explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1254: Preferred Chat System

2014-01-19T06:26:24Z

Db: /* Explanation */ parenthetical

{{comic
| number = 1254
| date = August 21, 2013
| title = Preferred Chat System
| image = preferred chat system.png
| titletext = If you call my regular number, it just goes to my pager.
}}

==Explanation==
As more options become available for communication, it becomes more and more difficult to determine the social etiquette of how you choose to communicate with people. It is generally customary to return a communication from someone in the same medium that they contacted you. For example, a voicemail is generally returned with a phone call, or an email with an email, etc. However, sometimes people respond through a different channel, such as texting a response to a voicemail or emailing a reply to a text. This can create confusion that [[Randall]] is pointing out, because the recipient doesn't know whether to go back to their original communication method, or whether the response was a signal that the recipient prefers the new communication method. Similarly, it becomes commonplace for people to know which communication is preferred by the recipient, or most likely to reach the recipient quickly, and generate the fastest response.

Randall portrays the difficulty [[Cueball]] is facing when communicating with a seemingly irrational recipient. Today's multitude of social networks and communication systems only amplifies the problem. Cueball is leaving a voicemail for his intended recipient to clarify the best way to reach them. He is doing so, he says, because he initially tried texting the recipient which they replied to with one message on the instant-messaging service {{w|Google Talk}} (commonly called GChat). This is unusual because instant messaging services are usually used to engage in longer conversations than one message. Cueball further is confused because the recipient, although silent on Google Talk, continues responding on {{W|Internet Relay Chat|IRC}} (presumably to others or in public chat rooms). Cueball then attempted to communicate by email, but the response came on {{w|Skype}}, another instant messaging service that features voice and video chat along with text. The recipient mentions that the email "''woke [them] up''", which is generally something that might happen with a ringing phone call, but is not common with email (people generally don't set their email to to give immediate audible alarms).

Cueball clarifies that he appreciates that the recipient is very quick to respond, but his confusion stems from his inability to determine the proper medium to use. As he finishes his voicemail, an owl flies towards him carrying a written message. This appears to be a reference to [http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Owl_post owl post], which is a form of communication in the {{w|Harry Potter}} lore which itself is presumably based on the real-world usage of {{w|Carrier pigeon|carrier pigeons}}. The owl post message indicates that the voicemail was received, and suggests using {{w|Google Voice}} next time, which is an alternative form of voice and text to the standard telecom companies.

The owl could also be a reference to [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149 RFC 1149 - IP over Avian Carriers], which has been mentioned in previous comics.

The title text mentions a {{w|pager}}, a wireless telecommunications device that vibrates or buzzes when its number is dialed. Simpler pagers can display numbers (usually the caller's phone number) while more sophisticated ones can receives text messages. The redirection of a phone number to a pager further increases the confusion caused by the sheer number of possible communication methods available, as well as adding further tension due to the pager being commonly associated with the 1980s and early 1990s, that is a time when this abundance of communication options was not yet available.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball stands, talking on his cell phone.]
:Cueball: Sorry for the voicemail, but I'm confused about how to reach you.
:Cueball: When I text you, you reply once on GChat, then go quiet, yet answer IRC right away. I emailed you, and you replied on Skype and mentioned that the email "woke you up".
:Cueball: You're very responsive - I just haven no sense of how you use technology.
:[An owl flies into the panel.]
:Cueball: ?!?
:[The owl perches on Cueballs's head. It has delivered a note to Cueball.]
:Note: did you try to call me? use my google voice number next time.

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

Talk:1235: Settled

2013-11-17T15:18:09Z

Db:

I wouldn't be so sure, considering for example the number of times {{w|Loch Ness Monster}} was photographed. Note the case of 2004. On the other hand ... yes, it is going to be harder disprove some sighting if there is 20 videos from it instead of 30 eye witnesses. The secret services probably don't exactly like it - much harder to cover it too. Especially if 5 of those are on youtube before they get there. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
:Assuming within a given timespan a factor of lets say 10000 "ready to use" cameras being around at a given place, we would expect an equal factor of photos. So the only thing speaking agains this is that maybe at the places in question, there are not more people around, but a factor of 10000 less.{{unsigned ip|213.61.9.75}}
::Probably everyone's got their nose burried in their smart-phone, Twittering about what they think of the Haggis they had last night, instead of taking in the view. Thus nobody takes any photos ''at all''... [[Special:Contributions/178.98.181.133|178.98.181.133]] 14:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Unless your phone is equipped with a PPC (protected phenomenon chip), which almost all phones are required to carry by the CIA. Every time someone takes a picture of one of the protected phenomenon the chip recognizes the image and replaces it with a kitten. Why else do you think there are so many pictures of kittens on the internet? --[[User:Shine|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine|talk]]) 14:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
:::PPC is not needed nor is any phenomenon disproved thanks to the development of image editing software like gimp and photoshop. If I were to post authentic photographic proof that Big Foot shot Kennedy, most people wouldn't take it seriously. In fact, according to rule 34, now that I've mentioned it, there must be porn of it. The kittens are just more entertaining. Oh god, now it will have kittens in it. [[User:Db|db]] ([[User talk:Db|talk]]) 15:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1235: Settled

2013-11-17T15:15:23Z

Db:

I wouldn't be so sure, considering for example the number of times {{w|Loch Ness Monster}} was photographed. Note the case of 2004. On the other hand ... yes, it is going to be harder disprove some sighting if there is 20 videos from it instead of 30 eye witnesses. The secret services probably don't exactly like it - much harder to cover it too. Especially if 5 of those are on youtube before they get there. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
:Assuming within a given timespan a factor of lets say 10000 "ready to use" cameras being around at a given place, we would expect an equal factor of photos. So the only thing speaking agains this is that maybe at the places in question, there are not more people around, but a factor of 10000 less.{{unsigned ip|213.61.9.75}}
::Probably everyone's got their nose burried in their smart-phone, Twittering about what they think of the Haggis they had last night, instead of taking in the view. Thus nobody takes any photos ''at all''... [[Special:Contributions/178.98.181.133|178.98.181.133]] 14:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Unless your phone is equipped with a PPC (protected phenomenon chip), which almost all phones are required to carry by the CIA. Every time someone takes a picture of one of the protected phenomenon the chip recognizes the image and replaces it with a kitten. Why else do you think there are so many pictures of kittens on the internet? --[[User:Shine|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine|talk]]) 14:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
:::PPC is not needed nor is any phenomenon disproved thanks to the development of image editing software like gimp and photoshop. If I were to post authentic photographic proof that Big Foot shot Kennedy, most people wouldn't take it seriously. In fact, according to rule 34, now that I've mentioned it there must be porn of it. The kittens are just more entertaining. Oh god, now it will have kittens in it. [[User:Db|db]] ([[User talk:Db|talk]]) 15:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1236: Seashell

2013-11-17T06:24:34Z

Db:

Transcript looks terrible on a phone. --[[Special:Contributions/81.23.24.44|81.23.24.44]] 14:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
:Screenshot: http://www.imgur.com/A4nortJ.png --[[Special:Contributions/81.23.24.44|81.23.24.44]] 15:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
:Is it possible to make <math> comments somehow? --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 14:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
::Did I make it better, or worse? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.45|108.162.216.45]] 03:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't indicate that most times he has put the shell to his ear were not at the beach, he indicates that if he is picking up a shell not at a beach it is probably only to put it to his ear. Or rather, he rarely picks up seashells unless at the beach, and if he does then its only to test this crazy old wives tale.
[[Special:Contributions/75.158.106.126|75.158.106.126]] 14:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The wrong equation was corrected. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Faedrivin Faedrivin] 15:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have usually tested the "shell by my ear" at home, far away from sea or ocean... and still heard "the sea" --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 16:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
: If what I read somewhere once (how's that for backing up my claim with an actual reference?) is correct what you actually hear is the sound of your own blood flowing through your veins. Not sure that's really true, but expect it is actually something of yourself you're hearing that happens to sound similar to a sea. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 17:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

:: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question556.htm I'm predicting a what-if post on the same topic next Tuesday. Except of course, he's going to generate a geographical map (on a Gall-Peters projection) of the "loudness" of the sound of the ocean. Tides crashing against coastline / breakers out at sea / hydrothermal vents / Giant Squid song.. etc. [[Special:Contributions/220.224.246.97|220.224.246.97]] 01:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

:: The howstuffworks.com explanation is a bit wordy. It's just ambient noise filtered by the resonant properties of the somewhat complex cavity formed by the shell and your ear. Your brain is programmed to pick out such resonant frequencies. (No citation; I just made all that up.) [[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 13:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Protip: Don't put seashells just picked up near the ocean in your ear! Sometimes the shell "first owner" is still in there! That's why I usually wait until getting home and make sure there's nothing inside before putting things in my ear... [[Special:Contributions/189.5.107.6|189.5.107.6]] 01:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

:Any specific reason why should the first owner be more dangerous that any {{w|Hermit_crab|other owner}}? I would actually suspect that the reverse would be true. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

::You're right, I meant it to avoid conffusion with yourself, since, I believe, you become the owner of something you find on a beach that noone else claims. [[Special:Contributions/189.5.99.130|189.5.99.130]] 18:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This formula is the correct way to state Bayes' theorem but the formula says nothing about the events. It's a tautology. Any events can be used and it's still true. Might as well have just put A and B in there for all we learn from it. The only exception is that division by zero must be avoided. I'm not sure the original formula was "wrong" since it was about particular events. [[User:Db|db]] ([[User talk:Db|talk]]) 06:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Db

2013-11-17T06:16:02Z

Db: Created page with "After careful consideration I have only one thing to say here: Meh. ~~~~"

After careful consideration I have only one thing to say here:

Meh. [[User:Db|db]] ([[User talk:Db|talk]]) 06:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1242: Scary Names

2013-11-17T06:11:59Z

Db:

;Zero Halliburton
What is "A Zero Halliburton briefcase"? [[Special:Contributions/212.232.24.57|212.232.24.57]] 13:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

:Zero Halliburton is a luggage brand name, with a line of aluminum attache cases. Not connected to the big company Halliburton, associated with former US Vice President Cheney and the war in Iraq. [[User:Wrybred|Wrybred]] ([[User talk:Wrybred|talk]]) 13:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)wrybred

::The history of Zero Halliburton luggage does intersect with the founder of Halliburton Company, Erle P. Halliburton. He needed rugged cases, so he started a company to produce them. He sold it to Zero Corporation. [http://www.zerohalliburton.com/about-our-company.html]. ''— [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 14:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)''

;Military Aide/Secret Service Agent
Isn't the nuclear football carried by a military aide, not a Secret Service agent? [[Special:Contributions/167.165.238.254|167.165.238.254]] 14:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

:Probably. I don't really know what I'm talking about. If you think you can improve on what I wrote, go for it! [[User:RouterIncident|RouterIncident]] ([[User talk:RouterIncident|talk]]) 14:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

::Yes. "Cheney noted that the president is accompanied at all times by a military aide carrying a 'football' that contains launch codes for nuclear weapons. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/21/AR2008122100869.html] ''— [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 14:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)''

:::I assume it's called 'football' because in the USA footballs are usually carried by hand. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 15:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

::::Early plans for nuclear war against the Soviets were codenamed "Dropkick". [[Special:Contributions/193.67.17.36|193.67.17.36]] 16:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

;Helvetica Scenario
I think the "Helvetica Scenario" explanation is wrong, but I don't know enough about it to feel comfortable editing. Here's an article I found that makes more sense. http://enigmauniversity.wikia.com/wiki/Helvetica_Scenario (I didn't watch the Youtube clip since I'm at work, so maybe that's what the clip refers to. It should be explained in the article instead.) [[User:Trek7553|Trek7553]] ([[User talk:Trek7553|talk]]) 14:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

:To the best of my knowledge, the page you linked to is a work of fiction on a role-playing wiki. The references to calcium imply that it is based off of the Look Around You segment, but with its own added elements for the sake of role-playing. [[User:RouterIncident|RouterIncident]] ([[User talk:RouterIncident|talk]]) 14:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

::I changed this section. The video is correct, but the horror scene is just showing a possible result of the Helvetica experiment.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

:::That sounds much better now. [[User:RouterIncident|RouterIncident]] ([[User talk:RouterIncident|talk]]) 18:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

:::: I know what you mean but I like the statement "...the page you linked to is a work of fiction..." - the Helvetica Scenario is a work of fiction! But yes, that is a derivative work, the original source being Look Around You.

:::: Having just looked at the edits, Dgbrt is getting seriously confused. The Helvetica Scenario is not real, and is completely made up by the TV program Look Around You. Urban dictionary is entirely based on the original invention by L.A.Y. It is not a real thing!

;Arbitrary Scariness Formatting
I have a slight issue with the artificial percentage scale given for entries in the chart. First of all it assumes a linear chart that is measured in percentages. Secondly, it assumes Flesh-eating Bacteria is 100% scariest thing and scariest-sounding thing existant. Just because it's the highest on the chart doesn't make it "100%" (again, percentage seems like an arbitrary scale to assign) [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 16:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

:I disagree on your second point. The explanation expresses the scariness of something as a percentage of Flesh-eating Bacteria BECAUSE it is an arbitrary scale. It doesn't imply that the bacteria is the scariest possible thing. I think this is the best way; it's better than saying "Grey goo isn't as scary sounding, but is scarier than..." for all possible combinations of every item.<br>Also on your first point, it doesn't assume the chart is measured in percentages (although it does assume linearity). [[Special:Contributions/174.88.154.131|174.88.154.131]] 12:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

::How about we just give the pixel coordinates and point out that the scale is arbitrary (or not defined by the comic). Percentage would suggest that the scale is in some way linear, which you actually cannot conclude from the graph. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 13:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

::Initially I had written out "Not very scary", "Somewhat scary", "Fairly scary", etc. but it seemed simpler and much easier to read and sort to simply use arbitrary percentages. [[User:RouterIncident|RouterIncident]] ([[User talk:RouterIncident|talk]]) 14:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
:As there are no values or units listed, Randall's dots are fairly arbitrary, probably plotted relative to each other and to a roughly-equal apparent-to-actual-scariness line. So isn't it a little silly to argue about the listing of an arbitrary scale for these arbitrary values? [[Special:Contributions/138.162.8.57|138.162.8.57]] 15:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

::In my opinion the percentages are over interpreting the comic. But since it is here it should be explained as position on the graph relative to zero.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

:::The percentages are perfectly fine. They just need to be interpreted as what they are: percentages of scary, relative to flesh eating bacteria. Flesh eating bacteria = 1 unit of scary. In this situation 110% isn't just a metaphor. If the bacteria was the scariest thing nothing would be off the chart. [[User:Db|db]] ([[User talk:Db|talk]]) 06:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Really I think the point of the comic is how superficial perception and reality fail to correlate. That's what is so notable about flesh eating bacteria. It lives up to it's name. A rare thing indeed. [[User:Db|db]] ([[User talk:Db|talk]]) 06:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)