explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1179: ISO 8601

2026-03-02T23:42:31Z

GammaRaul:

{{comic
| number = 1179
| date = February 27, 2013
| title = ISO 8601
| image = iso_8601.png
| titletext = ISO 8601 was published on 06/05/88 and most recently amended on 12/01/04.
}}

==Explanation==
When abbreviating the date into numerical form, {{w|Date format by country|various areas of the world}} tend to list the year, month, and day in different orders (as well as with different delimiting symbols), which can cause confusion, particularly when the day value is 12 or lower, allowing it to be easily interpreted as the month and vice versa. As a {{w|public service announcement}}, this comic states that there is in fact one international standard for writing numeric dates, set by the {{w|International Organization for Standardization}} in its {{w|ISO 8601}} standard: YYYY-MM-DD.

The comic then proceeds to list several discouraged ways of writing out the date of the comic's publication, as they do not match the standard. It begins with several commonly used ones in countries around the world but then begins to list increasingly uncommon ways, ranging from strange (Roman numerals) to quirky (binary, Unix time) to essentially impossible (painting the numbers onto a black cat).

The title text provides a perfect example of the kind of ambiguity that can arise when non-standard formats are used. The ISO standard was in fact published on 1988-06-05 and amended on 2004-12-01. This is mentioned in the title text in MM/DD/YY format; however, there is no way to naturally figure this out, particularly with the second date.

With the year truncated to two digits and all three numbers at 12 or lower, the date referring to December 1, 2004 (the digits pairs 12, 01 and 04) has a number of misinterpretations. Usually 12th Jan '04 (if written as US-style but read as European, or vice-versa) but with ISO-influenced "YY MM DD" ordering as one side or other of the misunderstanding it can easily become the 12th day of April 2001, the 4th day of December 2001 and the 4th of January 2012. It takes two such communication errors to 'become' the 1st day of April 2012.

Date formats were again the subject in [[1340: Unique Date]] and [[2562: Formatting Meeting]].

The other mentioned formats are:

;02/27/2013:MM/DD/YYYY, used mostly in the [https://www.trustedtranslations.com/blog/how-are-dates-written-in-different-countries United States, Belize, and Micronesia].

;02/27/13:MM/DD/YY, same as above but with the year shortened to two digits.

;27/02/2013:DD/MM/YYYY, used variously in South America, Canada ({{w|Date_and_time_notation_in_Canada|officially uses ISO 8601}}), Australia, New Zealand, and much of Europe.

;27/02/13:DD/MM/YY, same as above but with the year shortened to two digits.

;20130227:YYYYMMDD, same as ISO 8601 without delimiting punctuation. Allowed by the standard. Technically not ambiguous but is hard to read as a date at first glance.

;2013.02.27:YYYY.MM.DD, used in Japan, South Korea, and Hungary. Same as ISO 8601 except with different punctuation.

;27.02.13:DD.MM.YY, used in Germany, Russia, and others.

;27-02-13:DD-MM-YY, used in Denmark, Netherlands, Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, and others.

;27.2.13:D.M.YY. It is common in several areas to abbreviate the month or day to a single digit and drop the leading zero when possible.

;2013. II. 27.:YYYY. MM. DD., with month as {{w|Roman numerals}}, used in Hungary. In this format, February and November are prone to be confused with each other: "II" vs. "11". Similar formats with the opposite ordering (27. II. 2013) existed historically in various European countries like France, Germany, and Italy.

;27⁄2-13:D⁄M-YY, traditional format in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden

;2013.158904109:Year and decimal fraction of year. 0.158904109 is a decimal approximation of 58/365, with February 27 being the 58th day of the year. This format may be easier to read for computers/programs in some contexts, but is difficult for humans to interpret.

;MMXIII-II-XXVII:The ISO 8601 standard but written in Roman numerals. Never used as a traditional standard anywhere as it is hard to read, parse, and interpret for no benefit.

;MMXIII LVII⁄CCCLXV:Year followed by its partial fraction 57/365, all in Roman numerals. Equally useless as the above. As a note, apparently this 'standard' is different from the decimal fraction two rows above, as the decimal fraction notation uses the ''end'' of the day (first day of the year is 1/365 while the last is 365/365), while this uses the ''beginning'' (first day is 0/365 and last is 364/365).

;1330300800:{{w|Unix time|UNIX Timestamp}}, a standard method of storing absolute time in many computer systems and defined as the number of seconds since 00:00:00 on 1970-01-01 (UTC). The Unix time listed here appears to mistakenly be for '''2012'''-02-27, which is also mentioned by [[Randall]] in the original transcript. The Unix Timestamp for 2013-02-27 would be 1361923200.

;((3+3)×(111+1)-1)×3/3-1/33:A useless format where the numbers 2013, 2, and 27 written as needlessly long arithmetic expressions using just the digits 1 and 3. For additional confusion, the values are delimited by slashes, enabling confusion with the fraction bar. (If evaluated literally, the entire expression evaluates to 670.963, or 671 minus one twenty-seventh.)

;   2  272013 :A nearly impossible to read date "format" that can be considered a parody "compromise" between different formats: rather than argue about the order in which the year, month, and day should be, they are simply all written on top of each other. As a "bonus", there is also no arguing over which separator character to use.

;10/11011/1101:The US mm/dd/yy format in {{w|Binary number|binary}}, corresponding to 2/27/13. Never used for obvious reasons.

;02/27/20/13:MM/DD/CC/YY, where CC stands for century. This format is never used. Note that while months and days count starting from 1, centuries and years in this format count from 0 for extra confusion. But the CC value is widely used on many operating systems to distinguish between the 20th and 21st century, represented by the values "19" and "20" because 1950 belongs to the 20th century.

;<table style="display: inline-table; line-height: 0.6em; align: middle; text-size-adjust: none;"><tr style="font-size:7pt; text-align: center"><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td></td></tr><tr style="text-align: center"><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>7</td></tr><tr style="font-size:7pt; text-align: center"><td>5</td><td></td><td>67</td><td></td><td>8</td></tr></table>:An obfuscated format where the small numbers indicate the positions where the respective large digits should be placed. In this reading, 0 is used at positions 2 and 5, 1 is used on position 3, etc. Coincidentally or not, positions 1 to 4 (the year) being all placed above their digits and 5 to 8 (month and day) below; the result being 20130227

;[A hissing black cat with "2-27-13" painted on it]:In Western cultures, black cats and the number 13 are associated with bad luck. The cat might also just be angry that someone covered it in paint. Or maybe this is really the correct way.

==Transcript==
:Public Service Announcement:

:Our different ways of writing dates as numbers can lead to online confusion. That's why in 1988 ISO set a global standard numeric date format. This is '''''the''''' correct way to write numeric dates:

::2013-02-27

:The following formats are therefore discouraged:
:*02/27/2013
:*02/27/13
:*27/02/2013
:*27/02/13
:*20130227
:*2013.02.27
:*27.02.13
:*27-02-13
:*27.2.13
:*2013. II. 27.
:*27⁄2-13
:*2013.158904109
:*MMXIII-II-XXVII
:*MMXIII LVII⁄CCCLXV
:*1330300800
:*((3+3)×(111+1)-1)×3/3-1/33
:*   2  272013 [the numbers 2013, 02, and 27 written overlapping each other]
:*10/11011/1101
:*02/27/20/13
:*2053112674378
:*[A black cat with 2-27-13 scrawled across their body in dripping white paint.]
:**Cat: ''Hissss''

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Calendar]]
[[Category:Binary]]
[[Category:Public service announcement]]
[[Category:Cats]]

Talk:3081: PhD Timeline

2025-04-26T14:49:27Z

GammaRaul:

<noinclude>{{notice|This comic is about present-day politics and the {{w|Second presidency of Donald Trump|Trump administration}}. Additionally, the comic is about a controversial immigration-related action taken by said administration. Please {{w|WP:DFTT|don’t feed the trolls}}: don’t give recognition or respond to trolls or vandals. If you find vandalism, revert and move on. If the vandal is a registered user, {{w|WP:RBI|revert, block, and ignore}}. As with these contentious topics, please don't write in a biased and slanted manner. Always be considerate of the other side, don’t {{w|WP:CIVIL|attack people}}, and always {{w|WP:AGF|assume good faith}}. (In case you need assistance in blocking a vandal, message [[User talk:Kynde|Kynde]].)}}</noinclude>

What an age we live in... --[[User:DollarStoreBa'al |DollarStoreBa'al]][[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al | Converse]][https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:Contributions/DollarStoreBa%27al My life choices] 15:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
:[https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/25/politics/fbi-director-wisconsin-judge-arrested/index.html It only gets rougher... ] It's enough to radicalize a person. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.65.187|172.69.65.187]] 16:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
:When even Randall starts freaking out, it usually indicates the most entertaining timeline. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.245.161|162.158.245.161]] 00:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
:: I will only grant this only if we have a happy outcome for all the people already damaged by your current government. I look forward to Nazis getting punched and the Ark of the Covenant being opened [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 14:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Events like this are scary, and they're even scarier if you have a personal or geographic connection to them like Randall does. I can understand why he would feel frustrated about his inability to do something concrete, and if this comic raises awareness for the situation then it has done a good thing. Not sure why I thought this comment was necessary; maybe it's just a way of processing the emotions that the comic made me feel. [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 15:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
: Agree, those of us that are non-US look to the US to uphold human rights. Very sad. [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 14:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I dont want to start an argument, but I am glad Randall Munroe is making a specific, reasonable point. A lot of times I see people saying either "there is no antisemitism on campus, nobody should ever get deported, ACTUAL terrorists should get green cards", and others say "EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME SHOULD GET DEPORTED, EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A TERRORIST." I think both of them are extreme points obviously, and I am glad Randall is just taking the side, for now, of "this specific person did not violate their green card visa."

:Hi, expert-on-the-Öztürk-case but not-an-immigration-expert-really here. For clarity, Öztürk held an F-1 student visa but was not a lawful permanent resident (LPR) (green card holder), unlike the similar case of Mahmoud Khalil (Columbia university) who was a green card holder. And "green card visa" is not a thing, there's a "green card," which you cannot "violate" (although you could commit crimes that might have consequences for your LPR status), and you generally don't hear "violate their visa" although it's true that a visa is related to and may restrict that work you can do in the country. Regardless, no allegations have been made that Öztürk violated anything laws or rules or did anything other than lend her name to speech in a newspaper. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 22:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

as always, based randall, at least for now. [[User:Tzelofachad|Tzelofachad]] ([[User talk:Tzelofachad|talk]]) 16:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
:Did you mean "biased"? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
::Did you mean "biased towards due process?" [[User:CharlesT|Nyrrix]] ([[User talk:CharlesT|talk]]) 16:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
::It's probably "based", as that's a term that can either be used in support or mockery of a philosophical position (because of Poe's Law, hard to know which in most cases, including here). It's more usually used in 4chan-like responses (and I doubt Randall would be considered "based" in those other places) than hereabouts, so perhaps it needs some clarification for those not (or not enough) in that sort of crame of mind. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.94|141.101.99.94]] 17:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, Randall Munroe clearly only cares about this one incident because he does not at all care about politics. He's definitely not using this as an illustrative case on the countless other identical incidents happening under the Trump administration. /s /s /s /s /s. [[User:DrMeepster|'''Dr.'''Meepster]]
(<[[User_talk:DrMeepster|chat]]> •
<[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} reply]>) 16:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I really hope this is one of those comics that does NOT stand the test of time. In other words, I hope the next generation of graduate students sees this and thinks "oh, that must've been written in 2025, we don't have to worry about those kinds of things anymore." Perhaps "hope" isn't the right word, it implies I have hope. Maybe "pray fervently" is the right phrase. Sigh. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.72|198.41.227.72]] 16:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
:Sure ... "Oh, that was before third world war, we don't have to worry about those kinds of things anymore." -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
:We can go back to considering how the Ph.D. became a participation trophy for the financial benefit of the awarding institution - and, in the sciences, a source of slave labor. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.61|172.71.146.61]] 01:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

How do we edit the Categories? This should have category Politics. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
:Usually, once at least one other category (not created from templates like {{template|comic}}) you can edit the page and see the other cat(s) at the bottom, beyond the comic-discussion template. Or edit the Transcript section (or any Trivia one, whatever's the last one) as that'll also have the tail-end of the page. So long as you know there's a category "Foo", you should be able to work out how to add "Category:Foo".
:But don't add Foo if it doesn't exist, hoping that someone will tire of the redlink that's created. You may be wrong about it needing to exist, or miss the ''actual'' "Category:comics featuring Foo", and unless someone is feeling generous it's possible that your edit just gets reverted as not properly researched, or checked... I ''think'' there actually is a Politics category, by that name, but I'm trying to answer the general question, not yet going out there to look it up for certain (at which point, I may have just added it myself, making it useless to have explained how you could 'easily' do it... At least in this instance).
:'''TL;DR;''', though, look at the source (wiki-edit) of another comic that is about Politics and is so categorised. Go all the way to bottom, and you'll see which 'tag' you might want to put at the bottom of this one. Should be obvious. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.94|141.101.99.94]] 17:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
I think I've added that category now [[Special:Contributions/104.23.190.60|104.23.190.60]] 19:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm so tired of this administration :( [[User:CharlesT|Nyrrix]] ([[User talk:CharlesT|talk]]) 16:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
:Are you a citizen of the USA? If so, are you dead? In exile? In jail? Have your assets been seized? No to these? Then this is your administration and mine. Own it, or act. "Tired" doesn't cut it. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.21|172.71.147.21]] 02:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
::Your point being...? [[User:GammaRaul|GammaRaul]] ([[User talk:GammaRaul|talk]]) 14:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The comic on mobile has the title text has a youtube video URL, and if you click on the comic on desktop version, it links to the youtube video of the arrest. This isn't reflected in the description currently. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.121|172.70.126.121]] 16:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The video URL is '''https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyypeEEOklM''' and appears to be "'''CBS Boston [282K subscribers]'''" so probably legit?
I will try to add the URL. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 17:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
:For the sake of consistency, I copy-pasted the "note" from [[1723]] into this comic. '''I also think we should have a category and perhaps a template to make adding notes like this easier and more uniform.''' [[Special:Contributions/172.69.67.22|172.69.67.22]] 21:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
::''"I copy-pasted...."'' Thank you! --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 03:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
::Well, you can create it right now if you want! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 22:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this the first with an out of site link? {{unsigned}}
:No this happens often. For instance this comic {{xkcd|1723}}. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, let's keep the explanation as neutral as possible. Facts only. [[User:Dogman15|Dogman15]] ([[User talk:Dogman15|talk]]) 18:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
:Dunlap's Laws. 1. Fact is solidified opinion. 2. Facts may weaken under extreme heat and pressure. 3. Truth is elastic. (Arthur Block's "Murphy's Laws", 1977.) - "Facts are elite, facts are fungible, facts are false. And once nothing is true, anything can be true." Alan Burdick, ''Trump vs Science'', New York ''Times'' Newsletter, 25 April 2025. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.41|172.68.22.41]] 02:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
: the problem is facts have a heavy anti trump bias. You CAN NOT state basic facts and not be against this regime [[Special:Contributions/162.158.112.187|162.158.112.187]] 00:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
:: I think it's important to emphasize that neutrality is simply a bias towards the truth rather than towards anything else. On a technical level, being unbiased precludes being neutral and being neutral precludes being unbiased, even if people mostly use the word "unbiased" in the same way as "neutral". In other words, bias isn't inherently a bad thing.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.219|172.71.102.219]] 00:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
:::"A bias towards the truth" is a bias towards what my homies and I declare to be correct - since 'absolute truth' does not exist, all 'truth' is relative, is what 'my homies and I declare to be correct'. This bias is not trivial, as you point out. Explanations on xkcd have striven to cover the "what, when, where, who, how" of the associated comic, and have striven to omit "what do we think about all this" except as is necessary to describe "what, when, where, who, how". The goal is laudable, but [''ahem''] difficult to manage when the topic is a lit match on a powder keg. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.143|108.162.245.143]] 02:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
:::: This "no absolute truth" false neutrality nonsense is a bad faith argument rooted in pop philosophy and obfuscating rhetoric intended to discredit the existence of inconvenient facts. There's a famous, if apocryphal, parable about the philosopher who tried to argue this sort of hogwash to the oncoming train that hit him. Gravity exists, the Earth is not flat, and the current administration is run by a bunch of idiotic narcissists actively harming people for personal profit. [[User:Scorpion451|Scorpion451]] ([[User talk:Scorpion451|talk]]) 04:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Of course, the bit I was correcting (with bad grammar, and lack of facts) got totally changed about before I tried to post it. "''For instance citizens usually {{w|Deportation of Americans from the United States|cannot be deported for any reason}} (only extradited, although the US typically refuses to comply with requests even from countries that freely extradite to it), and would instead be subject only to local legal penalties, but relatively minor allegations have resulted in visitors' extraditions.''" was what I wrote. Now, I ''think'' that was neutral enough, but it doesn't fit there now anyway. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.58.113|172.70.58.113]] 22:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:Ack, I think I'm the one who changed it before you could. My bad. Anyway, seconded. Opinion on the conflict in Gaza itself is not needed in this explanation; the edit that suggested that the student could be materially linked to Hamas by providing a link to an opinion poll of how Palestinians feel about the Oct 7 attacks is, in my opinion, very disingenuous, especially considering Ozturk is not Palestinian but Turkish, making the cited data even more blatantly irrelevant than it already would have been. [[User:Psycherprince|Psycherprince]] ([[User talk:Psycherprince|talk]]) 23:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This article could potentially be a reasonable place to try to establish a norm of separately including opposing sides of political topics (rather than the usual edit conflicts). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.176|172.70.110.176]] 00:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Step 6: Try not to lose your visa when traveling or studying abroad by being a nuisance, since visas (in any country) can be denied or revoked for virtually any reason. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.112.168|162.158.112.168]] 01:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
:Pray the leopards never eat your face.
::I'll bring decoy meat and try not to insult the cheetahs while visiting. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.112.186|162.158.112.186]] 01:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
:Do nothing whatsoever controversial, because you don't know who will be running things within a few years? Or what liberties they may take with due process or law? Certainly one wouldn't want to run afoul of officials who are, say, flat-Earthers, Biblical literalists, or holders of unusual views regarding medical practise. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 03:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

== Reason for detention ==

As it is now, the reason given for Özturk's detention is a half-truth. She was not detained because her visa was revoked. That would only prevent her from re-entering the US, if she left it. In contrast, Özturk's visa was revoked in secret, and she did not know about this until after she had been grabbed off the street and treated like a terrorist, or like a dissident in a South American regime.
https://oiss.washu.edu/visa-status-stamps/ says: "The visa stamp is solely for entering the U.S. You will need it again only when you leave the U.S. and intend to re-enter using that visa. It’s sometimes called an “entry visa,” which is different from “status,” a concept explained below. The visa stamp can expire at any time after your entry to the U.S. without affecting your non-immigrant status. If you leave the U.S. and your visa has expired, you will need to apply for a new visa in order to re-enter the U.S." — "Non-immigrant status (also referred to as “status” or “immigration status”) is a non-physical legal condition, granted by an official of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) when you are admitted into the U.S. at a port of entry. Once you obtain non-immigrant status, you must maintain that status throughout your stay in the U.S. unless you legally change to another status."
ExplainXKCD leaves unexplained whether Özturk's immigration status changed, and on what charges she was detained, or whether she was detained without a charge. It is unclear how her visa revocation is related to her arrest, as a visa revocation would not normally lead to an arrest (or does it?). If the ExplainXkCD's failure to explain the reason for Özturk's arrest is related to the US government's failure to explain the reason, then that should be made clear.
Or simply say, "we're not explaining it because politics, go read Wikipedia and educate yourself", but then explainxkcd should not suggest that the reason is the visa revocation. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.95.159|162.158.95.159]] 04:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

2240: Timeline of the Universe

2025-01-31T00:34:50Z

GammaRaul:

{{comic
| number = 2240
| date = December 11, 2019
| title = Timeline of the Universe
| image = timeline_of_the_universe.png
| titletext = Not actual size, except technically at one spot near the left.
}}

==Explanation==

This comic is about the size of the {{w|observable universe}}, presented as a timeline in a way typical of representations of the {{w|timeline of epochs in cosmology}}.

Some events it describes, including the {{w|Big Bang}} and {{w|Inflation (cosmology)|Inflation}} are real, but others are jokes, including the ''Medium Bang'' and ''Settling''. The size history of the visible universe is also embellished for the sake of jokes; the actual size history of the universe has one period referred to as Inflation, which occurred shortly after the Big Bang, followed by comparatively gentle but accelerating expansion. This is artistically depicted in [https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/060915_CMB_Timeline150.jpg this image from NASA]. Part of the humor in this comic comes from the fact that the varied rate of change in expansion is not yet fully understood, with explanations of events leading to this change including theories such as "dark matter" and "dark energy" (this might therefore be construed as "dark humor"). At the end of the drawing four possible continuations of the timeline are suggested, with director J. J. Abrams listed as the deciding factor between them, stating that all future cosmological development has been handed over to him. Abrams directed the 2009 movie ''{{w|Star Trek (film)|Star Trek}}'', which established additional alternate timelines for the {{w|Star Trek|Star Trek franchise}}, so it may be implied that multiple timelines could result from direction by Abrams in the future. Notably, each Star Trek series has included multiple interacting timelines. For information about each of the events shown in this comic's ''Timeline of the Universe'', see detailed explanations in the section [[#Events on the Timeline of the Universe|Events on the Timeline of the Universe]] below.

The title text is a variation of one of [[Randall|Randall's]] standard jokes that his drawings are ''Not actual size''; in the case of this comic there is technically one spot near the left where the drawing depicts the actual relative size of the universe at the time the drawing represents. Where his drawing begins, at the time when the universe began, per definition, our visible universe had no measurable size. Very soon (within a tiny fraction of an attosecond) after the universe as we know it began, the inflation period blew it up very very fast and then it continued to expand until present day. So at some "time" after the big bang, our visible universe would have had a size (i.e. diameter) that would be the same as any thickness of Randall's universe "line". Since the universe as depicted in the comic goes from infinitesimal size at the moment of the Big Bang to the full size of the universe today, at some point near the left there will be a point where Randall's representation would have the same size as the universe at the correct "time period". Of course a problem with this is that there was only a very very short time period after inflation where the diameter of the observable universe is on the same scale as this comic, and that point is neither indicated nor likely to be accurate in relation to the duration of time elapsed. According to an answer given [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/32917/size-of-universe-after-inflation here] regarding the size of the visible universe after inflation, there is reason to believe that the size was still less than 1 mm in diameter when the stage of expansion known as Inflation ended, which is less than the thickness of the line shown at the Big Bang (depending on the screen size the comic is viewed upon); So the point along the timeline where the size of our visible universe matched the line width appears after the Inflation period is thought to have ended. Since Randall includes the ''Medium Bang'' before Inflation on his drawing he has already inserted a mistake there, but as the next three epochs after Inflation are real epochs, it is likely somewhere in this part of the drawing that the visible universe would have had the same diameter as the thickness of the drawing at a relevant time epoch on the drawing. This will thus not be that far to the left but around the Quark epoch.

===Events on the Timeline of the Universe===
The events presented in the timeline are:

* '''??''' (more than 13.8 billion years ago ({{w|Billion years|Gya}})): the unknown state of the universe prior to the Big Bang, if such a statement is even sensible. There are theories that our Universe is a bubble where inflation stopped (13.8 billion years ago in this universe) in an infinite and {{w|Eternal inflation|eternally inflating}} larger universe, which would give rise to the possibility of a {{w|multiverse}} with many bubble universes like ours where inflation has stopped. See for instance this recent video on the subject: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XglOw2_lozc How Many Universes Are There?] from PBS Space Time. If this is true, the universe did not start at the big bang, but our part of the infinite universe actually began when the inflation period stopped, and not at the Big Bang.
* '''{{w|Big Bang}}''' (13.8 Gya): The model of the origin of the universe which has achieved consensus among astronomers. We have observed that all galaxies are receding away from Earth at rates that are roughly proportional to their distance, and the simplest explanation for this is that the universe is expanding. If the universe is expanding, then (unless new physics are discovered) it must have at one time been very, very small and dense; that moment in time is called the Big Bang.
* '''{{w|Timeline_of_epochs_in_cosmology#Planck_epoch|Planck Epoch}}''': The time period starting from the Big Bang, the Planck epoch or Planck era is the earliest stage of expansion currently calculable, before the time passed was equal to the Planck time (tP, or approximately 10^-43 seconds). There is no currently available physical theory to describe such short times, and it is not clear in what sense the concept of time is meaningful for values smaller than the Planck time.
* '''Medium Bang''' (a joke): If there's a Big Bang, why not have a medium one? There should probably also be a Little Bang, but maybe it's just too little to be featured on this chart.
* '''{{w|Inflation (cosmology)|Inflation}}''' (10^-36 to 10^-32 seconds after the Big Bang): A theory developed to explain the large-scale structure of the universe that postulates a period when the universe expanded very much faster than the speed of light. (The universe still expands faster than the speed of light, but only 2-3 times as fast. The limit of the speed c, is only valid for things moving in space time, not for the stretching of space itself!)
* '''{{w|Timeline_of_epochs_in_cosmology#Quarks_epoch|Quark Epoch}}''' (10^-12 seconds after the Big Bang): The universe is a quark-gluon plasma, up until 10^-6 seconds when it cools enough to coalesce into hadrons, including protons and neutrons.
* '''{{w|Timeline_of_epochs_in_cosmology#Lepton_epoch|Lepton Epoch}}''' (1 second after the Big Bang): Leptons, including electrons, and their associated neutrinos dominate.
* '''{{w|Timeline_of_epochs_in_cosmology#Photon_epoch|Photon Epoch}}''' (10 seconds after the Big Bang): The universe is dominated by photons.
* '''Cool Bug Epoch''' (a joke): There was a period around 10-17 million years after the Big Bang in which the cosmic background radiation was between 273 and 373 K, the temperature range for liquid water, but as oxygen had not yet been formed, as stars were not yet there to create it, there would have been no water. Cosmologists {{w|Avi_Loeb#Early_Universe|have speculated}} that primitive life could have arisen during this period and dubbed it the 'Habitable Epoch of the Early Universe', although it's unclear how this life would have formed since there was basically only hydrogen and helium atoms in the universe until the first Super Nova explosions some 100 million years later. Possibly this is the epoch in which the "cool red beetle" which [[Beret Guy]] added to his company's bug tracker (see [[1493: Meeting]]), or the "friendly bug" he wanted to show to a conference speaker (see [[2191: Conference Question]]), evolved.
* '''Molded grip''' (a joke): Some tools (e.g. knives) have molded finger-wells so that the user's hand settles easily and securely into a comfortable position. This epoch of the universe features repeated expansions and contractions so that this part of the timeline resembles a molded grip, at least in profile (it would be much too large to be held by any known animal's hands{{Citation needed}}, and the finger-wells are distributed over time as well as space).
* '''{{w|Timeline_of_epochs_in_cosmology#Cosmic_Dark_Age|Stars form}}''' (100 million years after the Big Bang): The universe cools enough to allow ordinary matter particles to group into stars.
* '''{{w|Stagflation}}''' (a joke): In addition to ''cosmic'' inflation, inflation can also refer to the economic phenomenon in which prices increase over time. Stagflation is a combination of the terms "stagnation" and "inflation", and refers to a situation in which monetary inflation is high, economic growth is slow, and job creation is low. This epoch of the universe shows the universe beginning to contract in size, much as economists would talk about an economy contracting.
* '''Settling''' (a joke): Thanks to government intervention and quantitative easing of the {{w|cosmological constant}}, or perhaps the judicious use of the Universe Control Panel, the contraction of the universe has halted. Alternately this may be a comparison to how in a package full of smaller items, the contents can "settle" over time so the empty space in between them is more filled in so it takes up less space overall leaving open space at the top (like how a cereal box may say "some settling may occur during shipment" to explain why the box doesn't seem completely full), and is thus claiming that somehow something similar to that decreased the size of the universe.
* '''Rebound''' (a joke): Consumer confidence has returned to the universe and it has begun expanding again. Alternatively, Settling and Rebound could be a reference to crustal rebound as the mere Earth occasionally shrinks and re-expands its surface. After all, Plate Tectonics games are fun when they are played in Real Time.
* '''Someone tripped and accidentally hit the "Inflation" switch again''' (a joke). This switch must be on the Universe Control panel referenced both in [[1620: Christmas Settings]] and in [[1763: Catcalling]].
* '''Emergency Stop triggered''' (a joke). Also on the Universe Control panel see previous entry.
* '''{{w|Timeline_of_epochs_in_cosmology#Galaxy_epoch|Galaxies form}}''' (12.8 Gya)
* '''{{w|Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System#Formation_of_the_planets|Earth forms}}''' (4.5 Gya)
* '''Present day'''
* '''Future cosmological development handed over to {{w|J.J. Abrams}}, outcome unknown''' (a joke): J.J. Abrams is a science-fiction writer and filmmaker. If he were in charge of the future development of the cosmos, he might decide to subject all of us to some strange plot twist. Among many other movies, he has directed the 2009 reboot of ''{{w|Star Trek (film)|Star Trek}}'', in which the "future history" of ''Star Trek'' is altered from the timeline of the original series by Nero and Spock traveling backwards in time. He also has directed other "Star" films, including ''{{w|Star Wars: The Force Awakens}}'' and ''{{w|Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker}}'' (released a few weeks after the publishing of this comic) which altered the direction of ''Star Wars'' canon away from the post-film future laid out in the Expanded Universe publications. He is also involved in the {{w|Mission: Impossible (film series)|Mission: Impossible}} films.
**The dashed lines coming off the end of the timeline represent the possible fates of the universe:
*** The one curving in represents that the universe could stop expanding and begin contracting, resulting in the {{w|Big Crunch}}. In our universe, cosmological measurements have shown that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, so the Big Crunch is considered to be the least likely fate.
*** The second curve continuing the trend from before represents that the universe could settle into thermal equilibrium, which would leave no energy available for any interesting phenomena to occur. This is called the {{w|heat death of the universe}} or "Big Freeze".
*** The fourth curve represents that the universe's expansion will continue accelerating, eventually very rapidly, to the point that the accelerating expansion overcomes all forces between particles, turning the universe into a collection of particles isolated from each other by rapidly-expanding space. This is called the {{w|Big Rip}}.
***In between the second and fourth curve there seems to be something in between where the universe expansion accelerates and then slows down again. We have so far seen the expansion rate decelerate in the early life of the universe where the gravity of the more compact universe slowed the expansion, but then this turned around to an {{w|Timeline_of_epochs_in_cosmology#Acceleration|acceleration}} after about 9 billion years as the distance between galaxy clusters became so large that dark energy became the dominant force, causing the universe expansion to accelerate. So who knows if this could change again... At present our understanding says that the universe expansion-rate will keep accelerating. But left to J. J. Abrams, then the outcome is unknown. These four options represents both what we have theories for and what J. J. might come up with.

==Transcript==
:[A large header is above the main drawing:]
:<big>'''Timeline of the Universe'''</big>

:[The drawing shows a diagram of the evolution of the universe from the Big Bang (left) to the present right with lines indicating possible futures continuing right of the main drawing. The drawing is that of a black horn of plenty, very thin to the left and then it becomes broader, mainly in steps but also slightly between each step. n a few places the diameter decreases a bit. Along the "tube" are segments divided with thin white lines, with about equal distance between them. The first 20 the tube is black, but then stars form, shown as many white dots, and finally in the last 3-4 segments galaxies are shown. At the top and bottom of the opening to the right there are four dashed lines which behaves the same way. Two points inward, two continue the trend from before they begin, two goes out fast again, and then falls back to slow increase, and two goes almost straight up and down. At the far left there is a line going in to a small dot. On the line before the dot are two questions mark. A line points to the dot which has a starburst around it. It represents the Big Bang. After this firs labeled point on the drawing there are mange other labeled sections with a line going from the label to a segment on the drawing. There are 9 above, 9 below and one at each end. The one at the right end pointing to the four dashed future lines at the top. From left to right in the order they are labeled on the timeline, the labels are:]
:??
:Big Bang
:[The Universe comes in as a circle with action lines around it. It stays the same size for a while.]
:Planck Epoch
:Medium Bang
:[The Universe starts inflating very slowly]
:Inflation
:[The Universe briefly inflates very rapidly, and returns to its normal rate of expansion.]
:Quark Epoch
:Lepton Epoch
:Photon Epoch
:Cool Bug Epoch
:[The Universe starts inflating and deflating rapidly, forming a series of bumps in the universe diagram like the grip on a hand tool.]
:Molded grip
:[Stars appear in the timeline. The Universe starts inflating slightly faster than before.]
:Stars form
:Stagflation
:[The Universe starts deflating slowly.]
:Settling
:Rebound
:[The Universe starts inflating slowly again.]
:Someone tripped and accidentally hit the "Inflation" switch again
:[The Universe starts inflating at the same rate as the Inflation section.]
:Emergency Stop triggered
:[The Universe abruptly stops inflating, and stays level.]
:[Galaxies appear in the timeline. The Universe starts inflating at a medium pace.]
:Galaxies form
:Earth forms
:Present day
:[We see the edge of the Universe, with a rounded shape. Various dotted line predictions are on the edges.]
:Future Cosmological development handed over to J.J. Abrams, outcome unknown

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Timelines]]
[[Category:Cosmology]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Animals]] 
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]

Talk:3007: Probabilistic Uncertainty

2024-11-09T18:17:13Z

GammaRaul:

Emotional spirals are useless. I've been coping by pretending we're in scenario 1, it keeps me sane. If I'm wrong, I'll jump off that bridge when we come to it. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:And I have a friend whose strategy is baking. It's both therapeutic and delicious. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:I see I don't know US geography well: which bridge you can jump from to leave it? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Most of them. Some of them may be 'caged in' for safety/anti-suicide/anti-DropThingsInThoseBelow purposes (or a {{w|covered bridge}}). Relatively few of the others will be ones that you would have no qualms about vaulting the railing, but (as well as it clearly being a witticism by Barmar) I think you could easily ''find'' a bridge that you could jump off. And the resulting falling part isn't at all the difficult bit. Landing safely (or, in extremis for those desperate enough, in a guaranteed immediately fatal manner) is more the challenge. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.206|172.70.86.206]] 14:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I think the question was which bridge can you jump off of to LEAVE THE USA entirely. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 16:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Not that this particular destination(/departure) was mentioned, in the above, but perhaps look at some of the border-crossing points, that feature bridges (either to cross geographical features like rivers, or footbridges that separately cross over the roadway that vehicles use) and determine if there any cases where the ''de facto'' (if not ''de jure'') jurisdiction over the bridge is owned by US authorities even though the terrain beneath is not. Perhaps where the US controls(/shares) the check-in facilities located just on the other side, so that bridge-crossers need to be pre-approved for entry before transitioning over (which would be very much in line with immigration policy, not ceding "semi-neutral territory" on the US side if they don't have to).
::::Would not help if the bridge itself is 'true neutral' (each party has a reception-building over on the other side, granting permission to wander onto the crossing 'pre-approved' for all but the most cursory further checks), and if it's two different sections in/out of the US then you might need to walk out upon the right one, backwards, from the US side. Still a definite possibility to find ''some'' permutation of bridge-territory and (e.g.) thalweg-positioning that gives a possible leap 'out' of the US. However awkward it might be. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.70|172.69.194.70]] 17:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but think that at preparing for the negative outcome regardless of which outcome is more likely (unless that outcome is *very* unlikely) is a healthy thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.141|172.71.147.141]] 20:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
: "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" is my usual approach to things. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This comic appeared the day before the 2024 United States Presidential Election. At publication time, polls were strongly suggesting about a 50/50 odds that either major candidate would win. Recent news items included advice from mental-health professionals on how to deal with election-related anxiety. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.195|172.71.167.195]] 20:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Definitely related. This should be in the text, not in the comments, frankly. The yanks are going nuts about the election right now. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.124.243|172.71.124.243]] 20:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Did the advice suggested narcotics? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

My personal policy is to expect and prepare for the worst. That way I can be surprised when it doesn't happen, and not surprised when it does, rather than the other way around. I don't "do" emotions, so it's basically just planning and mumbling colloquialisms involving the digestive system... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.134.64|172.71.134.64]] 21:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:As someone who used to think this way, this is obstructively cynical, and downright ''sad''. I mean, in theory you should be pleasantly surprised by the good, and prepared for the bad, but in practice you just dismiss anything good and focus exclusively on the bad. As someone with experience in this type of thinking, it isn't healthy. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.85|172.71.22.85]] 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:: As someone who also practices this, applied properly and cautiously it's fine; expect trump to win and plan out for what you'll do if he wins (which for me mainly involves providing emotional support for American friends) and be suprised if Harris does. It's not that hard to avoid negative thinking if you focus on the positives, the solution, the mitigation of effects instead of the bad stuff. And if you get a positive result - throw all that away and bask in the positive result. [[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.56|172.64.236.56]] 11:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that it's mostly Democrats that are anxious, where Trump winning is the bad case. Not being an American I don't have much perspective. Are many Republicans likely to also be anxious, and if so, why? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.60.170|172.69.60.170]] 21:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Not sure about "anxious", for Trump-supporting Rs (as opposed to Trump-opposing ones, who are both anxious and tremendously conflicted), but there's certainly a buzz of some emotion. That, if ''their'' expectations/hopes/desires are dashed, seem more likely to turn into more direct push-back than Ds would in their case. i.e. if Trump truly wins, there'll be turmoil as the legitimate government forcefully pushes against large subsets of the people, if Harris truly wins then small but determined fractions of the people will push back against the legitimate government. (If it's any way ambiguous, for long enough, which 'truth' indicates a win, it could easily be people vs. people for at least as long as the confusion lasts, with very little reason to believe that it'll be Harris supporters throwing the first stone, probably making Florida 2000 look like a "neat transition"). But this is just what it looks like at this moment. Within a day we ''might'' get to see whose words get eaten, or it could be at least a month of building tensions (due to the US system of elections, deliberately legislated to be so much more inefcicient than it needs to be, compared to various other Western nations). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:From what I've seen the ones in public-facing forums seem pretty indifferent. They do talk a lot about election fraud though. {{unsigned ip|172.70.34.117|22:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)}}

I like that the comic leaves "good" and "bad" open to interpretation.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.83|172.70.211.83]] 22:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:He doesn't want to start fights in the comments/discussion pages/replies! Good to see him appealing to no specific demographic in this one. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 22:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::Considering that the "Harris for President" banner is still active, I'm not sure I agree with that. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.4|172.68.22.4]] 22:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::yeah, for that reason i think it's more just so the comic can have further longevity, as this way it can be applied to any number of things with two outcomes, not just the current election [[Special:Contributions/141.101.109.193|141.101.109.193]] 00:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Well, so far so good ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Re [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3007:_Probabilistic_Uncertainty&oldid=355799 Further, with regards to N/A - the odds of "precisely" 50/50 are probabilistically zero]: Bear in mind that with the Electoral College system and the fact that only 7 US states are "likely in play," we are talking only hundreds or thousands of realistic possibilities. The odds of a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College are far more than 0. One possibility of a tie that is "on the radar" is if the Republicans take Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and the 2nd Congressional District of Nebraska (which is very likely to go Democratic) and the Democrats take Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. If you consider just the 7 "in play" states but Arizona "flips" from Republican to Democratic, there are 3 combinations that yield a 269-269 tie. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.249|172.70.210.249]] 01:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
: If there's a 269-269 tie, that's basically going to be a Trump win due to how the contingent election process works. (For that matter the far more plausible 270-268 to Harris, which happens if she wins Nevada but not Pennsylvania, is likely going to result in Trump getting the presidency as well, but let's ignore that.) However, many analysts, when faced with numbers like Nate Silver's 50.015%, are going to round it to 50% or 50.0% in the public-facing reports, resulting in apparent exact 50/50 odds even if mathematically they actually favor one side slightly. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.130.3|172.71.130.3]] 10:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::There's little point in being so precise, since the fraction is far less than the margin of error in the polling. Anything between 49% and 51% is essentially a toss-up. If the 51% is in your favor you can feel hopeful, but hardly confident. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Re '''We contacted several researchers who are experts in emotional spirals to ask them, but none of them were in a state to speak with us''': Is it a stretch to think that the emotional-spiral experts were all "in Puerto Rico" (which is not a state), emotionally speaking? In the last week a supporter of one of the candidates insulted Puerto Rico and by extension, people of Puerto Rico and Puerto Rican descent, causing an emotional uproar all over the inter-tubes. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.210|162.158.90.210]] 01:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Created an account just to say this; don't get mad at me but in my opinion, both candidates are equally bad, which has led to a weird sense of calmness in me due to my belief that we'll be equally screwed no matter what, just in different ways. Tbh in my opinion both candidates are in between what their supporters think of them and what their opponents think of them. Please be civil if you reply, no ad hominem please. [[User:BurnV06|BurnV06]] ([[User talk:BurnV06|talk]]) 05:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:No, one of them is clearly worse than the other. How do you feel about LGBTQ+ rights? Abortion? Medicare? Teaching kids that racism and homophobia in schools is bad? Well, if Project 2025 is anything to go by, one side ''clearly'' is the unpreferable unless you're a white, Christian, rich, and male. This is not a "both sides" issue. One is clearly the worse option. And frankly, I wish centrists knew this. I can agree to disagree on some issues but I just cannot elect someone who wants to punish people for the egregious crime of, ''gasp'', not conforming to societal standard of gender and romance.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.85|172.71.22.85]] 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::... And Project 2025 is absolutely nothing to go by. It's what a (private) conservative think tank (privately) wants to see implemented. Trump had no involvement in its contents or publication. The Heritage Foundation has been publishing things like it since 1981; it only attracted attention THIS year because politically-motivated people are trying to scare you, and were running out of ideas. It should not surprise you to learn that people who you already disagree with, have ideas that you also disagree with, and might publish compilations of those ideas you disagree with on a regular basis. Freaking out over Project 2025 is like if conservatives started freaking out over a set of published policy recommendations by the Center for American Progress. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.96|172.68.3.96]] 16:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC) MeZimm
:::While I understand where you are coming from, you also gotta understand that the worries about Project 2025 aren't baseless, given the {{rw|Project_2025#Connections_to_Donald_Trump|several connections that the people behind it have with Trump}}. [[User:GammaRaul|GammaRaul]] ([[User talk:GammaRaul|talk]]) 18:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::Fair enough, but the point still stands that this is explicitly ''not'' a both sides issue. Even taking Project 2025 out of account, one side is clearly worse.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.71.44|172.68.71.44]] 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:"Equally bad" is highly subjective, Burn. More people would consider "a total disaster" vs "at least they're not a total disaster!" as a closer truth (whether their own personally-configured disastermeter comes in a Red or Blue casing), and consider balancing dead in the center of the fence to be the most inexplicable position to take. (Not to mention those like above, and also their antithesis opinions, who have a very definite good/bad opinion 9n the pair.)
:Not that I'd support being mad at you, as the problem with politics today is ''too much'' extreme polarization (we need more moderate voices, rather than wedging open an ever wider void between both limits of opinion). But there's just no realistic middle-ground to gather support around, and what middle-ground there is might also be moving one way or another (depending upon who you ask), so I'm afraid that the strictly neutral "as bad as each other" types are just guaranteed to be setting themselves up to be disappointed. In the 'best' case scenario, disappointed that things aint turning out to be as bad as feared, but I'm not sure that's reassuringly likely enough to comfort you. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:Well said, and I think it's important to mention that the reason there isn't any moderates is that the moderates ''just don't care anymore''. At least online, complete political apathy is a position I've seen a lot of people take ("Why are they constantly slamming politics into my face, I just don't care"). Unfortunately, these kinds of people are also the moderates, people who aren't particularly one side or the other. This leads to a political landscape where you have 2 extremes, and a bunch of people in the middle who couldn't care less because of said extremes. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.31.24|172.71.31.24]] 15:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Being tired of politics is one thing (blame the years-long election season for that) but it's objectively incorrect to characterise both sides as "extreme". The democrats ''are'' the moderates. In most of the Western world outside of North America the Democrats would even be considered right-wing.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.193|172.70.46.193]] 04:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:Not to be a “Discord mod” here, but the entire idea of the 50-50 portion of the comic alluding to the election today is just a theory. Y’all are reading in wayyyyyyy too deep. The comic isn’t even directly saying if one candidate is better (although the Header text is supporting Harris). The discussion is supposed to be for discussing the comic and how to improve it, not clash over ideological differences. Maybe instead of arguing about who’s the better candidate, we can finish up the comic explanation, which is extremely bare bones? TL;DR: break it up, people. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 18:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's funny that so many Democrats are genuinely terrified of the results and spend their days anxiously refreshing 538, whereas Republicans are filled with optimism and already know that the democrats have run the weakest candidate since Dukakis. Ah well, maybe in four years you'll actually get to vote for who leads your ticket instead of having them be appointed by the party elites directly without a vote. ;) {{unsigned ip|172.71.22.120|07:35, 5 November 2024}}
:Given the indirect democracy system the US has, there's a number of problems with who gets to be President. And if Harris is weaker than H. Clinton, but it's still on a knife-edge of popular/EC voting, does that mean that Trump's win was therefore less legitimate? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Do I really have to remind you that election results are not the same thing as poll results? In 2016, [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a 28.6% chance vs Clinton's 71.4% chance.] Most polls were even more egregiously in favor of Clinton. Yet Trump won. Now in 2024, you say "it's still on a knife-edge of popular/EC voting" - somehow pretending the PREDICTIONS of right now are in any way comparable to the ACTUAL RESULTS of 2016. Yet polls get "shy Tories" and pranksters and all kinds of complicating factors (even assuming the pollsters are being honest - which is not something you should EVER "simply assume"). Polls are a little bit better than astrology in terms of actual predictive power. So comparing "polls now" to "actual election then" is completely wrongheaded. You have to compare predictions to predictions. And the predictions of 2016 were "the odds are MASSIVELY in Clinton's favor" - yet now they are running a WEAKER candidate and rate her has having even LESS probability of winning than Clinton did. Don't worry, though, I'm sure they figured out some way to solve all the problems with their 2016 process, and are now 100% trustworthy again! /s [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.127|172.68.3.127]] 19:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC) MeZimm
:::Whatever direction we're going with the rest of the arguments, don't lead us down the route of misanalysing (say) 28.6% vs. 71.4% as meaning anything other than that's the predicted chance (by a necessarily incomplete process) of the process coming out one way or another (even by just one vote that swings just one EC contribution). It doesn't mean that the popular vote will split by that proportion or the EC votes will split that way, it is just an assessment of how much the (each slightly biased) coins will fall either majority heads or majority tails. But we only see the one end result (itself a fudge of a fudge of many possibly imperfect opinions) and try to read the entrails all while hearing "but the predictions were 29/71, and it was much closer than that, so obviously those stats guys were wrong".
:::Do try not to fall for such statistical fallacies. The polling will be refined for all the things that it can be refined for (accounting for the kinds of people who do vote but don't answer to pollsters, or don't vote even though they say they will, etc) and should come with error bars which can be very telling but rarely get mentioned in 'executive summaries' that get selectively quoted by the headlines of organisations with less integrity and more of their own message to try to promulgate.
:::But looking across many polls, you can see even the 'headline figure' end predictions, shorn of the most obviously optomistic/pesimistic extremes, smeared from several percentage points one way to a similar the other. If the result is within one, two or three swingstates'-worth of ECs, it'll still vindicate most of the polling opinions. Though doesn't mean you can guarantee the reverse. Anyway, not long now until the process stops being fed by votes and starts being fully chewed on by those who produce the 'answer' to this year's big question. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.185|172.70.162.185]] 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:To follow upon this, maybe Randall should stop endorsing political figures? He always picks the reddit candidate and sets himself up for disappointment. At least we might get a new Electoral Precedent comic out of this.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.152|108.162.238.152]] 14:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::Politics is not some spectator sport. It's not a victory to endorse a winning candidate if that candidate doesn't stand for something you actually believe in. Randall did not set himself up for disappointment. The political climate in the US set him up for disappointment, regardless of whether he chose to endorse Harris or not.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.119|172.70.46.119]] 15:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::Why bring Reddit into this? [[User:GammaRaul|GammaRaul]] ([[User talk:GammaRaul|talk]]) 18:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reminded of some of my coding theory class, where the absolute worst bit error rate is 50%. Less than 50% and you can repeat the data to detect and correct the errors to some vastly low probability of an incorrect result, and more than 50% and you can invert the signal which flips it to less than 50%, then do the same. At exactly 50% you're essentially getting random noise, and there's nothing you can do about that (but allow allows a one-time pad encryption to be unbreakable if done correctly). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.214.13|172.71.214.13]] 18:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

There's been talk about pollsters potentially herding because of just how tight the race allegedly is across all of the swing states (which should be more inclined D/R relative to each other, not all exactly even). I think Nate Silver made a tweet about the odds that the odds are so close. Could that be related to this comic, indirectly? {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.61|20:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)}}

What's with the section talking about strategies to manage expectations? It reads like it came straight out of ChatGPT. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.155|172.71.102.155]] 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:It probably is, considering I asked ChatGPT to analyze the comic yesterday to see if it could catch the joke about emotional spiral experts and got a very similar response. Shall we remove it? —megan [[user talk:megan|talk]] [[special:contribs/megan|contribs]] 04:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::The wikilinks show that wherever it came from originally, an editor reviewed and marked it up, so I would lean towards keep. It's not bad advice, although I'm not a psychologist or therapist. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.136|172.68.23.136]] 04:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:::It's perhaps not ''bad'' advice, but it's mostly ''irrelevant'' advice. It's not in any way linked to the comic. To keep this information more relevant, I think it should be clearly linked to what Randall proposes as the appropriate way to think about it. In addition, the ChatGPT-like phrasing means it spends a lot of words on saying very little of substance. I'm not against keeping an explanation of the various strategies of coping with uncertainty, but I am against doing it in ''this'' format.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.213|172.71.182.213]] 10:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Irrelevant? It's a direct answer to the nine question marks in the bottom row, a specific response to the one question raised as the whole point of the comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.226|108.162.245.226]] 02:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps as expected, this has gone outdated pretty quickly. [https://manifold.markets/ManifoldPolitics/will-trump-win-the-2024-election Manifold] and [https://polymarket.com/event/presidential-election-winner-2024 Polymarket] are now both trading above 90% for Trump as of this comment. —megan [[user talk:megan|talk]] [[special:contribs/megan|contribs]] 04:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It's gone completly outdated. It was a bigger trump win than expected, and it's not even in the 50/50 category. [[User:SomeRandomNerd|SomeRandomNerd]] ([[User talk:SomeRandomNerd|talk]]) 08:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
: As someone noted above, this is not how odds work. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.61|172.70.162.61]] 09:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:3007: Probabilistic Uncertainty

2024-11-09T18:14:47Z

GammaRaul:

Emotional spirals are useless. I've been coping by pretending we're in scenario 1, it keeps me sane. If I'm wrong, I'll jump off that bridge when we come to it. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:And I have a friend whose strategy is baking. It's both therapeutic and delicious. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:I see I don't know US geography well: which bridge you can jump from to leave it? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Most of them. Some of them may be 'caged in' for safety/anti-suicide/anti-DropThingsInThoseBelow purposes (or a {{w|covered bridge}}). Relatively few of the others will be ones that you would have no qualms about vaulting the railing, but (as well as it clearly being a witticism by Barmar) I think you could easily ''find'' a bridge that you could jump off. And the resulting falling part isn't at all the difficult bit. Landing safely (or, in extremis for those desperate enough, in a guaranteed immediately fatal manner) is more the challenge. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.206|172.70.86.206]] 14:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I think the question was which bridge can you jump off of to LEAVE THE USA entirely. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 16:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Not that this particular destination(/departure) was mentioned, in the above, but perhaps look at some of the border-crossing points, that feature bridges (either to cross geographical features like rivers, or footbridges that separately cross over the roadway that vehicles use) and determine if there any cases where the ''de facto'' (if not ''de jure'') jurisdiction over the bridge is owned by US authorities even though the terrain beneath is not. Perhaps where the US controls(/shares) the check-in facilities located just on the other side, so that bridge-crossers need to be pre-approved for entry before transitioning over (which would be very much in line with immigration policy, not ceding "semi-neutral territory" on the US side if they don't have to).
::::Would not help if the bridge itself is 'true neutral' (each party has a reception-building over on the other side, granting permission to wander onto the crossing 'pre-approved' for all but the most cursory further checks), and if it's two different sections in/out of the US then you might need to walk out upon the right one, backwards, from the US side. Still a definite possibility to find ''some'' permutation of bridge-territory and (e.g.) thalweg-positioning that gives a possible leap 'out' of the US. However awkward it might be. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.70|172.69.194.70]] 17:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but think that at preparing for the negative outcome regardless of which outcome is more likely (unless that outcome is *very* unlikely) is a healthy thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.141|172.71.147.141]] 20:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
: "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" is my usual approach to things. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This comic appeared the day before the 2024 United States Presidential Election. At publication time, polls were strongly suggesting about a 50/50 odds that either major candidate would win. Recent news items included advice from mental-health professionals on how to deal with election-related anxiety. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.195|172.71.167.195]] 20:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Definitely related. This should be in the text, not in the comments, frankly. The yanks are going nuts about the election right now. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.124.243|172.71.124.243]] 20:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Did the advice suggested narcotics? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

My personal policy is to expect and prepare for the worst. That way I can be surprised when it doesn't happen, and not surprised when it does, rather than the other way around. I don't "do" emotions, so it's basically just planning and mumbling colloquialisms involving the digestive system... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.134.64|172.71.134.64]] 21:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:As someone who used to think this way, this is obstructively cynical, and downright ''sad''. I mean, in theory you should be pleasantly surprised by the good, and prepared for the bad, but in practice you just dismiss anything good and focus exclusively on the bad. As someone with experience in this type of thinking, it isn't healthy. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.85|172.71.22.85]] 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:: As someone who also practices this, applied properly and cautiously it's fine; expect trump to win and plan out for what you'll do if he wins (which for me mainly involves providing emotional support for American friends) and be suprised if Harris does. It's not that hard to avoid negative thinking if you focus on the positives, the solution, the mitigation of effects instead of the bad stuff. And if you get a positive result - throw all that away and bask in the positive result. [[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.56|172.64.236.56]] 11:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that it's mostly Democrats that are anxious, where Trump winning is the bad case. Not being an American I don't have much perspective. Are many Republicans likely to also be anxious, and if so, why? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.60.170|172.69.60.170]] 21:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Not sure about "anxious", for Trump-supporting Rs (as opposed to Trump-opposing ones, who are both anxious and tremendously conflicted), but there's certainly a buzz of some emotion. That, if ''their'' expectations/hopes/desires are dashed, seem more likely to turn into more direct push-back than Ds would in their case. i.e. if Trump truly wins, there'll be turmoil as the legitimate government forcefully pushes against large subsets of the people, if Harris truly wins then small but determined fractions of the people will push back against the legitimate government. (If it's any way ambiguous, for long enough, which 'truth' indicates a win, it could easily be people vs. people for at least as long as the confusion lasts, with very little reason to believe that it'll be Harris supporters throwing the first stone, probably making Florida 2000 look like a "neat transition"). But this is just what it looks like at this moment. Within a day we ''might'' get to see whose words get eaten, or it could be at least a month of building tensions (due to the US system of elections, deliberately legislated to be so much more inefcicient than it needs to be, compared to various other Western nations). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:From what I've seen the ones in public-facing forums seem pretty indifferent. They do talk a lot about election fraud though. {{unsigned ip|172.70.34.117|22:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)}}

I like that the comic leaves "good" and "bad" open to interpretation.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.83|172.70.211.83]] 22:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:He doesn't want to start fights in the comments/discussion pages/replies! Good to see him appealing to no specific demographic in this one. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 22:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::Considering that the "Harris for President" banner is still active, I'm not sure I agree with that. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.4|172.68.22.4]] 22:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::yeah, for that reason i think it's more just so the comic can have further longevity, as this way it can be applied to any number of things with two outcomes, not just the current election [[Special:Contributions/141.101.109.193|141.101.109.193]] 00:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Well, so far so good ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Re [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3007:_Probabilistic_Uncertainty&oldid=355799 Further, with regards to N/A - the odds of "precisely" 50/50 are probabilistically zero]: Bear in mind that with the Electoral College system and the fact that only 7 US states are "likely in play," we are talking only hundreds or thousands of realistic possibilities. The odds of a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College are far more than 0. One possibility of a tie that is "on the radar" is if the Republicans take Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and the 2nd Congressional District of Nebraska (which is very likely to go Democratic) and the Democrats take Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. If you consider just the 7 "in play" states but Arizona "flips" from Republican to Democratic, there are 3 combinations that yield a 269-269 tie. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.249|172.70.210.249]] 01:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
: If there's a 269-269 tie, that's basically going to be a Trump win due to how the contingent election process works. (For that matter the far more plausible 270-268 to Harris, which happens if she wins Nevada but not Pennsylvania, is likely going to result in Trump getting the presidency as well, but let's ignore that.) However, many analysts, when faced with numbers like Nate Silver's 50.015%, are going to round it to 50% or 50.0% in the public-facing reports, resulting in apparent exact 50/50 odds even if mathematically they actually favor one side slightly. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.130.3|172.71.130.3]] 10:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::There's little point in being so precise, since the fraction is far less than the margin of error in the polling. Anything between 49% and 51% is essentially a toss-up. If the 51% is in your favor you can feel hopeful, but hardly confident. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Re '''We contacted several researchers who are experts in emotional spirals to ask them, but none of them were in a state to speak with us''': Is it a stretch to think that the emotional-spiral experts were all "in Puerto Rico" (which is not a state), emotionally speaking? In the last week a supporter of one of the candidates insulted Puerto Rico and by extension, people of Puerto Rico and Puerto Rican descent, causing an emotional uproar all over the inter-tubes. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.210|162.158.90.210]] 01:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Created an account just to say this; don't get mad at me but in my opinion, both candidates are equally bad, which has led to a weird sense of calmness in me due to my belief that we'll be equally screwed no matter what, just in different ways. Tbh in my opinion both candidates are in between what their supporters think of them and what their opponents think of them. Please be civil if you reply, no ad hominem please. [[User:BurnV06|BurnV06]] ([[User talk:BurnV06|talk]]) 05:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:No, one of them is clearly worse than the other. How do you feel about LGBTQ+ rights? Abortion? Medicare? Teaching kids that racism and homophobia in schools is bad? Well, if Project 2025 is anything to go by, one side ''clearly'' is the unpreferable unless you're a white, Christian, rich, and male. This is not a "both sides" issue. One is clearly the worse option. And frankly, I wish centrists knew this. I can agree to disagree on some issues but I just cannot elect someone who wants to punish people for the egregious crime of, ''gasp'', not conforming to societal standard of gender and romance.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.85|172.71.22.85]] 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::... And Project 2025 is absolutely nothing to go by. It's what a (private) conservative think tank (privately) wants to see implemented. Trump had no involvement in its contents or publication. The Heritage Foundation has been publishing things like it since 1981; it only attracted attention THIS year because politically-motivated people are trying to scare you, and were running out of ideas. It should not surprise you to learn that people who you already disagree with, have ideas that you also disagree with, and might publish compilations of those ideas you disagree with on a regular basis. Freaking out over Project 2025 is like if conservatives started freaking out over a set of published policy recommendations by the Center for American Progress. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.96|172.68.3.96]] 16:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC) MeZimm
:::While I understand where you are coming from, you also gotta understand that the worries about Project 2025 aren't baseless, given the {{rw|Project_2025#Connections_to_Donald_Trump|several connections that the people behind it have with Trump}}. [[User:GammaRaul|GammaRaul]] ([[User talk:GammaRaul|talk]]) 18:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::Fair enough, but the point still stands that this is explicitly ''not'' a both sides issue. Even taking Project 2025 out of account, one side is clearly worse.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.71.44|172.68.71.44]] 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:"Equally bad" is highly subjective, Burn. More people would consider "a total disaster" vs "at least they're not a total disaster!" as a closer truth (whether their own personally-configured disastermeter comes in a Red or Blue casing), and consider balancing dead in the center of the fence to be the most inexplicable position to take. (Not to mention those like above, and also their antithesis opinions, who have a very definite good/bad opinion 9n the pair.)
:Not that I'd support being mad at you, as the problem with politics today is ''too much'' extreme polarization (we need more moderate voices, rather than wedging open an ever wider void between both limits of opinion). But there's just no realistic middle-ground to gather support around, and what middle-ground there is might also be moving one way or another (depending upon who you ask), so I'm afraid that the strictly neutral "as bad as each other" types are just guaranteed to be setting themselves up to be disappointed. In the 'best' case scenario, disappointed that things aint turning out to be as bad as feared, but I'm not sure that's reassuringly likely enough to comfort you. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:Well said, and I think it's important to mention that the reason there isn't any moderates is that the moderates ''just don't care anymore''. At least online, complete political apathy is a position I've seen a lot of people take ("Why are they constantly slamming politics into my face, I just don't care"). Unfortunately, these kinds of people are also the moderates, people who aren't particularly one side or the other. This leads to a political landscape where you have 2 extremes, and a bunch of people in the middle who couldn't care less because of said extremes. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.31.24|172.71.31.24]] 15:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Being tired of politics is one thing (blame the years-long election season for that) but it's objectively incorrect to characterise both sides as "extreme". The democrats ''are'' the moderates. In most of the Western world outside of North America the Democrats would even be considered right-wing.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.193|172.70.46.193]] 04:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:Not to be a “Discord mod” here, but the entire idea of the 50-50 portion of the comic alluding to the election today is just a theory. Y’all are reading in wayyyyyyy too deep. The comic isn’t even directly saying if one candidate is better (although the Header text is supporting Harris). The discussion is supposed to be for discussing the comic and how to improve it, not clash over ideological differences. Maybe instead of arguing about who’s the better candidate, we can finish up the comic explanation, which is extremely bare bones? TL;DR: break it up, people. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 18:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's funny that so many Democrats are genuinely terrified of the results and spend their days anxiously refreshing 538, whereas Republicans are filled with optimism and already know that the democrats have run the weakest candidate since Dukakis. Ah well, maybe in four years you'll actually get to vote for who leads your ticket instead of having them be appointed by the party elites directly without a vote. ;) {{unsigned ip|172.71.22.120|07:35, 5 November 2024}}
:Given the indirect democracy system the US has, there's a number of problems with who gets to be President. And if Harris is weaker than H. Clinton, but it's still on a knife-edge of popular/EC voting, does that mean that Trump's win was therefore less legitimate? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Do I really have to remind you that election results are not the same thing as poll results? In 2016, [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a 28.6% chance vs Clinton's 71.4% chance.] Most polls were even more egregiously in favor of Clinton. Yet Trump won. Now in 2024, you say "it's still on a knife-edge of popular/EC voting" - somehow pretending the PREDICTIONS of right now are in any way comparable to the ACTUAL RESULTS of 2016. Yet polls get "shy Tories" and pranksters and all kinds of complicating factors (even assuming the pollsters are being honest - which is not something you should EVER "simply assume"). Polls are a little bit better than astrology in terms of actual predictive power. So comparing "polls now" to "actual election then" is completely wrongheaded. You have to compare predictions to predictions. And the predictions of 2016 were "the odds are MASSIVELY in Clinton's favor" - yet now they are running a WEAKER candidate and rate her has having even LESS probability of winning than Clinton did. Don't worry, though, I'm sure they figured out some way to solve all the problems with their 2016 process, and are now 100% trustworthy again! /s [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.127|172.68.3.127]] 19:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC) MeZimm
:::Whatever direction we're going with the rest of the arguments, don't lead us down the route of misanalysing (say) 28.6% vs. 71.4% as meaning anything other than that's the predicted chance (by a necessarily incomplete process) of the process coming out one way or another (even by just one vote that swings just one EC contribution). It doesn't mean that the popular vote will split by that proportion or the EC votes will split that way, it is just an assessment of how much the (each slightly biased) coins will fall either majority heads or majority tails. But we only see the one end result (itself a fudge of a fudge of many possibly imperfect opinions) and try to read the entrails all while hearing "but the predictions were 29/71, and it was much closer than that, so obviously those stats guys were wrong".
:::Do try not to fall for such statistical fallacies. The polling will be refined for all the things that it can be refined for (accounting for the kinds of people who do vote but don't answer to pollsters, or don't vote even though they say they will, etc) and should come with error bars which can be very telling but rarely get mentioned in 'executive summaries' that get selectively quoted by the headlines of organisations with less integrity and more of their own message to try to promulgate.
:::But looking across many polls, you can see even the 'headline figure' end predictions, shorn of the most obviously optomistic/pesimistic extremes, smeared from several percentage points one way to a similar the other. If the result is within one, two or three swingstates'-worth of ECs, it'll still vindicate most of the polling opinions. Though doesn't mean you can guarantee the reverse. Anyway, not long now until the process stops being fed by votes and starts being fully chewed on by those who produce the 'answer' to this year's big question. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.185|172.70.162.185]] 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:To follow upon this, maybe Randall should stop endorsing political figures? He always picks the reddit candidate and sets himself up for disappointment. At least we might get a new Electoral Precedent comic out of this.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.152|108.162.238.152]] 14:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::Politics is not some spectator sport. It's not a victory to endorse a winning candidate if that candidate doesn't stand for something you actually believe in. Randall did not set himself up for disappointment. The political climate in the US set him up for disappointment, regardless of whether he chose to endorse Harris or not.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.119|172.70.46.119]] 15:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reminded of some of my coding theory class, where the absolute worst bit error rate is 50%. Less than 50% and you can repeat the data to detect and correct the errors to some vastly low probability of an incorrect result, and more than 50% and you can invert the signal which flips it to less than 50%, then do the same. At exactly 50% you're essentially getting random noise, and there's nothing you can do about that (but allow allows a one-time pad encryption to be unbreakable if done correctly). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.214.13|172.71.214.13]] 18:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

There's been talk about pollsters potentially herding because of just how tight the race allegedly is across all of the swing states (which should be more inclined D/R relative to each other, not all exactly even). I think Nate Silver made a tweet about the odds that the odds are so close. Could that be related to this comic, indirectly? {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.61|20:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)}}

What's with the section talking about strategies to manage expectations? It reads like it came straight out of ChatGPT. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.155|172.71.102.155]] 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:It probably is, considering I asked ChatGPT to analyze the comic yesterday to see if it could catch the joke about emotional spiral experts and got a very similar response. Shall we remove it? —megan [[user talk:megan|talk]] [[special:contribs/megan|contribs]] 04:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::The wikilinks show that wherever it came from originally, an editor reviewed and marked it up, so I would lean towards keep. It's not bad advice, although I'm not a psychologist or therapist. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.136|172.68.23.136]] 04:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:::It's perhaps not ''bad'' advice, but it's mostly ''irrelevant'' advice. It's not in any way linked to the comic. To keep this information more relevant, I think it should be clearly linked to what Randall proposes as the appropriate way to think about it. In addition, the ChatGPT-like phrasing means it spends a lot of words on saying very little of substance. I'm not against keeping an explanation of the various strategies of coping with uncertainty, but I am against doing it in ''this'' format.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.213|172.71.182.213]] 10:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Irrelevant? It's a direct answer to the nine question marks in the bottom row, a specific response to the one question raised as the whole point of the comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.226|108.162.245.226]] 02:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps as expected, this has gone outdated pretty quickly. [https://manifold.markets/ManifoldPolitics/will-trump-win-the-2024-election Manifold] and [https://polymarket.com/event/presidential-election-winner-2024 Polymarket] are now both trading above 90% for Trump as of this comment. —megan [[user talk:megan|talk]] [[special:contribs/megan|contribs]] 04:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It's gone completly outdated. It was a bigger trump win than expected, and it's not even in the 50/50 category. [[User:SomeRandomNerd|SomeRandomNerd]] ([[User talk:SomeRandomNerd|talk]]) 08:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
: As someone noted above, this is not how odds work. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.61|172.70.162.61]] 09:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:3007: Probabilistic Uncertainty

2024-11-09T18:13:38Z

GammaRaul:

Emotional spirals are useless. I've been coping by pretending we're in scenario 1, it keeps me sane. If I'm wrong, I'll jump off that bridge when we come to it. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:And I have a friend whose strategy is baking. It's both therapeutic and delicious. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:I see I don't know US geography well: which bridge you can jump from to leave it? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Most of them. Some of them may be 'caged in' for safety/anti-suicide/anti-DropThingsInThoseBelow purposes (or a {{w|covered bridge}}). Relatively few of the others will be ones that you would have no qualms about vaulting the railing, but (as well as it clearly being a witticism by Barmar) I think you could easily ''find'' a bridge that you could jump off. And the resulting falling part isn't at all the difficult bit. Landing safely (or, in extremis for those desperate enough, in a guaranteed immediately fatal manner) is more the challenge. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.206|172.70.86.206]] 14:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I think the question was which bridge can you jump off of to LEAVE THE USA entirely. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 16:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Not that this particular destination(/departure) was mentioned, in the above, but perhaps look at some of the border-crossing points, that feature bridges (either to cross geographical features like rivers, or footbridges that separately cross over the roadway that vehicles use) and determine if there any cases where the ''de facto'' (if not ''de jure'') jurisdiction over the bridge is owned by US authorities even though the terrain beneath is not. Perhaps where the US controls(/shares) the check-in facilities located just on the other side, so that bridge-crossers need to be pre-approved for entry before transitioning over (which would be very much in line with immigration policy, not ceding "semi-neutral territory" on the US side if they don't have to).
::::Would not help if the bridge itself is 'true neutral' (each party has a reception-building over on the other side, granting permission to wander onto the crossing 'pre-approved' for all but the most cursory further checks), and if it's two different sections in/out of the US then you might need to walk out upon the right one, backwards, from the US side. Still a definite possibility to find ''some'' permutation of bridge-territory and (e.g.) thalweg-positioning that gives a possible leap 'out' of the US. However awkward it might be. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.70|172.69.194.70]] 17:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but think that at preparing for the negative outcome regardless of which outcome is more likely (unless that outcome is *very* unlikely) is a healthy thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.141|172.71.147.141]] 20:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
: "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" is my usual approach to things. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This comic appeared the day before the 2024 United States Presidential Election. At publication time, polls were strongly suggesting about a 50/50 odds that either major candidate would win. Recent news items included advice from mental-health professionals on how to deal with election-related anxiety. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.195|172.71.167.195]] 20:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Definitely related. This should be in the text, not in the comments, frankly. The yanks are going nuts about the election right now. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.124.243|172.71.124.243]] 20:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Did the advice suggested narcotics? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

My personal policy is to expect and prepare for the worst. That way I can be surprised when it doesn't happen, and not surprised when it does, rather than the other way around. I don't "do" emotions, so it's basically just planning and mumbling colloquialisms involving the digestive system... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.134.64|172.71.134.64]] 21:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:As someone who used to think this way, this is obstructively cynical, and downright ''sad''. I mean, in theory you should be pleasantly surprised by the good, and prepared for the bad, but in practice you just dismiss anything good and focus exclusively on the bad. As someone with experience in this type of thinking, it isn't healthy. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.85|172.71.22.85]] 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:: As someone who also practices this, applied properly and cautiously it's fine; expect trump to win and plan out for what you'll do if he wins (which for me mainly involves providing emotional support for American friends) and be suprised if Harris does. It's not that hard to avoid negative thinking if you focus on the positives, the solution, the mitigation of effects instead of the bad stuff. And if you get a positive result - throw all that away and bask in the positive result. [[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.56|172.64.236.56]] 11:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that it's mostly Democrats that are anxious, where Trump winning is the bad case. Not being an American I don't have much perspective. Are many Republicans likely to also be anxious, and if so, why? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.60.170|172.69.60.170]] 21:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Not sure about "anxious", for Trump-supporting Rs (as opposed to Trump-opposing ones, who are both anxious and tremendously conflicted), but there's certainly a buzz of some emotion. That, if ''their'' expectations/hopes/desires are dashed, seem more likely to turn into more direct push-back than Ds would in their case. i.e. if Trump truly wins, there'll be turmoil as the legitimate government forcefully pushes against large subsets of the people, if Harris truly wins then small but determined fractions of the people will push back against the legitimate government. (If it's any way ambiguous, for long enough, which 'truth' indicates a win, it could easily be people vs. people for at least as long as the confusion lasts, with very little reason to believe that it'll be Harris supporters throwing the first stone, probably making Florida 2000 look like a "neat transition"). But this is just what it looks like at this moment. Within a day we ''might'' get to see whose words get eaten, or it could be at least a month of building tensions (due to the US system of elections, deliberately legislated to be so much more inefcicient than it needs to be, compared to various other Western nations). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:From what I've seen the ones in public-facing forums seem pretty indifferent. They do talk a lot about election fraud though. {{unsigned ip|172.70.34.117|22:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)}}

I like that the comic leaves "good" and "bad" open to interpretation.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.83|172.70.211.83]] 22:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:He doesn't want to start fights in the comments/discussion pages/replies! Good to see him appealing to no specific demographic in this one. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 22:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::Considering that the "Harris for President" banner is still active, I'm not sure I agree with that. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.4|172.68.22.4]] 22:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::yeah, for that reason i think it's more just so the comic can have further longevity, as this way it can be applied to any number of things with two outcomes, not just the current election [[Special:Contributions/141.101.109.193|141.101.109.193]] 00:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Well, so far so good ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Re [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3007:_Probabilistic_Uncertainty&oldid=355799 Further, with regards to N/A - the odds of "precisely" 50/50 are probabilistically zero]: Bear in mind that with the Electoral College system and the fact that only 7 US states are "likely in play," we are talking only hundreds or thousands of realistic possibilities. The odds of a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College are far more than 0. One possibility of a tie that is "on the radar" is if the Republicans take Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and the 2nd Congressional District of Nebraska (which is very likely to go Democratic) and the Democrats take Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. If you consider just the 7 "in play" states but Arizona "flips" from Republican to Democratic, there are 3 combinations that yield a 269-269 tie. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.249|172.70.210.249]] 01:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
: If there's a 269-269 tie, that's basically going to be a Trump win due to how the contingent election process works. (For that matter the far more plausible 270-268 to Harris, which happens if she wins Nevada but not Pennsylvania, is likely going to result in Trump getting the presidency as well, but let's ignore that.) However, many analysts, when faced with numbers like Nate Silver's 50.015%, are going to round it to 50% or 50.0% in the public-facing reports, resulting in apparent exact 50/50 odds even if mathematically they actually favor one side slightly. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.130.3|172.71.130.3]] 10:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::There's little point in being so precise, since the fraction is far less than the margin of error in the polling. Anything between 49% and 51% is essentially a toss-up. If the 51% is in your favor you can feel hopeful, but hardly confident. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Re '''We contacted several researchers who are experts in emotional spirals to ask them, but none of them were in a state to speak with us''': Is it a stretch to think that the emotional-spiral experts were all "in Puerto Rico" (which is not a state), emotionally speaking? In the last week a supporter of one of the candidates insulted Puerto Rico and by extension, people of Puerto Rico and Puerto Rican descent, causing an emotional uproar all over the inter-tubes. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.210|162.158.90.210]] 01:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Created an account just to say this; don't get mad at me but in my opinion, both candidates are equally bad, which has led to a weird sense of calmness in me due to my belief that we'll be equally screwed no matter what, just in different ways. Tbh in my opinion both candidates are in between what their supporters think of them and what their opponents think of them. Please be civil if you reply, no ad hominem please. [[User:BurnV06|BurnV06]] ([[User talk:BurnV06|talk]]) 05:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:No, one of them is clearly worse than the other. How do you feel about LGBTQ+ rights? Abortion? Medicare? Teaching kids that racism and homophobia in schools is bad? Well, if Project 2025 is anything to go by, one side ''clearly'' is the unpreferable unless you're a white, Christian, rich, and male. This is not a "both sides" issue. One is clearly the worse option. And frankly, I wish centrists knew this. I can agree to disagree on some issues but I just cannot elect someone who wants to punish people for the egregious crime of, ''gasp'', not conforming to societal standard of gender and romance.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.85|172.71.22.85]] 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::... And Project 2025 is absolutely nothing to go by. It's what a (private) conservative think tank (privately) wants to see implemented. Trump had no involvement in its contents or publication. The Heritage Foundation has been publishing things like it since 1981; it only attracted attention THIS year because politically-motivated people are trying to scare you, and were running out of ideas. It should not surprise you to learn that people who you already disagree with, have ideas that you also disagree with, and might publish compilations of those ideas you disagree with on a regular basis. Freaking out over Project 2025 is like if conservatives started freaking out over a set of published policy recommendations by the Center for American Progress. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.96|172.68.3.96]] 16:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC) MeZimm
:::While I understand where you are coming from, you also gotta understand that worries about Project 2025 aren't baseless, given the {{rw|Project_2025#Connections_to_Donald_Trump|connections people behind it have with Trump}}. [[User:GammaRaul|GammaRaul]] ([[User talk:GammaRaul|talk]]) 18:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::Fair enough, but the point still stands that this is explicitly ''not'' a both sides issue. Even taking Project 2025 out of account, one side is clearly worse.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.71.44|172.68.71.44]] 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:"Equally bad" is highly subjective, Burn. More people would consider "a total disaster" vs "at least they're not a total disaster!" as a closer truth (whether their own personally-configured disastermeter comes in a Red or Blue casing), and consider balancing dead in the center of the fence to be the most inexplicable position to take. (Not to mention those like above, and also their antithesis opinions, who have a very definite good/bad opinion 9n the pair.)
:Not that I'd support being mad at you, as the problem with politics today is ''too much'' extreme polarization (we need more moderate voices, rather than wedging open an ever wider void between both limits of opinion). But there's just no realistic middle-ground to gather support around, and what middle-ground there is might also be moving one way or another (depending upon who you ask), so I'm afraid that the strictly neutral "as bad as each other" types are just guaranteed to be setting themselves up to be disappointed. In the 'best' case scenario, disappointed that things aint turning out to be as bad as feared, but I'm not sure that's reassuringly likely enough to comfort you. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:Well said, and I think it's important to mention that the reason there isn't any moderates is that the moderates ''just don't care anymore''. At least online, complete political apathy is a position I've seen a lot of people take ("Why are they constantly slamming politics into my face, I just don't care"). Unfortunately, these kinds of people are also the moderates, people who aren't particularly one side or the other. This leads to a political landscape where you have 2 extremes, and a bunch of people in the middle who couldn't care less because of said extremes. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.31.24|172.71.31.24]] 15:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Being tired of politics is one thing (blame the years-long election season for that) but it's objectively incorrect to characterise both sides as "extreme". The democrats ''are'' the moderates. In most of the Western world outside of North America the Democrats would even be considered right-wing.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.193|172.70.46.193]] 04:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:Not to be a “Discord mod” here, but the entire idea of the 50-50 portion of the comic alluding to the election today is just a theory. Y’all are reading in wayyyyyyy too deep. The comic isn’t even directly saying if one candidate is better (although the Header text is supporting Harris). The discussion is supposed to be for discussing the comic and how to improve it, not clash over ideological differences. Maybe instead of arguing about who’s the better candidate, we can finish up the comic explanation, which is extremely bare bones? TL;DR: break it up, people. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 18:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's funny that so many Democrats are genuinely terrified of the results and spend their days anxiously refreshing 538, whereas Republicans are filled with optimism and already know that the democrats have run the weakest candidate since Dukakis. Ah well, maybe in four years you'll actually get to vote for who leads your ticket instead of having them be appointed by the party elites directly without a vote. ;) {{unsigned ip|172.71.22.120|07:35, 5 November 2024}}
:Given the indirect democracy system the US has, there's a number of problems with who gets to be President. And if Harris is weaker than H. Clinton, but it's still on a knife-edge of popular/EC voting, does that mean that Trump's win was therefore less legitimate? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Do I really have to remind you that election results are not the same thing as poll results? In 2016, [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a 28.6% chance vs Clinton's 71.4% chance.] Most polls were even more egregiously in favor of Clinton. Yet Trump won. Now in 2024, you say "it's still on a knife-edge of popular/EC voting" - somehow pretending the PREDICTIONS of right now are in any way comparable to the ACTUAL RESULTS of 2016. Yet polls get "shy Tories" and pranksters and all kinds of complicating factors (even assuming the pollsters are being honest - which is not something you should EVER "simply assume"). Polls are a little bit better than astrology in terms of actual predictive power. So comparing "polls now" to "actual election then" is completely wrongheaded. You have to compare predictions to predictions. And the predictions of 2016 were "the odds are MASSIVELY in Clinton's favor" - yet now they are running a WEAKER candidate and rate her has having even LESS probability of winning than Clinton did. Don't worry, though, I'm sure they figured out some way to solve all the problems with their 2016 process, and are now 100% trustworthy again! /s [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.127|172.68.3.127]] 19:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC) MeZimm
:::Whatever direction we're going with the rest of the arguments, don't lead us down the route of misanalysing (say) 28.6% vs. 71.4% as meaning anything other than that's the predicted chance (by a necessarily incomplete process) of the process coming out one way or another (even by just one vote that swings just one EC contribution). It doesn't mean that the popular vote will split by that proportion or the EC votes will split that way, it is just an assessment of how much the (each slightly biased) coins will fall either majority heads or majority tails. But we only see the one end result (itself a fudge of a fudge of many possibly imperfect opinions) and try to read the entrails all while hearing "but the predictions were 29/71, and it was much closer than that, so obviously those stats guys were wrong".
:::Do try not to fall for such statistical fallacies. The polling will be refined for all the things that it can be refined for (accounting for the kinds of people who do vote but don't answer to pollsters, or don't vote even though they say they will, etc) and should come with error bars which can be very telling but rarely get mentioned in 'executive summaries' that get selectively quoted by the headlines of organisations with less integrity and more of their own message to try to promulgate.
:::But looking across many polls, you can see even the 'headline figure' end predictions, shorn of the most obviously optomistic/pesimistic extremes, smeared from several percentage points one way to a similar the other. If the result is within one, two or three swingstates'-worth of ECs, it'll still vindicate most of the polling opinions. Though doesn't mean you can guarantee the reverse. Anyway, not long now until the process stops being fed by votes and starts being fully chewed on by those who produce the 'answer' to this year's big question. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.185|172.70.162.185]] 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:To follow upon this, maybe Randall should stop endorsing political figures? He always picks the reddit candidate and sets himself up for disappointment. At least we might get a new Electoral Precedent comic out of this.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.152|108.162.238.152]] 14:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::Politics is not some spectator sport. It's not a victory to endorse a winning candidate if that candidate doesn't stand for something you actually believe in. Randall did not set himself up for disappointment. The political climate in the US set him up for disappointment, regardless of whether he chose to endorse Harris or not.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.119|172.70.46.119]] 15:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reminded of some of my coding theory class, where the absolute worst bit error rate is 50%. Less than 50% and you can repeat the data to detect and correct the errors to some vastly low probability of an incorrect result, and more than 50% and you can invert the signal which flips it to less than 50%, then do the same. At exactly 50% you're essentially getting random noise, and there's nothing you can do about that (but allow allows a one-time pad encryption to be unbreakable if done correctly). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.214.13|172.71.214.13]] 18:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

There's been talk about pollsters potentially herding because of just how tight the race allegedly is across all of the swing states (which should be more inclined D/R relative to each other, not all exactly even). I think Nate Silver made a tweet about the odds that the odds are so close. Could that be related to this comic, indirectly? {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.61|20:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)}}

What's with the section talking about strategies to manage expectations? It reads like it came straight out of ChatGPT. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.155|172.71.102.155]] 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:It probably is, considering I asked ChatGPT to analyze the comic yesterday to see if it could catch the joke about emotional spiral experts and got a very similar response. Shall we remove it? —megan [[user talk:megan|talk]] [[special:contribs/megan|contribs]] 04:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::The wikilinks show that wherever it came from originally, an editor reviewed and marked it up, so I would lean towards keep. It's not bad advice, although I'm not a psychologist or therapist. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.136|172.68.23.136]] 04:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:::It's perhaps not ''bad'' advice, but it's mostly ''irrelevant'' advice. It's not in any way linked to the comic. To keep this information more relevant, I think it should be clearly linked to what Randall proposes as the appropriate way to think about it. In addition, the ChatGPT-like phrasing means it spends a lot of words on saying very little of substance. I'm not against keeping an explanation of the various strategies of coping with uncertainty, but I am against doing it in ''this'' format.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.213|172.71.182.213]] 10:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Irrelevant? It's a direct answer to the nine question marks in the bottom row, a specific response to the one question raised as the whole point of the comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.226|108.162.245.226]] 02:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps as expected, this has gone outdated pretty quickly. [https://manifold.markets/ManifoldPolitics/will-trump-win-the-2024-election Manifold] and [https://polymarket.com/event/presidential-election-winner-2024 Polymarket] are now both trading above 90% for Trump as of this comment. —megan [[user talk:megan|talk]] [[special:contribs/megan|contribs]] 04:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It's gone completly outdated. It was a bigger trump win than expected, and it's not even in the 50/50 category. [[User:SomeRandomNerd|SomeRandomNerd]] ([[User talk:SomeRandomNerd|talk]]) 08:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
: As someone noted above, this is not how odds work. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.61|172.70.162.61]] 09:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)