explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1459: Documents

2014-12-12T10:51:24Z

Boxy: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1459
| date = December 12, 2014
| title = Documents
| image = documents.png
| titletext = Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Untitled.doc
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|WIP}}

The comic portrays the type of naming conventions used by some people (in this case, [[White Hat]]). When saving documents, the user is typically prompted to choose a filename, which may seem like a trivial choice. However, the filename is often the primary way of identifying the document you are looking for, and a descriptive title is of huge benefit when trying to find a certain document. Those who are too rushed or too lazy to create a useful filename, or those who don't understand what constitutes a useful filename are setting themselves up for future frustration.

When a user creates a new copy of a file in the same directory, the operating system may automatically append "copy" to the filename. Subsequent copies of the file have "copy 2", "copy 3" etc appended. When searching documents later, the user may struggle to remember which copy is the correct one to use.

[[Cueball]] has a severe distaste for these types of saved documents and hence provides a protip to never look in someone else's documents folder for the fear of finding these irritating details.

The .doc and .docx extensions are given to documents created in Microsoft Word, with .docx being the default option from Microsoft Office 2007 onwards. When first saving a document, the default filename is the first sentence of the document. It is also possible to set a different default filename, though this is a feature that few people are aware of or use. It would seem that White Hat has initially chosen to name a file "untitled.doc", and subsequently created hundreds of copies from that file.

In some cases he has added a minimal amount of detail to the filename, though hasn't removed the redundant "untitled copy" portion, which probably only adds to Cueball's frustration, as it demonstrates that White Hat does have at least a basic understanding of the importance of meaningful filenames, but still hasn't made any attempt to addressed the systemic problem.

==Transcript==

[White Hat browsing Documents folder]

Cueball: Oh my god.

Protip: Never look in someone else's documents folder.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Protip]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:1338: Land Mammals

2014-03-05T14:19:58Z

Boxy:

Is it mass or weight? --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.119|173.245.53.119]] 06:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

:It says weight. Since most land animals live on the... land, there is not much difference. I suppose if a lot of aninimals lived near a [https://xkcd.com/852/ prime pole vaulting location] it could skew the results. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 06:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm really curious, what are the other, unlabeled groupings? [http://vaclavsmil.com/the-earths-biosphere-evolution-dynamics-and-change/ Author's website] {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.46}}

<pre>
On page 186 of Smil's referenced book, there is a bar chart with the following values in millions of tons (*=not used in Randall's graphic):
elephants 0.8
horses 40
pigs 100
cattle 450
people 280
*whales 80
*all wild vertebrates 30
*all domesticated vertebrates 650
</pre> {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.46}}

I think that this graph is actually more illustrative of how much support humans need to maintain themselves (the amount of cattle is astonishing). [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 07:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

:''need''? I don't think we ''need'' so much cattle. It's just that most people prefer hamburgers and steaks to beans. So, how much we ''use'' to maintain ourselves would be better. (BTW, you don't count yourself as human?) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

:According to [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201209/how-many-dogs-are-there-in-the-world] there are 525 million dogs, assuming 20 kg as average weight, this should give 10 squares in the diagram. I can't find reliable numbers for cats, but there are more cats than dogs, but they don't weigh as much, so their total weight could be similar to that of the dogs. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.160|108.162.254.160]] 08:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The blob of 13 under the word Livestock may very well represent both dogs and cats. {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.46}}

Does anybody see a reason for the particular layout of the blocks? My first impression was a globe but obviously it doesn't correspond to any continents, etc. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.66|108.162.254.66]] 08:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
: I've been wondering myself... I do think it is a picture of something. My ideas so far: an eye, a fried egg, a cell. --[[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 09:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

::It may simply be something-like-a-circle of humans with the rest surrounding it. But it DOES look like a cell. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

:: Could it be a sort of relationship diagram? It looks like we're in the centre, with the animals we have the closest relationships with — our pets and our food — nearest, and those we're less concerned with further away. [[User:Gidds|Gidds]] ([[User talk:Gidds|talk]]) 11:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Yes, the overall layout is human-centric, but that doesn't explain the intentionally lumpy and asymmetric regions. It would have been easier to place the blocks in regular shapes (circular, rectangular or otherwise) but Randall chose to do it this way. Cell with a nucleus is a reasonable guess. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 14:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
::::I think it resembles a (low resolution) globe, with humanity representing the major continent [[User:Boxy|Boxy]] ([[User talk:Boxy|talk]]) 14:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I would love to identify specific groups. The unlabelled animals come in groups, even the wild animals, even though only *one* of those groups (elephants for some reason) has been labelled. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 13:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
:Reason for elephant label == "This is how much/little the whole population of the largest land mammals amass to."? (Actually, given the scarcity of elephants, I'm surprised it's a full block. I suspect something else that could have been labelledsuch as "rats" would be far more.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.7|141.101.99.7]] 14:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1321: Cold

2014-01-27T03:08:40Z

Boxy:

I really hate when articles on science get a POV tag. Science isn't politics (hint: evolution and gravity aren't POV either). Related to the comic, I just had a similar rant on Facebook in the last week or two where I linked to [http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=54 this article] when someone said it was too cold for Global Warming. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 12:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I really hate it when people think the global warming scam is science, when it really is nothing more than politics masquerading as science. The IPCC has been proven to be a bunch of liars, and really there's nothing left but a bunch of whining left-wing lunatics who are desperately clinging to their hope of continuing to use this lie to raise energy prices/taxes. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.17|108.162.219.17]] 12:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
:Well you're wrong, and apparently delusionally paranoid about what the political left wants, but the bigger question is why is this in a wiki discussion page? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.117|108.162.249.117]] 13:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
::No, ''you'' are wrong, and still buying into the AGW myth that has been proven false (IPCC and others were basically caught lying). Why is this in a wiki discussion page? Well, apparently Randall has decided to use his webcomic as a vehicle to promote a left-wing agenda, so discussion of it here is totally legit. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.17|108.162.219.17]] 14:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Although it doesn't directly mention it, this is partly related to people's confusion over the difference between 'weather' and 'climate' - the former being what the conditions are at a given moment in time, and the latter referring to long-term trends.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.228|141.101.98.228]] 14:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the one with whit wolly hat is whitehat [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 16:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone provide an exact URL for (or procedure for finding) the data shown in the upper-right panel? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.71|108.162.221.71]] 18:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Randall has cherry picked data for his conclusion and the graph in the comic. The full history is available from the NWS. The one for my home town can be found here http://www.erh.noaa.gov/iln/climo/below0.php The 1970's were unusually cold, which makes the present seem warmer by comparison. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.254|108.162.210.254]] 16:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently Randall hasn’t seen this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png

To quote Michael Z. Williamson:
29 years in the last century is not an "average" of the last 300 million years.

Any finding based on that "average" is complete bullshit. You may as well use 1300-1305 hours on Apr 23 as your "average." You'll be about as accurate, and save time over actual data collection. {{unsigned ip|173.245.55.67}}

The claim that 0 Fahrenheit / -17 Celsius is ''really fucking cold'' is supported by [[526: Converting to Metric]]. [[User:Fryhole|Fryhole]] ([[User talk:Fryhole|talk]]) 00:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
:We've been getting some ball-chilling winter with the cold fronts suddenly appearing in Florida, which is a drastic change from the sweaty weather just last week. I've added "fuckfuckfuckcold" to my personal lexicon. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 04:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that possibly WHITE HAT not CUEBALL (except for the last panel)? {{unsigned ip|108.162.240.18}}

The one in black is not black hat.
He sits around memorising weather data, and lack malice. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 18:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone provide an exact URL for (or procedure for finding) the data shown in the upper-right panel? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.71|108.162.221.71]] 18:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

;rcc-acis.org/climatecentral

The source [http://rcc-acis.org/climatecentral rcc-acis.org/climatecentral] provided by Randall doesn't work. What's wrong? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
:The source quoted on [http://xkcd.com/1321/ xkcd] is no long a URL, but simply "'rcc-acis/climatecentral'" [[User:Boxy|Boxy]] ([[User talk:Boxy|talk]]) 03:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1321: Cold

2014-01-27T03:07:08Z

Boxy:

I really hate when articles on science get a POV tag. Science isn't politics (hint: evolution and gravity aren't POV either). Related to the comic, I just had a similar rant on Facebook in the last week or two where I linked to [http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=54 this article] when someone said it was too cold for Global Warming. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 12:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I really hate it when people think the global warming scam is science, when it really is nothing more than politics masquerading as science. The IPCC has been proven to be a bunch of liars, and really there's nothing left but a bunch of whining left-wing lunatics who are desperately clinging to their hope of continuing to use this lie to raise energy prices/taxes. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.17|108.162.219.17]] 12:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
:Well you're wrong, and apparently delusionally paranoid about what the political left wants, but the bigger question is why is this in a wiki discussion page? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.117|108.162.249.117]] 13:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
::No, ''you'' are wrong, and still buying into the AGW myth that has been proven false (IPCC and others were basically caught lying). Why is this in a wiki discussion page? Well, apparently Randall has decided to use his webcomic as a vehicle to promote a left-wing agenda, so discussion of it here is totally legit. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.17|108.162.219.17]] 14:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Although it doesn't directly mention it, this is partly related to people's confusion over the difference between 'weather' and 'climate' - the former being what the conditions are at a given moment in time, and the latter referring to long-term trends.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.228|141.101.98.228]] 14:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the one with whit wolly hat is whitehat [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 16:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone provide an exact URL for (or procedure for finding) the data shown in the upper-right panel? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.71|108.162.221.71]] 18:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Randall has cherry picked data for his conclusion and the graph in the comic. The full history is available from the NWS. The one for my home town can be found here http://www.erh.noaa.gov/iln/climo/below0.php The 1970's were unusually cold, which makes the present seem warmer by comparison. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.254|108.162.210.254]] 16:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently Randall hasn’t seen this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png

To quote Michael Z. Williamson:
29 years in the last century is not an "average" of the last 300 million years.

Any finding based on that "average" is complete bullshit. You may as well use 1300-1305 hours on Apr 23 as your "average." You'll be about as accurate, and save time over actual data collection. {{unsigned ip|173.245.55.67}}

The claim that 0 Fahrenheit / -17 Celsius is ''really fucking cold'' is supported by [[526: Converting to Metric]]. [[User:Fryhole|Fryhole]] ([[User talk:Fryhole|talk]]) 00:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
:We've been getting some ball-chilling winter with the cold fronts suddenly appearing in Florida, which is a drastic change from the sweaty weather just last week. I've added "fuckfuckfuckcold" to my personal lexicon. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 04:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that possibly WHITE HAT not CUEBALL (except for the last panel)? {{unsigned ip|108.162.240.18}}

The one in black is not black hat.
He sits around memorising weather data, and lack malice. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 18:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone provide an exact URL for (or procedure for finding) the data shown in the upper-right panel? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.71|108.162.221.71]] 18:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

;rcc-acis.org/climatecentral

The source [http://rcc-acis.org/climatecentral rcc-acis.org/climatecentral] provided by Randall doesn't work. What's wrong? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
:The source quoted on [[http://xkcd.com/1321/|xkcd]] is no long a URL, but simply "'rcc-acis/climatecentral'" [[User:Boxy|Boxy]] ([[User talk:Boxy|talk]]) 03:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

1078: Knights

2014-01-13T05:52:10Z

Boxy: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 1078
| date = July 6, 2012
| title = Knights
| image = knights.png
| titletext = 1. Nf3 ... ↘↘↘ 2. Nc3 ... ↘↘↘ 0-1
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is comparing the opening moves of the game of {{w|chess}} to the opening moves of the {{w|Battle of Agincourt}}, which was fought between the English and the French in the {{w|Hundred Years War}}. In the battle, just like in the comic, the English used their longbowmen effectively, neutralizing the French knights (and later infantry). The two pieces that are moved out of the white side of the board are both the pieces known as the Knights. And in the actual battle, the French knights on horseback attacked first. As you can see, all the pawns on the right side of the chess board have bows.

The title text uses the abbreviations for chess moves. Nf3 = Knight to square F3. Nc3 = Knight to square C3. N = Knight because the King piece has the K abbreviation covered. What comes after the typical chess move is what can only be determined in a hail of arrows. And the 0-1 at the end means that "Black Wins".

The word "{{Wiktionary|gambit}}" means "an opening in chess, in which a minor piece (often a pawn) is sacrificed to gain an advantage". The usual gambit of sacrificing a pawn is subverted to be a sacrifice of a high-value piece, as an analogy of what happened at Agincourt.

==Transcript==
:[A chessboard. The black pawns have all gained longbows and have specifically taken down the white knights as they move forward, without any black pieces needing to move from their opening positions.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Chess]]

Talk:1008: Suckville

2013-08-31T13:42:21Z

Boxy: spam removal - comment not relevant to subject matter

Talk:1009: Sigh

2013-08-31T13:39:52Z

Boxy: spam removal - comment not relevant to subject matter

Talk:1210: I'm So Random

2013-05-10T11:10:36Z

Boxy:

;"Random"
Are the numbers in the speech bubble truely random (as in is there a real pattern)? Can someone check?
--[[User:Charlesisbozo|Charlesisbozo]] ([[User talk:Charlesisbozo|talk]]) 08:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

:I was wondering that myself. I did a quick tally of the digits and for 0..9 I have frequencies of {24,9,18,18,14,17,14,8,9,14} respectively for the readily identifiable digits (YMMV, and while I counted the probable 5 behind Hairy's left ear, I didn't count the ''possible'' five behind his left knee, for example.) It doesn't seem to have fallen for the "too many 3s and 7s" trap, nor "too ''few'' 3s and 7s, because I know I'll pick them if I try to be random" one, because one is 'high' and one is 'low'. Ditto the "avoiding zero and using nine a lot", says I, vaguely half remembering something from the New Scientists a decade or two ago... While it's not a ''flat'' distribution, I'd also suspect it as 'constructed' if it ''was'' nearly equal tallies. Someone else can probably tell me if this sample of 145 is within variation limits but I'm still going on intuition.
:What I was originally going to do is also go so far as to compare neighbours-on-neighbours. It appeared to me that there were two many like-like neighbours. It's not as easy as in if a grid-system (without holes, etc), but I trivially count a couple of dozen (probably more) and even some 'triples' and that 'stripe' of zeros (from top down to his right knee) is interesting.
::That's a sign that it probably is random. Over 100 digits, let's say average 5 neighbours (in a hex grid the internal ones would each have 6 but the ones on the edge fewer), there must be close to 300 or more pairs of neighbours. One-tenth of those would be identical. Truly random sequences have far more identical neighbours than sequences that seem random to us. [[User:MGK|MGK]] ([[User talk:MGK|talk]]) 10:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
:::Yup, that's where I was heading with that fact (see "Preliminarily", below). Also, I don't have much more free time today, but if you're interested the ''corrected'' frequencies are {24,9,19,19,14,17,14,8,9,15} (I'd missed some!) and the guide to which marks I counted as which numbers is at http://i43.tinypic.com/awc602.png if anyone wants to do the more aesthetic job, like I was originally planning on doing... [[Special:Contributions/178.98.253.89|178.98.253.89]] 10:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
:Preliminarily, I choose to believe that Randall used a PRNG or even a noise source and stuck to it (''even when'' patterns may have become apparent). Also that, on examining the image closely, he pasted Hairy's anti-aliased image over the top of the numbers then did a little extra editing. ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.253.89|178.98.253.89]] 10:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The irony though, is that for a human being to be able to ''create'' truly random content, is indeed interesting. We are pattern forming machines [[User:Boxy|Boxy]] ([[User talk:Boxy|talk]]) 11:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)