS Windows tries to reopen apps closed during "upgrade reboot" --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 07:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
:Yes, browsers can remember the last tabs you have open, but may require the user to enable that option as it's off by default (with Chrome anyway - as was my experience). I usually leave it off because I don't necessarily want the last 5 tabs I had open to open automatically the next time I want to start my browser to do something completely different. If (my) Chrome browser crashes however (or otherwise does not close cleanly), it will ask me if I want to restore my previous session, which may include multiple tabs and browsing positions. =8o) [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
:Windows does not reopen apps that it closed before an upgrade (at best it has an option to reopen Explorer windows in the same state if the user enables it.) As for Chrome saving tabs, it can be often flaky especially when using multiple windows combined with multiple profiles. This is moot since in Real Life™ users generally don't trust these features, when they are even aware of them. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
: While browsers remember opened tabs, it's flakey. Some browsers in the "now remembering tabs" era were sometimes inconsistent on whether they should remember tabs (Chrome), some didn't give an option to manually exit with/without remembering tabs (Firefox/Chrome), some didn't preserve form input (Opera), etc. It behaves more like a screwed-on hack rather than a fully functional feature. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.240.6|108.162.240.6]] 14:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jakub, thanks for bringing it up. I knew about it, but for the sake of brevity decided to leave it out. Hooray for my first explanation btw! --[[User:Akha|Akha]] ([[User talk:Akha|talk]]) 08:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

While one interpretation is that users would push back even a critical update, the cynical me read it the other way around: that most updates labelled as critical and notified with "!"s and yellow triangles are actually not that urgent and naturally the user desensibilizes. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.201|173.245.53.201]] 11:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

:Note also that browsers are ones of VERY FEW application who can reopen exactly what you had open before restart, and even them usually fail to preserve form content. Also, physical problem is not likely to occur just after the patch was created: only problem which would really need immediate patching would be security problem related to virus just spreading, in which case it would probably be too late when the window appear anyway. So, in all cases, pressing "remind me later" and finishing your work as soon as possible is the most logical course of action regarding critical update. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a sad day when non-kernel updates require a reboot. [[User:Chrisp6825|Chrisp6825]] ([[User talk:Chrisp6825|talk]]) 13:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the comic has less to do with the time a reboot takes, and more to do with losing the user's current state [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.46|173.245.54.46]] 16:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the last comment. It's not about the time it takes to reboot. It's about the current state of things. If you have a bunch of apps running in different virtual desktops, then a lot of these won't be configured exactly as they were before rebooting. By the way, updates for OS X are exactly the same, with the exception that they're not downloaded automatically. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.57}}

My initial interpretation was that Cueball doesn't want to reboot his laptop because rebooting increases the risk of a random electrical fire. --[[User:Rael|Rael]] ([[User talk:Rael|talk]]) 21:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
:Well that's why we have this twiki.... 'cause you're dumb. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.74|108.162.229.74]] 02:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
:Actually, that's a pretty smart explanation. I couldn't have put it to better words. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.59|108.162.219.59]] 14:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If I was faced with such an update notification, I would probably have it download and install itself, but not reboot until tonight when I'm going to shut down anyway. I find it really annoying when Windoze does things like complain about updates and run virus scans right after booting up, which just makes loading up whatever software I want to use (i.e. web browsers) take even longer. I would much rather have it use my CPU time while I was, say, Web browsing or maybe programming (but not compiling... hmm...), or, better yet, asleep. Also, Linux. --[[User:Someone Else 37|Someone Else 37]] ([[User talk:Someone Else 37|talk]]) 04:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"Laptop fire" reminds me of that silly but popular phenomenon in space operas: in case the own ship is hit by some enemies "rays",
inevitably fire will spark from keybords and monitors in the command room. Georg [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.171|173.245.53.171]] 09:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExplosiveInstrumentation [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 20:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The usual lot of nonsense in the comments. Why don't we talk about how to improve the explanation? Arguing that browsers remember open tabs, or advertising Linux, or going into excruciating detail how you would react in this situation, is ludicrously off the point. The following points are made by this comic:
* Windows is always banging on about something, usually incredibly unimportant.
* Even if it is important (as here) we may just skim the explanation (because of the first point) and not even realize what it is saying
* Even if we do understand it, we don't want to be interrupted during our work (or our not-work) as we hate being inconvenienced in any way
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 21:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The nonsense is in the comic! The user knows about that the fire is almost impossible from software (mis-)function {{unsigned ip|173.245.53.154}}

Possible reference to Microsoft's monthly security patch on the second Tuesday of each month, having been posted the day before the second Tuesday of February 2014. [[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] ([[User talk:Quetzalcoatl|talk]]) 22:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

;Dubious statement in explanation
"The joke goes further because a software update mostly can't prevent any hardware failures like burning laptop batteries. This specific update is just nonsense."

It's quite possible for software to put hardware into a state which damages it. In an ideal world hardware would have protection against this but sometimes the protection is either missing or incorrectly set. This sort of thing CAN be worked around in software, if you know what the bad states are you can avoid ever putting the hardware into them.

Burning laptop batteries are an extreme example but not completely implausible.

-- plugwash

:This actually happened a few years ago. A poorly-written driver (among other issues) caused some Nvidia laptop GPUs to get so hot that they'd cause the cases of some laptops to warp. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.44|108.162.219.44]] 07:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

:I think the point here is that no matter how severe the problem being fixed, the presence of a "bunch of stuff open" makes a reboot unthinkable. {{unsigned ip|199.27.130.204}}

Two things: software can absolutely cause/prevent a fire if the hardware is capable of it. Software is what runs the controllers that handle charging for modern rechargeable batteries (well, it may be firmware, but the point is that it's not hardwired). If the charging software doesn't do it's job right, a Li-Ion battery can overcharge and literally catch fire. Likewise, it's software that tells the CPU or GPU to throttle down if it gets too hot and the cooling systems can't keep up. And, at an extreme, in principle the software could perhaps force the hardware to do something out of it's capabilities, like try to direct too much current over some internal connection, thus overheating nearby elements.

The other thing is that the latest version (or two?) of OS X will auto-resume pretty much everything when you reboot, even if it's a crash rather than intentional. I've had a dozen apps, including a webbrowser with a couple dozen tabs open, running, when my laptop crashed or I accidentally ran it out of juice. When I restarted it everything was back right where I left it, including unsaved documents and comments-in-process on webpages. I suspect that exactly this behavior is part of why Apple implemented that. I certainly know that I'm more inclined to install updates the first time I see them on my laptop for exactly that reason (vs. my desktop, which is running 10.6 and thus doesn't have auto-resume). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.31|108.162.216.31]] 15:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

:I should've said: this auto-resume behavior on OS X even succeeds through system updates (and every other update that has required reboot), IME. The only time I didn't get everything back right where I left it was with a major update (10.8.x-->10.9). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.31|108.162.216.31]] 15:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

i think that many people are forgetting about OS X's Resume feature. [[User:InAndOutLand|InAndOutLand]] ([[User talk:InAndOutLand|talk]]) 03:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

With Windows 8, there is no option to restart when you want to restart; you either restart immediately, or Windows will do it for you 24 hours later. I've actually lost reports I was typing at work because of this, since I typically just put my workstation on Standby when I leave for the day. [[User:Boct1584|Boct1584]] ([[User talk:Boct1584|talk]]) 17:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

1430: Proteins

2015-04-21T01:08:15Z

Boct1584: /* Explanation */ (Cleaning up wording on "hard computational problem" and "can I make cuts?")

{{comic
| number = 1430
| date = October 6, 2014
| title = Proteins
| image = proteins.png
| titletext = Check it out--when I tug the C-terminal tail, the binding tunnel squeezes!
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic, [[Cueball]] is asking [[Megan]] what she does, to which she replies that she works on software to predict protein folding. There are many folding prediction software programs. Some of the most well known are {{w|Folding@Home}}, {{w|Rosetta@Home}} and {{w|FoldIt}}.

{{w|Protein folding}} is the process by which proteins, which are floppy, unstructured chains of {{w|amino acids}} when initially synthesized in a cell, assume a stable, functional shape. If the folding process does not complete, or completes incorrectly, the resulting protein can be inactive or even toxic to the body. Misfolded proteins are responsible for several {{w|neurodegenerative}} diseases, including {{w|Alzheimer's disease}}, {{w|amyotrophic lateral sclerosis}} (ALS), and {{w|Parkinson's disease}}, as well as some non-neurodegenerative diseases such as cardiac amyloidosis.

Cueball asks Megan why it is such a hard computational problem; Megan's response is to ask Cueball if he's ever {{w|Origami|folded paper}} to make a {{w|Crane (bird)|crane}}. When he responds in the affirmative, she then compares the problem of predicting protein folding to creating a ''living'' crane by the paper-folding process. The analogy is that a protein cannot just fold to a figurative representation of a bio-molecule, the way a paper crane superficially resembles a live crane; the protein must assume an exact, perfect fold in order to be functional.

{{w|Levinthal's paradox}} is a thought experiment, also constituting a self-reference in the theory of protein folding. In 1969, Cyrus Levinthal noted that, because of the very large number of degrees of freedom in an unfolded polypeptide chain, the molecule has an astronomical number of possible conformations. For example, a polypeptide of 100 {{w|Residue (chemistry)|residue}}s will have 99 peptide bonds, and therefore 198 different {{w|Dihedral angle|phi and psi bond angles}}. If each of these bond angles can be in one of three stable conformations, the protein may misfold into a maximum of 3^198 different conformations (including any possible folding redundancy). Therefore if a protein were to attain its correctly folded configuration by sequentially sampling all the possible conformations, it would require a time longer than the age of the universe to arrive at its correct native conformation. This is true even if conformations are sampled at rapid (nanosecond or picosecond) rates. The "paradox" is that most small proteins fold spontaneously on a millisecond or even microsecond time scale. This paradox is central to computational approaches to protein structure prediction.

As Cueball mentally turns over the hypothetical process of folding paper to make a living crane, he wonders if he is allowed to perhaps "cut" the paper to make more complicated folds available. Megan replies "if you can fold a Protease enzyme;" these are proteins whose job it is to break down (i.e. "cut") other proteins, often in very specific ways. In this manner, Protease enzymes are analogous to extremely specialized scissors, so Megan is effectively saying "You can make cuts if you can fold yourself a pair of scissors."

Of course, when trying to predict the folding trajectory in nature of a protein A, and one is allowed to make cuts during the process, one is making the assumption that the Protease that cut protein A is already folded and functional. In other words, making cuts while folding might actually make the process ''more'' complicated, not less, as now you have to consider how the cutting enzyme is folded, too.

In origami, purists [http://www.barf.cc/jeremy/origami/BOOK/essays/origami_purism/origami_purism.htm] considered it as cheating if you cut the paper or use more than one sheet of paper, which is why Cueball asked if he was 'allowed' to do such in the hypothetical exercise they are discussing.

The title text refers to the result of folding a flapping bird in origami. By pulling the tail, the head will move forward and down. However, since the joke is about folding proteins, this idea is extrapolated to include the folded proteins. The C-terminus (end of the protein chain), in this case analogous of the tail, if "pulled" would cause a created cavity or tunnel to squeeze, much like pulling a knot would do the same.

{{w|Folding@Home}} (F@H) is a distributed computing project which aims to simulate protein folding for research purposes. Rather than the traditional model of using a supercomputer for computation, the project uses idle processing power of a network of personal computers in order to achieve massive computing power. Individuals can join the project by installing the F@H software (there is also a web version that can be run using Google Chrome) and are then able to track their contribution to the project. Individual members may join together as a team, with leaderboards measuring team and individual contributions.

Note that most modern computers do not "waste" computing time as much as older ones. They dynamically reduce their clock speed and other power consumption at times of low usage. If you donate computer time, you are probably also donating a bit of money to the cause in the form of your electricity bill. Many people consider this to be more fun, convenient and efficient than donating via credit card.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is talking with Megan.]
:Cueball: What do you do?
:Megan: I make software that predicts how proteins will fold.
:Cueball: Is that a hard problem?
:Megan: Someone may someday find a harder one.
:Cueball: Why is it so hard?
:Megan: Have you ever made a folded paper crane?
:Cueball: Yeah.
:Megan: Imagine figuring out the folds to make an actual living crane.
:Cueball: ...just folds? Can I make cuts?
:Megan: If you can fold a protease enzyme.

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

1430: Proteins

2015-04-20T16:14:25Z

Boct1584: /* Explanation */ (Added mention of F@H in Chrome)

{{comic
| number = 1430
| date = October 6, 2014
| title = Proteins
| image = proteins.png
| titletext = Check it out--when I tug the C-terminal tail, the binding tunnel squeezes!
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic, [[Cueball]] is asking [[Megan]] what she does, to which she replies that she works on software to predict protein folding. There are many folding prediction software programs. Some of the most well known are {{w|Folding@Home}}, {{w|Rosetta@Home}} and {{w|FoldIt}}.

{{w|Protein folding}} is the process by which proteins, which are floppy, unstructured chains of {{w|amino acids}} when initially synthesized in a cell, assume a stable, functional shape. If the folding process does not complete, or completes incorrectly, the resulting protein can be inactive or even toxic to the body. Misfolded proteins are responsible for several {{w|neurodegenerative}} diseases, including {{w|Alzheimer's disease}}, {{w|amyotrophic lateral sclerosis}} (ALS), and {{w|Parkinson's disease}}, as well as some non-neurodegenerative diseases such as cardiac amyloidosis.

Cueball asks Megan why it is such a hard computational problem, and Megan replies that it is like folding a live {{w|Crane (bird)|crane}}, not just a paper crane. The analogy is that a protein cannot just fold to a figurative representation of a bio-molecule (analogous to how a paper crane abstractly resembles the live crane). It must assume an exact, perfect fold in order to be functional.

{{w|Levinthal's paradox}} is a thought experiment, also constituting a self-reference in the theory of protein folding. In 1969, Cyrus Levinthal noted that, because of the very large number of degrees of freedom in an unfolded polypeptide chain, the molecule has an astronomical number of possible conformations. For example, a polypeptide of 100 {{w|Residue (chemistry)|residue}}s will have 99 peptide bonds, and therefore 198 different {{w|Dihedral angle|phi and psi bond angles}}. If each of these bond angles can be in one of three stable conformations, the protein may misfold into a maximum of 3^198 different conformations (including any possible folding redundancy). Therefore if a protein were to attain its correctly folded configuration by sequentially sampling all the possible conformations, it would require a time longer than the age of the universe to arrive at its correct native conformation. This is true even if conformations are sampled at rapid (nanosecond or picosecond) rates. The "paradox" is that most small proteins fold spontaneously on a millisecond or even microsecond time scale. This paradox is central to computational approaches to protein structure prediction.

As Cueball mentally turns over the hypothetical process of folding paper to make a living crane, he wonders if he is allowed to perhaps "cut" the paper to make more complicated folds available. Megan replies "if you can fold a Protease enzyme." Protease enzymes are proteins whose job it is to break down (i.e. "cut") other proteins, often in very specific ways. In this manner, they are analogous to extremely specialized scissors, so Megan is effectively saying "You can make cuts if you can fold yourself a pair of scissors."

Of course, when trying to predict the folding trajectory in nature of a protein A, and one is allowed to make cuts during the process, one is making the assumption that the Protease that cut protein A is already folded and functional. In other words, making cuts while folding might actually make the process ''more'' complicated, not less, as now you have to consider how the cutting enzyme is folded, too.

In origami, purists [http://www.barf.cc/jeremy/origami/BOOK/essays/origami_purism/origami_purism.htm] considered it as cheating if you cut the paper or use more than one sheet of paper, which is why Cueball asked if he was 'allowed' to do such in the hypothetical exercise they are discussing.

The title text refers to the result of folding a flapping bird in origami. By pulling the tail, the head will move forward and down. However, since the joke is about folding proteins, this idea is extrapolated to include the folded proteins. The C-terminus (end of the protein chain), in this case analogous of the tail, if "pulled" would cause a created cavity or tunnel to squeeze, much like pulling a knot would do the same.

{{w|Folding@Home}} (F@H) is a distributed computing project which aims to simulate protein folding for research purposes. Rather than the traditional model of using a supercomputer for computation, the project uses idle processing power of a network of personal computers in order to achieve massive computing power. Individuals can join the project by installing the F@H software (there is also a web version that can be run using Google Chrome) and are then able to track their contribution to the project. Individual members may join together as a team, with leaderboards measuring team and individual contributions.

Note that most modern computers do not "waste" computing time as much as older ones. They dynamically reduce their clock speed and other power consumption at times of low usage. If you donate computer time, you are probably also donating a bit of money to the cause in the form of your electricity bill. Many people consider this to be more fun, convenient and efficient than donating via credit card.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is talking with Megan.]
:Cueball: What do you do?
:Megan: I make software that predicts how proteins will fold.
:Cueball: Is that a hard problem?
:Megan: Someone may someday find a harder one.
:Cueball: Why is it so hard?
:Megan: Have you ever made a folded paper crane?
:Cueball: Yeah.
:Megan: Imagine figuring out the folds to make an actual living crane.
:Cueball: ...just folds? Can I make cuts?
:Megan: If you can fold a protease enzyme.

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

Talk:1430: Proteins

2015-04-20T01:46:32Z

Boct1584:

'''If this comic has motivated anyone to join in with the Folding@Home project, you can get started [http://folding.stanford.edu/ here].''' --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
:I've been folding for about a year now. Before that it was the SETI@Home project - but I decided to switch to something that could have more direct and beneficial results. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
::Is there an xkcd team on any of the distributed computing projects? Or does someone want to put one together? [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 22:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
:::I would like to join a team [[User:RecentlyChanged|RecentlyChanged]] ([[User talk:RecentlyChanged|talk]])

This comic has some similarities to [[1425: Tasks]]. It can be difficult for the public (or experts for that matter) to grasp the complexity of a task for a computer. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely if you were folding yourself a crane out of paper then you would need to fold yourself a pair of scissors in order to be able to make cuts. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.49|141.101.99.49]] 10:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely the "pull the tail" is referring to the flapping bird origami, which is similar to the crane but lacks one set of folds that make the figure narrower.{{unsigned ip|108.162.219.116}}

Thanks for adding that "your actually donating your electricity" part - I had not considered it to that extent. I realized that the program is using more CPU/GPU "loading" while the screen saver is active, but for some reason I didn't translate that into more money out via my electricity bill. :) [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No mention yet of the fact that Megan (and Randall) thinks this is the hardest problem! I have added some where it only aims at other science questions. But she did not say anything about science. Solving all human crises like overpopulation, climate, pollution, hunger, war and death could also be seen as either several or just one (unified) problem. She would then still think her problem harder... Should that be added as well in some form? I will leave that for others to decide. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is clear that Megan means computational problems - unifying gravity or solving human crises have not been reduced to computational terms - so the comparison is not appropriate and the comment in the explaination is unwarranted. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.157}}

The Title Text made me think of Rembrandt's painting The Anatomy Lesson, where the lecturer was pulling a tendon in a cadaver's forearm, making a finger move. It might make an appropriate metaphor: Today's scientists are taking baby steps in learning the "anatomy" of proteins through trial and error, much like the scholars of the past deciphering the basics of the human anatomy. [[User:Aiw|Aiw]] ([[User talk:Aiw|talk]]) 21:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the last few paragraphs about the simulation program and cpu cycles are unnecessary. Perhaps create a trivia section? [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjaminikuta]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 04:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

:I agree, they don't really contribute anything to the explanation, but are somewhat related. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 07:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, too. Perhaps move them to comments section. Anyway, there's a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_with_a_purpose&redirect=no Game with a purpose] on a similar topic, RNA folding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EteRNA EteRNA]. It's a little strange to play because the underlying reality is unusual, but interesting and somehow trickily entertaining. --[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 11:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Serious TED talk "protein folding problem: a major conundrum of science": http://youtu.be/zm-3kovWpNQ [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 20:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Serious TED talk about advanced math making detailed Origami figurines by doing nothing but folding => http://youtu.be/NYKcOFQCeno [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 20:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Going to start using the Folding@Home Chrome web applet. Having seen the mentions here of forming an xkcd/explainxkcd team, I'm all for it! [[User:Boct1584|Boct1584]] ([[User talk:Boct1584|talk]]) 01:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

1430: Proteins

2015-04-19T21:13:06Z

Boct1584: /* Explanation */ (Bit of cleanup on the "protease enzyme" paragraph.)

{{comic
| number = 1430
| date = October 6, 2014
| title = Proteins
| image = proteins.png
| titletext = Check it out--when I tug the C-terminal tail, the binding tunnel squeezes!
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic, [[Cueball]] is asking [[Megan]] what she does, to which she replies that she works on software to predict protein folding. There are many folding prediction software programs. Some of the most well known are {{w|Folding@Home}}, {{w|Rosetta@Home}} and {{w|FoldIt}}.

{{w|Protein folding}} is the process by which proteins, which are floppy, unstructured chains of {{w|amino acids}} when initially synthesized in a cell, assume a stable, functional shape. If the folding process does not complete, or completes incorrectly, the resulting protein can be inactive or even toxic to the body. Misfolded proteins are responsible for several {{w|neurodegenerative}} diseases, including {{w|Alzheimer's disease}}, {{w|amyotrophic lateral sclerosis}} (ALS), and {{w|Parkinson's disease}}, as well as some non-neurodegenerative diseases such as cardiac amyloidosis.

Cueball asks Megan why it is such a hard computational problem, and Megan replies that it is like folding a live {{w|Crane (bird)|crane}}, not just a paper crane. The analogy is that a protein cannot just fold to a figurative representation of a bio-molecule (analogous to how a paper crane abstractly resembles the live crane). It must assume an exact, perfect fold in order to be functional.

{{w|Levinthal's paradox}} is a thought experiment, also constituting a self-reference in the theory of protein folding. In 1969, Cyrus Levinthal noted that, because of the very large number of degrees of freedom in an unfolded polypeptide chain, the molecule has an astronomical number of possible conformations. For example, a polypeptide of 100 {{w|Residue (chemistry)|residue}}s will have 99 peptide bonds, and therefore 198 different {{w|Dihedral angle|phi and psi bond angles}}. If each of these bond angles can be in one of three stable conformations, the protein may misfold into a maximum of 3^198 different conformations (including any possible folding redundancy). Therefore if a protein were to attain its correctly folded configuration by sequentially sampling all the possible conformations, it would require a time longer than the age of the universe to arrive at its correct native conformation. This is true even if conformations are sampled at rapid (nanosecond or picosecond) rates. The "paradox" is that most small proteins fold spontaneously on a millisecond or even microsecond time scale. This paradox is central to computational approaches to protein structure prediction.

As Cueball mentally turns over the hypothetical process of folding paper to make a living crane, he wonders if he is allowed to perhaps "cut" the paper to make more complicated folds available. Megan replies "if you can fold a Protease enzyme." Protease enzymes are proteins whose job it is to break down (i.e. "cut") other proteins, often in very specific ways. In this manner, they are analogous to extremely specialized scissors, so Megan is effectively saying "You can make cuts if you can fold yourself a pair of scissors."

Of course, when trying to predict the folding trajectory in nature of a protein A, and one is allowed to make cuts during the process, one is making the assumption that the Protease that cut protein A is already folded and functional. In other words, making cuts while folding might actually make the process ''more'' complicated, not less, as now you have to consider how the cutting enzyme is folded, too.

In origami, purists [http://www.barf.cc/jeremy/origami/BOOK/essays/origami_purism/origami_purism.htm] considered it as cheating if you cut the paper or use more than one sheet of paper, which is why Cueball asked if he was 'allowed' to do such in the hypothetical exercise they are discussing.

The title text refers to the result of folding a flapping bird in origami. By pulling the tail, the head will move forward and down. However, since the joke is about folding proteins, this idea is extrapolated to include the folded proteins. The C-terminus (end of the protein chain), in this case analogous of the tail, if "pulled" would cause a created cavity or tunnel to squeeze, much like pulling a knot would do the same.

{{w|Folding@Home}} (F@H) is a distributed computing project which aims to simulate protein folding for research purposes. Rather than the traditional model of using a supercomputer for computation, the project uses idle processing power of a network of personal computers in order to achieve massive computing power. Individuals can join the project by installing the F@H software, and are then able to track their contribution to the project. Individual members may join together as a team, with leaderboards measuring team and individual contributions.

Note that most modern computers do not "waste" computing time as much as older ones. They dynamically reduce their clock speed and other power consumption at times of low usage. If you donate computer time, you are probably also donating a bit of money to the cause in the form of your electricity bill. Many people consider this to be more fun, convenient and efficient than donating via credit card.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is talking with Megan.]
:Cueball: What do you do?
:Megan: I make software that predicts how proteins will fold.
:Cueball: Is that a hard problem?
:Megan: Someone may someday find a harder one.
:Cueball: Why is it so hard?
:Megan: Have you ever made a folded paper crane?
:Cueball: Yeah.
:Megan: Imagine figuring out the folds to make an actual living crane.
:Cueball: ...just folds? Can I make cuts?
:Megan: If you can fold a protease enzyme.

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

1508: Operating Systems

2015-04-08T12:30:02Z

Boct1584: Date was incorrectly marked as April 3rd.

{{comic
| number = 1508
| date = April 6, 2015
| title = Operating Systems
| image = operating systems.png
| titletext = One of the survivors, poking around in the ruins with the point of a spear, uncovers a singed photo of Richard Stallman. They stare in silence. "This," one of them finally says, "This is a man who BELIEVED in something."
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic, [[Randall]] gives an {{w|Gantt chart|overview}} of past, present and (speculatively) future of the {{w|operating system}}s running in his house at any given time. Notably, because Randall is fascinated by technology, he has had more than one OS running in his household since the mid '90's. The timeline tracks how Operating Systems have come and gone over the years, and the gradual shift from desktop Operating Systems to mobile can be observed. Beyond the present day, we see some of Randall's humorous predictions as to which technologies and companies will dominate the Operating System landscape in the future.

It may be that the OS that is closest to the time-line is also the one he mainly uses during these extended periods.

Previous and current systems:
*{{w|MS-DOS}} (Microsoft Disk Operating System): The default, command-line-based OS on most IBM PC-compatible computers. Early versions of Windows operated as shells on top of MS-DOS rather than stand-alone OSes in their own right, which may explain part of the overlap in those two bars.
*Apple's {{w|Mac OS}} (Macintosh Operating System): The OS of Apple's Macintosh line of computers. Randall's bar indicates that he stopped using Macs in 2001, after Mac OS had been superseded by the new and still-buggy Mac OS X.
*{{w|Linux}}: An open-source (typically free) Unix-like OS. Randall's bar indicates that he likely used it on one or two PCs starting from 1999 while still using Windows on other PCs, or perhaps was dual-booting one or more PCs with Windows, until abandoning Windows in 2007 to use Linux full-time. This timing coincides with the release of Microsoft's controversial {{w|Windows Vista}} and the advent of more user-friendly Linux distributions.
*{{w|OS X}} (Macintosh Operating System v10): The successor OS of Apple's Macintosh line of computers. Although it was sometimes marketed as merely the 10th version of the earlier Mac OS, it was largely a new product. The bar indicates Randall's renewed use of Macintosh computers in 2009 after the OS had matured and Macs had transitioned to Intel processors.
*{{w|Android_(operating_system)|Android}}: The upper layers of the OS running on Android phones and tablets, above the Linux {{w|Kernel_(operating_system)|kernel}}. Randall is indicating that he has at least one of these devices.
*Apple's {{w|iOS}}: The OS of {{w|iPhone}}, {{w|iPad}}, {{w|iPad mini}}, {{w|iPad Air}}, {{w|iPod Touch}} and {{w|Apple TV}}. Randall is indicating that he also has at least one of these devices.

His predictions for the future include:
*2018: That {{w|OS X}} and {{w|iOS}} will merge. There is frequent speculation on technology blogs as to whether or not this merging will come to pass in the future. Both OSes have a common origin, share a lot of common software, and are maintained by the same company which would benefit from the efficiency of maintaining a single unified OS. Opposing this is the fact that interaction patterns are very different between traditional computers and tablets/phones and a one-size-fits-both solution may not be feasible.
*2019: That an operating system designed with and for {{w|Javascript}} will become attractive, perhaps along the lines of {{w|Node.js}} and/or [http://github.com/runtimejs/runtime#readme Runtime.js].
*2022: That there'll be an OS based on the {{w|Tinder_(application)|Tinder}} dating app.
*2024: That there'll be an OS from {{w|Nest Labs}}, presumably oriented towards home automation and the {{w|Internet of things}} .
*2029: That {{w|Elon Musk}} will come up with an operating system.
*2030: That {{w|Disk_operating_system|DOS}} would make a comeback, but only in an ironic fashion (maybe because there would be no more disks left for it to operate from).
*2034: That Randall will be deploying an [http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/genetically-engineered-red-blood-cells-could-be-drug-delivery-drones/ autonomous drug-delivery drone] in his body.
*2042: Human civilization comes to a fiery end, maybe due to some unholy combination of the above innovations. Another possible explanation is that human civilization will be wiped out by an artificial super-intelligence, superior to human intelligence, as Elon Musk, Ray Kurzweil, Bill Gates and many tech pundits foresee that 2045 will be the year to see such technology becoming real, and as Elon Musk, Bill Gates and many other tech pundits fear that it will be the extinction of all life on earth, as explained [http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html on this page].
*2059: At this time his operating system will be {{w|GNU}}/{{w|Hurd}}. This infamously and perennially late [http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html GNU/Hurd] OS will finally make it in to Randall's home after human civilization has been wiped out. The joke is that GNU/Hurd began to be developed in 1990, and while it was expected to be released in a relatively short time, even now only unstable builds have been released. So Randall is saying that he will finally run it in his house a decade or two after the end of civilization. GNU/Hurd will presumably have an advantage as humanity rebuilds civilization due to the widespread availability of its code and development tools, and perhaps also because of Stallman's depth of belief, based on the title text. Alternatively, GNU/Hurd might be finished by the same force that finished human kind, for instance {{w|Skynet (Terminator)|Skynet}}, in case of {{w|Cybernetic revolt|AI Apocalypse}}.

The title text refers to {{w|Richard Stallman}}, the founder of the {{w|Free Software movement}} and the GNU and Hurd projects. A survivor of the fire that ended the human civilization has uncovered a slightly burned ({{w|Singe|singed}}) picture of him. Those gathered can see, either directly from the picture or because they already know of Stallman, that this was a man that really believed in something. In this case it was ''free software''. Inspired by his image, they rebuild their lost civilization and finish Hurd development.

Or maybe he means that a herd of {{w|Wildebeest|Gnus}} will be "running" in his living room, as wild animals reclaim the Earth after the end of human civilization.

GNU is a collection of free software utilities, particularly the system utilities used with the Linux Kernel to form the Linux operating system (often called GNU/Linux by those who wish to emphasize the contribution of the GNU project). Hurd is an operating system kernel designed as part of GNU project that could be used in place of the Linux kernel to produce a compete GNU operating system. Hurd has a microkernel architecture, which has many perceived advantages over Linux's monolithic kernel, and is thought by many to be technically superior, despite its low adoption rate compared to the Linux kernel.

Randall has made several comics about free software and also about Stallman. See this list of [[:Category:Comics featuring Richard Stallman|comics featuring Richard Stallman]]. Most are these are also about free software in some form.

==Transcript==
:[At the top of the panel:]
::'''Operating Systems'''
::running in my house

:[At the bottom there is time-line that runs from 1990 to 2066. It has small indicators for every year, larger for every 5 years and largest for every 10 years. Below the 10 year indicators are written the years. Also the year 2015 is marked:]
:1990 2000 2010 Now 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

:[Bars above the time-line in four levels are labeled with operating system names, representing the time period for that OS. Below is a list of the bars on the time-line in order of first appearance (with approximate year ranges given). Also the level from 1-4 is indicated, with level 1 just above the time-line and level 4 the highest level above the line:]

:[Level 1 from 1988 to 1998 (extends a little left past the beginning of the time-line but not off panel):]
::MS DOS
:[Level 2 from 1993 to 2007:]
::Windows
:[Level 3 from 1994 to 2001:]
::Mac OS
:[Level 1 from 1999 to 2018:]
::Linux
:[Level 2 from 2009 to 2023. On the way the bar merges with iOS around 2019:]
::OS X
:[Level 3 from 2009 to 2016:]
::Android
:[Level 4 from 2013 to 2023. On the way to 2023 the bar moves down past Android to merge with OS X around 2019:]
::iOS
:[Level 1 from 2018 to 2028. The text is written in square brackets:]
::[Something].js
:[Level 3 from 2022 to 2029:]
::TinderOS
:[Level 2 from 2023 to 2032:]
::Nest
:[Level 1 from 2028 to 2041:]
::Elon Musk Project:
:[Level 3 from 2030 to 2036:]
::DOS, but ironically
:[Level 2 from 2034 to 2041:]
::Blood Drone
:[This is not a bar, but the text (in three lines) is in a, double bar-height (level 1-2), square bracket. The bracket extends from 2042 to 2051:]
::[Human civilization ends in fire]
:[Level 1 from 2059 going past the end of the panel past 2066:]
::GNU/Hurd

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Richard Stallman]]

Talk:997: Wait Wait

2015-04-01T14:47:01Z

Boct1584:

The 5th Row, 3rd paper, "Wait Wait ... don't speak its name" may refer to the Lovecraftian Eldetr God Hastur, also known as "He Who is Not to be Named." Eldritch was a favorite Lovecraft word used extensively in the Cthulhu Mythos. {{unsigned ip|74.120.13.132}}

:Row three, column three should be "Wait wait, dont taze me, bro" {{unsigned ip|173.245.63.146}}
Is there a real kneed for this:
(sic)
in stories about Granny Weatherwax?
[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 06:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
: I guess it is impossible to find "may refer to" for all 20 headlines? because this comic pretends to be "fixed" thus not all have an explanation. -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.18|108.162.254.18]] 08:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"Don't Dissect Me" reminds me of a Stephen King short story, ''Autopsy Room Four,'' from the collection ''Everything's Eventual.'' [[User:Boct1584|Boct1584]] ([[User talk:Boct1584|talk]]) 14:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:997: Wait Wait

2015-04-01T14:46:47Z

Boct1584:

Talk:1184: Circumference Formula

2015-03-31T22:20:42Z

Boct1584:

:Tau x Radius, superscript 2
::Since tau is more commonly used for the Golden Ratio, that's a silly idea. [[Special:Contributions/121.74.169.237|121.74.169.237]] 11:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
:::You may be confusing tau with phi. I've never seen the golden ratio represented by anything other than phi. I've also never seen tau representing anything other than 2pi. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.7|108.162.219.7]] 19:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

:Leaves one wondering what the superscript 1 refers. {{unsigned|‎74.215.40.250}}
::It's 2''πr''2, '''not''' ''τr''2. —[[Special:Contributions/173.199.215.5|173.199.215.5]] 05:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
:::You're missing the point. ''τ'' == 2''π'' and is considered better than using ''π'' by some people {{unsigned|138.195.69.136}}
::::Only for very loose definitions of "better." [[Special:Contributions/71.201.53.130|71.201.53.130]] 14:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Whoa! Never heard about that before, but after 2 hrs or so, I think I'm getting convinced! Check this site out: http://tauday.com/ What do you think? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 18:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Ok so τ might make more sense than π but as comic [[1179]] pointed out, both pi-day and tau-day are wrong. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 13:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

::I think tau is pointless. Using tau what then happens to Euler's famous formula, the most beautiful equation of them all? Pi shows up in so many different ways and places in mathematics. Tau appears pretty much only in the formula for a circle's circumference. Why bother needlessly proliferating symbols? [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 18:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
::: Surface area of a sphere is 2τr^2, or if you want to get pi in there ''π''d^2 {{unsigned ip|108.162.218.101}}

:::RE: Euler's Identity: e^(tau*i) - 1 = 0 --[[User:Max Nanasy|Max Nanasy]] ([[User talk:Max Nanasy|talk]]) 18:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Ok, that works [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 17:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Why not just e^(tau*i) = 1. Do you routinely do 2 + 2 - 4 = 0?[[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 20:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Because:
:::::* Symmetry wrt the original Euler's Identity (e^(pi*i) + 1 = 0)
:::::* According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_identity#Mathematical_beauty, "in algebra and other areas of mathematics, equations are commonly written with zero on one side of the equals sign."
:::::--[[User:Max Nanasy|Max Nanasy]] ([[User talk:Max Nanasy|talk]]) 00:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::I think Euler only did that because he disliked negative numbers. It really is less a deal than people make of it.[[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 03:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Also, it uses the five most important constants in mathematics: ''e'', ''π'' (or ''τ''), ''i'', 1, and 0. [[User:Curtmack|Curtmack]] ([[User talk:Curtmack|talk]]) 20:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
::::The tau variant of Euler's identity above, ''e^(tau*i)=1'', appears to miss the point. Normally, a positivt number to the power of any real number is positive. Thus ''i'' could be any normal number. Well, not any number. ''i'' could be 0 and the equation will hold. With pi however, ''e^(pi*i)=-1'', ''i'' must be magical. /David A [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.111|141.101.80.111]] 23:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
:::[http://tauday.com/tau-manifesto The tau manifesto] fairly well convinced me that all occurances of π in mathematics utimately trace back from the formula C = 2''πr''. If so, π naturally ''enter'' calculations as 2π. Can anyone find a counterexample to this thesis? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
::::How could there be a counter-example? I think it is true. In complex analysis, it really should be 2π, and thus Gaussian integrals. And then number theory applications. Even [http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2589152?uid=3739704&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101976916347 this] neat result really stems from trig identities, so it really is a result for 2π. [[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 02:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:From what I understand, the thesis from the tau-proponents is that 2*pi is the fundamental natural constant, and that virtually ''every time'' that pi shows up without the factor 2, there originally was a factor two that was cancelled out. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 01:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
:For everyone who suddenly started a debate about 2pi and tau: http://xkcd.com/1292/ [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.61|108.162.222.61]] 06:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Not completely sure Earth Prime is from Sliders, but it's true it's the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Prime only one named exactly that] ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There's also a [http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Prime_Earth Prime Earth] now. Just so DC can screw with us. [[User:Hogtree Octovish|Hogtree Octovish]] ([[User talk:Hogtree Octovish|talk]]) 10:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I still don't get it.[[Special:Contributions/49.176.102.213|49.176.102.213]] 12:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

:If you don't get it, you don't need to get it [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 18:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was lame. --[[Special:Contributions/87.122.60.227|87.122.60.227]] 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This comic illustrates the strategy of "The Unconsummated Asterisk", from the essay "Mathmanship" by Nicholas Vanserg (available at [http://e-science.ru/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=7701]).
<blockquote>
The other side of the asterisk gambit is to use a superscript as a key to a real footnote. The knowledge‐seeker reads that S is – 36.714 calories and thinks "Gee what a whale of a lot of calories" until he reads to the bottom of the page, finds footnote 14 and says "oh."
</blockquote>
For bonus points, Randall could have used also "Pi-Throwing":
<blockquote>
For example every schoolboy knows what π stands for so you can hold him at bay by heaving some entirely different kind of π into the equation. The poor fellow will automatically multiply by 3.1416, then begin wondering how a π got into the act anyhow, and finally discover that all the while π was osmotic pressure. If you are careful not to warn him, this one is good for a delay of about an hour and a half.
</blockquote> [[User:Chymicus|Chymicus]] ([[User talk:Chymicus|talk]]) 19:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
:Another good one is π as a symbol for profit in financial discussions. -[[User:DrGaellon|DrGaellon]] ([[User talk:DrGaellon|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/DrGaellon|contribs]]) 23:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the current description of prime as denoting derivatives is true but irrelevant. Since the area and circumference refers to geometry (not really calculus), it's more likely that the title text is referring to the common use of primes in geometry. For example, there might be two or more parallel lines that are denoted by x, x′, x′′, etc. Wikipedia also notes another geometric use of {{w|prime}}: "if a point is represented by the Cartesian coordinates (x, y), then that point rotated, translated or reflected might be represented as (x′, y′)." [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 23:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

that is so wrong, i feel my mind corrupted now. -- [[User:Anarcat|Anarcat]] ([[User talk:Anarcat|talk]]) 23:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This explanation was hillarious -- where is the up-vote button ?? [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])

:+1 [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 16:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So, where's todays comic? How many times has Randal been late?[[Special:Contributions/70.199.225.225|70.199.225.225]] 16:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

:Today's comic was posted just a few minutes ago. I'm anxiously awaiting its explanation as it picks on a programming language I'm not familiar with (possibly SQL). [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 16:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It uses pseudocode. The new one is about sorting algorithms in general, not any particular language. [[Special:Contributions/130.245.231.101|130.245.231.101]] 17:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me, but did no one see the "square the circle" gag...? --[[Special:Contributions/128.232.142.37|128.232.142.37]] 09:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC) No one but you saw the square-the-circle gag, because it's not there. For it to be there, it would require this: (2πr)² [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 15:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This one threw me for a loop for the longest time because I learned to use πd to find circumference, not 2πr. Anyone else learn that way? (Knowing how my brain works, it is equally possible I taught myself to use πd as a shortcut, and was in fact taught 2πr by my teachers.) [[User:Boct1584|Boct1584]] ([[User talk:Boct1584|talk]]) 22:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

367: Fandom

2015-03-29T00:41:12Z

Boct1584: Note about the relegation of most EU media to the "Legends" canon

{{comic
| number = 367
| date = January 7, 2008
| title = Fandom
| image = fandom.png
| titletext = Ron Paul wants to put the New Republic back on the Corusca gem standard.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic refers to the concept of {{w|fandom}}, which is basically the collective noun for fans of a given thing. Usually, this is used in the context of people who like a certain work of fiction, like ''Star Trek'' or ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer''.

Here, [[Cueball]] digs through a box and discovers his old collection of ''{{w|Star Wars}}'' books, referring to authors {{w|Timothy Zahn}} and {{w|Michael A. Stackpole}} (who wrote several ''Star Wars'' novels), and ''{{w|The Corellian Trilogy}}''. These books are part of the {{w|Star Wars Expanded Universe}}, which is used to refer to media that is ''Star Wars'' canon, but not the films.

(Almost all of the Expanded Universe content created prior to 2015 is now considered by Disney (who are the owners of Lucasfilm and Star Wars since 2012) to be part of a separate canon called "Legends," a decision presumably made to allow a clean(er) slate for the upcoming sequel trilogy and spin-off movies to start from.)

Cueball apparently loved these books as a kid, which prompts Megan to remark if he started becoming a fan of other science fiction series like ''{{w|Firefly (TV series)|Firefly}}'' or ''{{w|Battlestar Galactica}}'', to which he clarifies that he simply grew out of the fandom mindset. Megan, perhaps sarcastically, asks him about how politician {{w|Ron Paul}} (who has appeared in the comic [[:Category:Comics featuring Ron Paul|several times]]) is doing, and Cueball excitedly runs off to check, ironically disproving his earlier remark - people don't outgrow a fandom state of mind, but rather shift their point of interest.

The title refers to the {{w|New Republic (Star Wars)|New Republic}}, the main government in ''Star Wars'' after the final film, and [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Corusca_gem Corusca gems], which are extremely rare and valuable gems from the aforementioned expanded universe. The text says that Ron Paul wants the New Republic to adopt the Corusca gem as standard currency. This entire joke is an allegory for the {{w|Gold Standard}}, which Ron Paul is a personal advocate of even though it is no longer in use by the United States.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is looking through a box.]
:Cueball: Hey, my old Star Wars books!

:[Cueball is holding a pair of books and showing them to Megan.]
:Cueball: Man. Timothy Zahn, Michael A. Stackpole, The Corellian Trilogy...
:Cueball: This was my world.

:Megan: What'd you leave it for? Firefly? BSG?
:Cueball: Nah.
:Cueball: I guess I've just grown out of the whole obsessive fan mindset.

:Megan: Really.
:Megan: So how's Ron Paul doing?
:Cueball: Ooh! Lemme recheck today's blogs.
:[Cueball heads off to do so.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ron Paul]]

Talk:977: Map Projections

2015-03-28T15:31:38Z

Boct1584:

I have a Plate Carrée hanging on my wall myself. Never failed me yet. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 07:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

;Dymaxion
Dymaxion is clearly the best. There's nothing like a map made out of an unfolded d20. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 19:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

: Makes you wonder what if a dodecahedron had been used instead of an icosahedron. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 18:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

;Quincunx
Peirce Quincuncial has 4 non-conformal points, but not the 4 corners, which are the south pole, but instead are the 4 midpoints of the sides. These are on the equator and seem to be 90 degrees apart.--DrMath 06:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
: I love Peirce Quincuncial, yet I slept throughout that "Inception". [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.228|141.101.99.228]] 11:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
: I'm surprised nobody thought of "''really'' looking at your hands" as a hint that person that likes this projection is under influence of LSD or similar drug. As this surely is a thing that you do. (and you'll think of it next time you smoke your joint - inception!) --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.137|108.162.254.137]] 17:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Plus it has a picture of a man looking at his hand and a man looking at the man looking at his hand.[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 14:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

xkcd 1051's title text - "meta lucid dreaming". I really got excited that there was an article about and ironically, it leads to meta and lucid dreaming separately. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.67|173.245.55.67]] 21:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)BK201

The common video game trope of "the far east of the world is connected to the far west, and the far north likewise to the far south" is popularly resolved by saying that those game worlds are toroidal shapes. (For a particular reference, I am thinking of the SNES and PSX era Final Fantasy games (4-9.)) But sometime in the last year, I got the idea that you could also resolve that geographical conflict (and claim they are spherical) by the logic that the "world map" you see in those games (where they have one) is a Peirce Qunincuncial map. Is my logic sound? [[User:Boct1584|Boct1584]] ([[User talk:Boct1584|talk]]) 15:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

;Waterman

In actual fact, the Waterman butterfly map used a truncated octahedron based upon the mathematics of close packing of spheres and is not at all based upon any of CaHill's work/math.
-- steve waterman {{unsigned ip|65.92.20.61}}
:Perhaps the explanation should mention that Waterman himself signed up at forum.xkcd.com and vigorously denied that his map has anything to do with Cahill. At the time, it was unclear whether the account was really Waterman, or just a troll trying to make him look bad. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 21:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

;Kavrayskiy VII
Kavrayskiy is the best projection, despite being so far out of the mainstream that no-one west of Ukraine has seen one for the past 20 years. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.64}}
:Wow, I looked into it and it really seems like an excellent projection. It's been a while since I've looked at projections but I think it's my new favourite as it has everything that I've been looking for in a projection. It's a more accurate (in extremes) and more pleasing Robinson projection that still has a reasonable amount cut off the top. Also, the indicatrix for it is very simple, as is the formula, and simple things please simple minds (like mine, apparently) -- without taking it to an extreme like the equirectangular projection does. I swear I've come across it before, but then again I grew up in a country which wasn't far from the Eastern Bloc. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.214|141.101.98.214]] 14:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

;Sphere
To be fair, what is drawn is an orthographic azimuthal projection.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.153|108.162.216.153]] 18:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The explanation for the Peirce Quincuncial seems to miss the fact that Randall is implying that anyone who likes this map is most likely high. Getting lost in deep thought over things like your hands, or sitting in a dark theater for 6 hours to wrap your head around Inception...these are all very stereotypical "has smoke a lot of marijuana" behaviors. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.21}}