explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1834: Lunch Order

2017-05-16T16:10:21Z

Elsbree:

First! Hee Hee... Anyways... I've been waiting for the site to come back up to find out about "the time autocorrect stopped a nuclear war"... I was sure any such potential war would have been years ago (which this description confirmed), so any such saving would technically be a typo or a mere misspelling and not autocorrect, but I figured that's what this meant. Seeing the explanation now, is this situation just a hypothetical from Randall? The comic is just portraying that? (I didn't make the launch/lunch connection until now, I can only see the title text on this site, which was down) :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.16|108.162.219.16]] 21:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It might be a long shot, according to wikipedia WarGames the movie released on May 7th 1983. 34 years and a day before this comic was posted (IMDB state May 19th 1983 as the release date). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.72|141.101.105.72]]

The premise could have originated with this short-lived Saturday-morning TV program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_Out_Space_Nuts [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 16:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1357: Free Speech

2014-04-18T04:55:25Z

Elsbree: Created page with "I've clarified the sentence about the Constitution being a legal document. Legal documents are not necessarily limited to government activity (for example, an apartment lease ..."

I've clarified the sentence about the Constitution being a legal document. Legal documents are not necessarily limited to government activity (for example, an apartment lease is a legal document but says nothing about what the government can or cannot do). I added the phrase "that defines the structure and powers of the government" to the end of the sentence. [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 04:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

1357: Free Speech

2014-04-18T04:53:04Z

Elsbree: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1357
| date = April 18, 2014
| title = Free Speech
| image = free_speech.png
| titletext = I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Initial explanation, could use more work I'm sure.}}

The United States constitution has an amendment that provides for "freedom of speech", saying that "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". This concerns only government activities, as the Constitution is a legal document that defines the structure and powers of the government. However, many times both on the Internet and off, people with unpopular (or just plain stupid) opinions will complain that their freedom of speech is being restricted when others make it clear that they don't want to hear those opinions. An example of this is the incident involving the program "Duck Dynasty", in which network A&E suspended the host after making homophobic remarks, causing some to comment that his rights had been infringed upon. In actuality, the First Amendment was never meant to provide immunity from any and all consequences. In this comic, Cueball is addressing anyone who has used this argument. As the comic says, just because you're legally allowed to say something doesn't mean that everyone is legally required to listen. If someone says something stupid or offensive, they should be ready to accept the consequences.

The title text points out the irony of anyone appealing to free speech as a defense for their argument or opinion. If all someone can say is that their argument is not ''illegal'', then they are severely undermining it by all but admitting that they don't have any better defense.

==Transcript==
:Cueball: Public Service Announcement: The '''Right to Free Speech''' means the government can't arrest you for what you say.

:Cueball: It doesn't mean that anyone '''''else''''' has to listen to your bullshit, or host you while you share it.

:Cueball: The 1st amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences.

:Cueball: If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an Internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated.

:Cueball: It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole,

:[A picture of a door is displayed]
:Cueball: And they're showing you the door.

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

Talk:1306: Sigil Cycle

2013-12-26T07:03:29Z

Elsbree:

Shouldn't it be QBASIC$ (or QBASIC%), since in Basic the sigil is attached to the end of variable names? --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.108|173.245.53.108]] 13:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Could not find where categories can be added, here's a list of suitable categories: Charts, Computers, Comics presenting a compromise Internet, Programming [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.180|173.245.53.180]] 13:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This comic de-emphasizes the value of sigils. It's very ironic that Randall chose C++, a language with symbols, to exemplify plain words. And C is a reason for not naming technologies after letters. Same with X. You have to search for "C programming language" or "X window system." It's very helpful to distinguish things with unique sigils, especially in this current age where we depend on full-text search. Just look at my login ID, tbc. I have been tbc on the Internet since 1981. But I eventually had to go by tbc0 (e.g. on Twitter) because tbc isn't unique enough. Google was named after 10^100 (an incomprehensibly large number reflecting their ambition). But that number is spelled googol. They own their spelling. Brilliant. Consider examples: iMac, iPhone iPad, Yahoo (a little weak), Facebook (they own that word). It's all about branding. Google Kleenex or Xerox and you'll see that they're excellent sigils. The problem is, those terms have become generic. Their brand is a little weaker for it. Finally, on Twitter, @and # unleash powerful features. — [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 15:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
:C++ uses symbols, but it doesn't use one to denote that an identifier is a variable (like PHP) or the type of an identifier (like early BASIC, Perl, and arguably Twitter). And when I search for X, it's either X11 (the protocol) or Xorg (the widely used server implementation). And [[wikipedia:Barney_Google_and_Snuffy_Smith|Barney Google]] had it first. --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples|talk]]) 15:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Any way we can expand on the history of programming (if applicable)? Did these languages become popular in a certain order, or were they developed as a response to one another? Or is this comic simply Randall's journey through programming, not specifically tied to the popularity (or development) of certain coding languages? -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.227|108.162.216.227]]

The google mentioning isn't explained well enough imo. Instead if just saying "they have a service called google plus", it should be told how the + sign is used throughout the service, like every other instance in the article. I may do the edit myself, but it's not likely. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.237|141.101.98.237]] 15:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"Ironically, it is the name if the language itself that includes symbols."

It's not very ironic. Variable names don't include symbols, but commands do. This statement should be rewritten.

int c = 0;

c++;

c += 1;

c = c + 1; {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.215}}

:I find it ironic that "C++" in a statement would be interpretted as "C" and only ''post''-incremented (i.e. only incremented when ''next'' referenced). Meaning "C++" is effectively the same as "C", in its own context. They should have named it "++C", if they wanted to indicate that it was ''itself'' improved upon the original value of C. ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 16:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

::This is an incorrect interpretation of the statement c++. c++ as a standalone statement, on a line by itself, will result in c being exactly one greater than before the statement (the value stored in that memory location will indeed be one greater); using prefix or postfix ++ in this context is functionally equivalent and most people just prefer using the postfix version. Where the distinction between the prefix and postfix versions come into play is in more complex statements where the operator's return value is not ignored. For example,

::int c = 1;
::int x = c++;

::x will be initialized to 1 because the postfix ++ operator returns the value of c before it was incremented, but the value stored in c will be 2 regardless of further reference. If, instead you initialized x using the prefix version, ++c, x would be 2 because the prefix version of ++ returns the incremented result. (Side note: it's often considered bad practice to rely on the return value of the increment and decrement operators.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.227|108.162.219.227]] 20:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
:::No, I stand by what I say. I actually agree with your code, but freely parsing "I will use C++ for this project", as a phrase (at least the first time you utter it) might so easily be a statement that gives a direct result equal to "I will use C for this project". (It helps to have just the right geeky sense of humour, of course.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 21:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
::::Oh, I assure you, I am quite geeky. I could, for instance, argue that you're mixing the grammars of English and C++, a natural language and context sensitive language. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.227|108.162.219.227]] 22:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::Personally, I see no problem. When you start programming in C++, you are writing code which is effectively C. Only when you program in C++ longer time, the code will improve. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

::::Wrong, as "I will use C++" actually does mean "I will use C++", because the moment you finished uttering it (command break), C indeed becomes one point greater ;) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.43|108.162.222.43]] 06:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::Regarding the name of the language, Bjarne Stroustrup himself [http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#name has said], "Connoisseurs of C semantics find C++ inferior to ++C." [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 07:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Extending the first comment above: Since the strip is known for being rather technically strict, it's odd that it says "word ... will START with", yet QBASIC variables END with symbols, and Google+ ENDS with a symbol.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.216|108.162.216.216]] 18:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

: That's not a problem with Google, because the ''sigil'' comes at the beginning there. But it's a problem with QBASIC, all right. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 05:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Although C++ doesn't force you to use sigils, by convention programmers would still use sigils. Conventionally, variable names were named nCount, or fCost. The first character in the variable name indicated the data type. This convention was extended by Visual C++, and it started naming interfaces starting with I. Eventually, this convention fell by the wayside because IDEs started getting smarter and you would get code complete and some sort of information via a tooltip that eliminated the need for the Sigil --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.24|173.245.56.24]] 18:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
::{{w|Hungarian Notation}} (and similar schemes) aren't "sigils" (according to [[wikt:sigil|wiktionary]], a sigil in this context is non-alphanumeric, and the comic would seem to imply this also). --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.186|108.162.219.186]] 22:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC).

I think this explanation could do with some better explanation of the programming concepts it describes. Not every xkcd reader will be familiar with programming languages. --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 21:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
: I've expanded the introduction for now to more fully explain programming languages and variables - it wasn't very clear to non-programmers - but I think the rest could use some work too. --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 18:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If "C++" "started" with a symbol, then I would agree that it is ironic that it appears in the graph in the position that it does. Since it does not, however, I must dispute your use of the word "ironic". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 03:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

How could 'see plus plus' be pronounced any other way? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.239|141.101.98.239]] 11:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1295: New Study

2013-11-25T19:47:11Z

Elsbree:

There was a joke in Czech Republic a few years ago: American scientists discovered, that 80% Europeans believe in everything that starts with: "American scientists discovered". {{unsigned|‎Jiří Dobrý}}

The main reason why the Browser Usage hoax was so successful is that it's very plausible. Especially regarding the old versions of Internet Explorer. How can people still be using crap like IE 6.0?
:Because 86% of people just use computers as a tool that comes as-is, without wanting to understand how it works and/or could be modified.[[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
:"''How can people still be using crap like IE 6.0?''" That's like asking how people could still be using crap like a single-flux nonwidget carburetor. Don't they realize that's so out of date? Answer, of course not. To the VAST majority of people aren't, and don't need to be, aware of what version of a browser they use any more than teh vast majority of people don't know (or need to) what components are under the hood of their car. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.89|199.27.128.89]] 17:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Note that I find hard to believe this was created due to something happening in 2011. While related, I would assume there was some other, more recent study this reacts to. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131003-bohannon-science-spoof-open-access-peer-review-cancer/] ? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

New to editing. Trying to add this line and it isn't showing up. I believe this is the event he's referring to. <nowiki>* [http://eldeforma.com/2012/08/27/samsung-paga-multa-de-1-billon-de-dolares-a-apple-en-monedas-de-5-centavos/#axzz2lfjwKjjt Samsung pays $1bn USD fine to Apple with 20 billion 5 cent coins]: widely reported on news networks in November 2013</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.54|108.162.216.54]] 15:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Eastwood
:But that story has nothing to do with a "new study" (or any "study," for that matter). [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 19:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind... figured it out. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.54|108.162.216.54]] 15:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Eastwood

Talk:1231: Habitable Zone

2013-06-29T07:13:51Z

Elsbree:

Even if you placed the mirror in Space, it would be incredibly obvious what is going on. I don't think this would work. [[Special:Contributions/96.251.85.48|96.251.85.48]] 06:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

:For this trick to work, the mirror would need to be placed AT LEAST two light years away and be at least 1AU big. Somehow I don't think this is worth it. Alternatively, you need more complicated optical system which would not only mirror Earth, but also create illusion it's further away. I still think such system would be more costly to build that ISS. Or ... well ... you could put an LCD display directly over the telescope. That's doable, cheap and as a bonus you can display planets from sci-fi there. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

::Under Hkmaly's initial proposal, the astronomer would have to make two observations, 4 years apart, in order to see the "other" telescope. [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 07:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Since when do we have terrestrial telescopes that can directly resolve exoplanets? I think we're still at the stage where we get excited by troughs in light curves EDIT: TIL that there are specific techniques for exactly that: {{w|Nulling interferometry}} and {{w|Vortex coronagraph}}s. Still, they may work for hot Jupiters, but don't think we can detect Goldilocks exoplanets from the ground yet; much less see oceans and visible weather. [[Special:Contributions/220.224.246.97|220.224.246.97]] 09:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

My first thought was that you need to point the mirror so that it's aimed perfectly at the Earth. Then, I realized that you can use a corner reflector so that the aim doesn't have to be precise at all. Then, I came to the following realization: what if a significant portion of the stars we see are simply reflections of our own solar system due to a massive prank done by aliens? [[Special:Contributions/174.88.153.125|174.88.153.125]] 15:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

:Or all of them? Of course including additional variable features like red shift. So [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Universum.jpg they were right!] Forever alone... --[[User:Kronf|Kronf]] ([[User talk:Kronf|talk]]) 16:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

:: Where would these aliens reside? Either we're pranking ourselves, or there are other stars. [[Special:Contributions/220.224.246.97|220.224.246.97]] 17:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

::: What if there's a mirage-like effect in space, that causes light rays to mirror back to us with some variability, maybe different sizes, shapes, colors, and the universe is actuallly quite small? I mean, other than light, do we seriously detect gravity and other stuff out there (other than the visible effects of those properties on other stuff we see)? [[Special:Contributions/189.5.110.148|189.5.110.148]] 06:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't reflected light make the mirror extremely bright and impossible to view directly?

Talk:1171: Perl Problems

2013-02-08T17:31:53Z

Elsbree:

The punchline is in reference to this oft-quoted joke by jwz:

Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular expressions." Now they have two problems. - Jamie Zawinski

There's actually a double joke here: The song "99 Problems" is by Jay-Z, and the regex joke is by jwz.
--[[Special:Contributions/173.8.183.86|173.8.183.86]] 08:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:[Jj][A-Za-z]*[\b\-]*[Zz][A-Za-z]* [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 17:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why so many people have problems with regular expressions. They are really easy ... compared to gramatics or turing machines. :-)
(Of course, it is good idea to verify that the problem you are trying to solve with regular expressions IS regular. While perl is sometimes capable of doing stuff outside real regular expressions, it's rarely worth it.) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait, how do we know that the Regular Expressions helped Cueball, and that now, in fact, he has only 4 problems? [[Special:Contributions/220.224.246.97|220.224.246.97]] 15:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1171: Perl Problems

2013-02-08T17:31:24Z

Elsbree:

The punchline is in reference to this oft-quoted joke by jwz:

Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular expressions." Now they have two problems. - Jamie Zawinski

There's actually a double joke here: The song "99 Problems" is by Jay-Z, and the regex joke is by jwz.
--[[Special:Contributions/173.8.183.86|173.8.183.86]] 08:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:[Jj][A-Za-z]*[\b\-]*[Zz][A-Z-a-z]* [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 17:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why so many people have problems with regular expressions. They are really easy ... compared to gramatics or turing machines. :-)
(Of course, it is good idea to verify that the problem you are trying to solve with regular expressions IS regular. While perl is sometimes capable of doing stuff outside real regular expressions, it's rarely worth it.) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait, how do we know that the Regular Expressions helped Cueball, and that now, in fact, he has only 4 problems? [[Special:Contributions/220.224.246.97|220.224.246.97]] 15:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)