explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1741: Work

2022-09-26T22:00:36Z

Flymousechiu:

Whoa, I've never been early enough to beat the explanation before. {{unsigned ip|173.245.50.82}}
:To 173.245.50.82, please remember to sign your posts. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 13:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I wrote the transcript. Feel free to change it so it's not so bare and write the explanation. Thanks. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 13:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
:Done ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

To prevent fire hazards, objects in California are not allowed to surpass a certain temperature, 140 °C if I'm correct . Can't find the actual law quick. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.230|162.158.114.230]] 18:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think Randall underestimates the problem. I used to work for the research arm of the electronics multinational, Philips. When a product design was "finished", it had to go to a special committee who decided where, exactly, on the product did the word "PHILIPS" and their little shield logo go - and (rarely) whether these things should be done in black or white. It was VERY frequently the case that the committee would take longer to come to a conclusion than the product took to design. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 20:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I often wonder about those tiny, cheap plastic toys that come in Xmas crackers (UK) or the 25 cent toy vending machines (USA). They are completely crappy things - but thinking that someone thought about what kind of toy should be made - then designed the shape of it, thought about the color of plastic to use, spent tens of thousands of dollars machining an injection mold for it - and STILL turned out a complete piece of junk...it's anyone's guess what effort that took. I know it costs around $40,000 to make a mold like that - but those toys look like someone who was being paid very, very little, spent no more than an afternoon designing each one! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 20:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

What a coincidence. I just got out of my Product Development class. I remember having to deal with so many of these things that it's completely relatable. [[User:Jeudi Violist|Jeudi Violist]] ([[User talk:Jeudi Violist|talk]]) 21:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that curve would be a bitch to draw in AutoCAD. I still shudder... [[User:Papayaman1000|Papayaman1000]] ([[User talk:Papayaman1000|talk]]) 21:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If anything, I'll bet the timeframes listed are shorter than they really took (only months of tip-over tests? only 9 hours of meetings on the arm?? David Lang {{unsigned ip|173.245.48.105}}

I don't know anything about glass production, but is it true that "what compounds are allowed around the glass during production" matters? It sounds like those martini recipes where one waves a bottle of vermouth towards the glass. [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 05:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
:I'm no expert, but if impurities gets into the glass the color or refraction may change or the strength. And if it is a drinking glass there may be any kind of toxic products that may be used in creating window glass etc. that could not be allowed to enter the production. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
::I wouldn't call myself an expert on glass in cups, either, but I've learned about FDA guidelines, studied manufacturing processes, and visited a glass production company once. The FDA has [http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/20/garden/fda-issues-warnings-on-using-lead-crystal.html issued a warning] on lead crystal glass cups, and lead has been found in regular glass, and as you said there are many contaminants that can be present during manufacturing from any material but if the material comes in contact with food or drink (such as cups) special care has to be taken to avoid those toxins. I am not 100% sure this is done with drinking glass, but it makes sense. Even if nobody cares about getting toxins in drinking glasses, this comic is about "imaging the work that went into design" and not "knowing exactly what went into design". [[User:Jeudi Violist|Jeudi Violist]] ([[User talk:Jeudi Violist|talk]]) 03:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
:My favourite (fake) dry martini recipe included having a friend in Hong Kong (the writer was based in Britain) whisper the word "Vermouth" over the 'phone, whilst the handset was held close (but not too close) to the Gin![[User:RoyT|RoyT]] ([[User talk:RoyT|talk]]) 07:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Randall may, indeed, be annoyed about the cord switch, but there is nothing in the comic or the title text to suggest that. He does, however, have a strong opinion on the "cord switch _firing_ incident". Perhaps that bit of the explanation should be amended? [[User:RoyT|RoyT]] ([[User talk:RoyT|talk]]) 06:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
:I think they say that because he implied in the title text of a previous comic that having the switch on the cord is worse than having your dog possessed by a demon. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.136|108.162.218.136]] 11:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
::Both are true. I have corrected the explanation to say that he is upset about the firing. And then by referring to the old comic makes sense of why he might have such a strong op--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)inion.

Removed an abusive and trolling "disclaimer" asking us to evaluate our life choices and our support of the comic. Trolling is unwelcome. [[User:Enfield|Enfield]] ([[User talk:Enfield|talk]]) 17:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think about design a lot and however many hours are spent on some products it never ceases to amaze me how the primary feature can fail so terribly, like pouring a liquid without the liquid spilling. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.235|108.162.215.235]] 00:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit strange to emphasize the work that went into designing these things, but to completely fail to mention to work that went in to *actually* making them. Shades of Marx and the table's wooden brain? [[User:Arctother|Arctother]] ([[User talk:Arctother|talk]]) 18:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

An engineer worked into the night? Maybe if the engineer had let a draftsman do the job for him all that time could have been saved. Mind you, ACAD is a drawing package. Modelling up that lamp assembly in any quarter decent 3D package is a tutorial exercise. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.54|162.158.2.54]] 10:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

All of these objects look like they were designed <= 1950. So no AutoCAD involved.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.83.108|162.158.83.108]] 10:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
:Huh? How so? I can buy all of those products in a store today, and while yes, the general products were in existence before/around the '50s, the Korean company that made my el-cheapo dollar store versions had to make the designs from scratch. Yes, they had a general *idea* on how to make it, that only goes so far into what's discussed. {{unsigned|Papayaman1000}}

Not saying that I've ever done that, but some of the curves might have been drawn with one hand while the engineer is scratching the butt-cheek with the other ;) [[User:Flymousechiu|Flymousechiu]] ([[User talk:Flymousechiu|talk]]) 22:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2268: Further Research is Needed

2022-05-28T16:45:33Z

Flymousechiu:

First! <small>—[[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.145|172.69.63.145]] 14:56, February 14, 2020</small>
:Please sign your comments. [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 23:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I got two things to say:
* What the heck is the "Woodward Hoffman textbook on organic chemistry"? I can't find it anywhere online.
*I think it's a reference to [https://archive.org/stream/WoodwardAndHoffmannTheConservationOfOrbitalSymmetryAcademicPressVerlagChemie1970/Woodward%20and%20Hoffmann%20The%20Conservation%20of%20Orbital%20Symmetry%20%28Academic%20Press%2C%20Verlag%20Chemie%2C%201970%29_djvu.txt]Conservation of Orbital Symmetry (1971)], whose chapter "Violations" starts with "There are none!" Unfortunately, the "Conclusions" chapter doesn't fully fit the criteria. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.196|162.158.63.196]] 17:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
* ''[http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-579 In the event of an unsuccessful Action 10-Israfil-B, no further <s>action</s> research will be necessary.]''
[[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 23:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Paper title: "Constructive proof of P=NP". Conclusion: "No further research is needed" ... because anyone who read this paper can get so rich they won't need to do any research for rest of life, spent on nice tropical island. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
: ... other paper with similar property: "Experimental disapproval of second thermodynamic law" -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 01:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
:: Sorry, but when experimental disproofs (we really hope one comes by soon) appear, entire research streams into how to optimise the disapproval begins. "No further research required" apply far more to constructive disproofs for theory (i.e. like maths) rather than for the empirical sciences. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.119.67|162.158.119.67]] 19:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
::: You missed the joke being that "no further research is needed" was applied to the researcher - that is, that the researcher doesn't need to do any research - instead of on the field/topic. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Can someone make a category called "Research" or "Research Papers"? Other comics with this topic include: [[2012: Thorough Analysis]], [[2025: Peer Review]], [[2215: Faculty:Student Ratio]], [[1594: Human Subjects]] and [[1574: Trouble for Science]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.83|172.69.33.83]] 00:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
:Done. Is easy. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 01:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
::I thought a similar one already existed, since there have been quite a few comics talking about scientific study papers. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 01:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is a list of a bunch of papers that could have done this (but for some it might not have been known at the time): https://mathoverflow.net/questions/347540/what-are-examples-of-collections-of-papers-which-close-a-field [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 02:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding topics that might reach a conclusion: The first subset that comes to mind is religious matters (e.g. "God works in mysterious ways -- let's not think about this too much.") The second subset that comes to mind is game theory regarding games that have been solved. (e.g. there's not much left to be said about tic-tac-toe.)

: Further research is needed to see why humans continue to play tic-tac-toe when it's so widely known how to avoid losing. And into how anyone ever wins. And why on earth Google has an online version, with 3 different difficulty levels. Seriously though, there is actual research into how to have the best chance of beating a player who isn't very good (meaning someone who is bad enough to lose occasionally), which involves not only game theory, but also psychology about what mistakes an opponent is most likely to make. Finally, there are newer, more complex, variants, such as playing on a 4x4 grid or in 3D, and new ones can always be developed so that the field is never closed.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.162|172.68.47.162]] 00:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
::Okay, what about a game of Nim? any variant that doesn't change the game so far as to be unrecognizable can easily be solved with backwards recursion. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.34|172.68.211.34]] 06:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
:::3 players. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 15:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
:::Further research needed is into why Wikipedia editors keep missing the sentence "When played as a misère game, Nim strategy is different only when the normal play move would leave only heaps of size one. In that case, the correct move is to leave an odd number of heaps of size one (in normal play, the correct move would be to leave an even number of such heaps)" and posting lengthy comments on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nim#Is_it_just_me? the Wikipedia Nim talk page] about the strategy (for normal play) resulting in losing in a misère game.

Leaving this explanation "incomplete" would be perfectly meta. Please don't ever remove that incomplete tag [[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.142|162.158.134.142]] 16:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
: I think it would have been even better to have the explanation say: "We believe this resolves all remaining questions on this comic. No further explanation is needed." and leave it at that. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

How about a subject where rather than further research not being needed to answer questions, further research is undesirable, as further investigating some matter could potentially trigger catastrophic results, such as allowing the invention of technology that would do great harm if available, ranging from being usable in crimes that can't be traced or stopped, or somehow destroying the world, or that further looking into some matter is likely to somehow drive the researcher insane?--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.21|162.158.74.21]] 06:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
: You are only considering ideas that might run afoul of the ethics committee if it ran. Those are old hat. It is far more interesting and fruitful to point out that we have some examples of the diametrically opposite situation. e.g. the safety and efficiency of vaccines are so great that papers ought to end with "We should not wait for further research in order to recommend that vaccines be mandated." [[Special:Contributions/162.158.119.67|162.158.119.67]] 19:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

If further research really isn't needed on the topic (although obviously papers get things wrong and results need to be reproduced as a check, so let's say this is that), then the next funding can go to someone else's research, and ''that'' is Good For Science. Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@gmail.com [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.92|162.158.155.92]] 12:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm imagining a book titled "There are a finite number of primes", chapter 3 "Proof" reads "This page intentionally left blank" :-) --[[User:OliReading|OliReading]] ([[User talk:OliReading|talk]]) 18:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

there is a joke about cold fusion in there somewhere.--[[User:Artemis1101|Artemis1101]] ([[User talk:Artemis1101|talk]]) 15:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.9b00184 very good paper] published around a month before this comic which says something very close: "...we do not see any justification for such efforts, and we believe that researchers should focus their energy on other research directions." [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.180|162.158.106.180]] 23:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
: Correction: just about exactly a month, funny enough! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.180|162.158.106.180]] 23:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The comic's description alleges that the paper here claims to thoroughly explore all there is to its topic, but the last line only speaks of remaining questions that were supposed to be solved therein (which even leaves open whether this paper is the first one to assail those remaining questions).
Thus, if only one question, or a few related ones, had been left, one paper could indeed conclusively answer the last questions to a topic, especially if it only finishes what others have started.
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.185|172.70.250.185]] 00:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

smbc may 18, 2021: [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/science-2 Further research is pointless because this paper is the last fucking word. My command of the facts is comprehensive and new information is irrelevant because the theory is austere crystalline perfection.] --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.70|172.70.35.70]] 03:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

''The Classification of Quasithin Groups'', being the work that puts the final nail on decades of work in classifying all finite simple groups, may be a work that has the privilege to state such a claim. [[User:Flymousechiu|Flymousechiu]] ([[User talk:Flymousechiu|talk]]) 16:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)