explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1316: Inexplicable

2018-09-29T14:21:35Z

Gjgfuj:

[http://xkcd.com/725/ Literally] haunted? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.152|173.245.53.152]] 08:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering too if Randall was also taking a sideways swipe at the way many people today misuse the term "literally".[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.30|108.162.216.30]] 22:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say he trying to say that some errors that computers have are impossible to fathom. I've baffled our IT people on many an occasion and the solution is usual 'rebuild' which is the computer equivalent of an exorcism.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.228|108.162.231.228]] 10:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
:Definitely this. It is also much harder to figure out what the problem is with a computer when you weren't the one who has spent all their time using the computer. It is why I can't understand how IT people do their jobs. [[User:Daleb|Daleb]] ([[User talk:Daleb|talk]]) 13:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Surprised nobody mentioned [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_machine Ghost in the machine] yet... --[[User:Koveras|Koveras]] ([[User talk:Koveras|talk]]) 10:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I find the current explanation entertaining but... raises questions.

Is "This comic is inexplicable and represents a self-referencing joke about explainxkcd.com." serious?
:I think it's not and I deleted the sentence. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.84|173.245.50.84]] 14:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
:: If the comic is not a self-referencing joke about explainxkcd.com, then what conceivable combination of words WOULD constitute such a joke? (note: I am not the one who first made the (now deleted) point, but I agree with it.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.214|108.162.231.214]] 08:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"While it might [be] a reasonable conclusion [i.e. that it is 'haunted'] for a human, demons can't possess a computer." - this reads like "demons exist, but are incapable of possessing computer equipment", rather than "demons cannot possess a computer, because they don't even exist", which would be my ''preference'' (under the standard rules of not being able to ''prove'' the non-existence of the supernatral... and, believe me, I've had my fair share of totally baffling computer problems, in my time, and often anthropomorphise equipment, somewhat, ''at least'' to explain it to non-tech users... but then end up adopting the same attitude myself, of course).

"The title text suggests that Megan insists that Cueball resume possession of his laptop, as she is unsettled by the ghost; Cueball simply refuses, seeing an opportunity to make his problem hers." - I see that as more akin to the "cursed gem" type of story. One simply cannot palm the gem off on somebody else, but it must have a legitimately willing recipient (including a thief stealing it, often) in order for the curse itself to transfer itself. Now that the 'status' of the laptop is known he's not going to accept it back and take the 'curse of errors' back upon himself. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.223|141.101.99.223]] 14:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

:I just removed the sentence "While it might [be] a reasonable conclusion for a human, demons can't possess a computer." In the real world ghosts (the comic does not mention demons) don't exist and can't possess either humans or computers; in a fictional world, they might be able to do either or both (a la King's "Trucks"). -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.217|108.162.212.217]] 15:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

::Are you completely sure of that? How do you look at news like [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/catholic-church-trains-more-priests-to-perform-exorcisms-9046578.html|Catholic Church trains more priests to perform Exorcism]? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the joke is just that normally the smartass that knows more about computers than you is able to easilly fix it, but not in this case. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 16:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So am I the only one who thinks that the caption(or whatever the hover over text is called) refers to Cueball trying to return the laptop to a retail store. I mean I can see a store like Best Buy refusing to take back a laptop because a customer insists that there is a ghost in it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.83|108.162.216.83]] 18:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

:I agree. but until more people notice it, lets leave it. [[User:Imanton1|Imanton1]] ([[User talk:Imanton1|talk]]) 03:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

:I thought this too, except I thought it was more a comment on people's attachment to technology, "Demon-posessed or not, it's got all my kitten videos on it!".--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.230|141.101.98.230]] 08:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

:You're not the only one. That's exactly what I thought the mouseover text was about, too. I guess it could be read multiple ways, but maybe the explanation should acknowledge that? [[User:Enchantedsleeper|Enchantedsleeper]] ([[User talk:Enchantedsleeper|talk]]) 19:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Overthinking, maybe, but if the computer is haunted (read: possessed), then a valid solution IS to return (read: unpossess? dispossess?) it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.57|108.162.216.57]] 23:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Demons and devils can possess people or things; ghosts only loiter/haunt a location.{{unsigned ip|108.162.216.30}}

My wife says, "it's a Turing test!"
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.199|108.162.219.199]] 02:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only who have thought of a corrupted random access memory on this laptop? Last time when I had a RAM failure on one of my machines, for a non technical person it may have appeared haunted: e.g. not executing just specific applications, writing nonsensical error messages, crashing applications when a specific word was being used...you name it. Running memcheck revealed later that one RAM module had lots of corrupted bytes but the problem only appeared when one RAM module was getting hot. So as long as the machine was idling if behaved just fine. So no ghost for me, I guess. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.217|108.162.231.217]] 09:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

People, there is no implication that this is a new laptop. It cannot be returned to the store, ok? Megan does not want it in her possession, so she wants to give it back to Cueball but he will not accept it. The only reason she says "take it back" is because it this a straight line that allows Cueball to reply "No". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 18:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I once had a computer that was a nudist. After a couple of months it allowed me to get it dressed. I must say it taught me to be more accepting of the needs of electronic devices then and now. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.186|199.27.128.186]] 20:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the strip is genuinely inexplicable, but one thing I am certain of is that there is no explanation to be found here on this page. None. Every single one of the comments above is reaching. If the computer is literally haunted, then describing it as such is not misuse of the term "literally". If there's no terminological misuse, then there's no sideswipe at the misuse. Maybe some computer errors are impossible to fathom, but describing such errors as a 'haunting' does not constitute a joke, etc., etc., etc. To me the key, the "punchline", is Cueball's "told you". That is the only thing that requires explanation. All the stuff above is annotation, NOT explanation. Q: When did Cueball tell Megan that the computer was haunted? A: When he told her that "nothing works or makes sense". To him the two statements, "the computer is haunted" and "nothing works or makes sense" are equivalent. To him haunting can only be a valid explanation in a world which is entirely devoid of logic. I did try to explain that, but my explanation got Occam's-Razored out of existence. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.225|141.101.98.225]] 03:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

:Yes, my comment about the use of "literally" _was_ meant as an amused remark at best, not explanation. Otherwise I would not have put it on the discussion page :) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.152|173.245.53.152]] 15:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Did anyone else think of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "I Robot, You Jane"? It could be a reference (Giles: ... There's a demon in the Internet. Ms. Calendar: I know.) [[User:Yuriy206|Yuriy206]] ([[User talk:Yuriy206|talk]]) 17:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"Ghost" was also a popular disk cloning and backup software. And restoring from a clean "ghost image" is a common way to fix "haunted" computer. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.123|108.162.231.123]] 17:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's so funny that nobody has mentioned that 1316 is a Windows error code for a network error during an install that can be quite irritating to try and fix/diagnose esp if you are offline/not part of a network with resources. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.87|199.27.128.87]] 16:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with "Note that Cueball is far from "non-technical", so this possible interpretation does not literally match the depicted scenario." I'm (nearly) a computer engineer, and I'm still convinced that machines have personality and some errors are unfixable without a NASA level lab. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125|108.162.219.125]] 03:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with this not being a reference to anything, the computer is just haunted. Literally and actually. Who's with me? -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 22:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

We have CI machines that are haunted this way. They consistently fail when integrating, but only then, and only if no one tries to reproduce it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.106|162.158.202.106]] 21:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This seems awfully bare for an explanation, are you sure that this is a finished explanation? [[User:Gjgfuj|TheSandromatic]] ([[User talk:Gjgfuj|talk]]) 14:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2030: Voting Software

2018-08-09T03:25:07Z

Gjgfuj:

I think this comic is referencing [https://twitter.com/GossiTheDog/status/1026603800365330432 this twitter thread] and the controversy behind it.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.190.4|172.69.190.4]] 17:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
: The [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/experts-criticize-west-virginias-plan-for-smartphone-voting/ Experts criticize West Virginia’s plan for smartphone voting] article on ArsTechnica has more information (as much as possible when the company in question does not provide any details (note that it is about overseas voting). --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 19:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Is he saying it's weird that we're so sophisticated in other areas of computer science but so far behind in voting technology, or is he making fun of the idea that electronic voting is somehow inherently unsafe?--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.106|108.162.216.106]] 18:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
: No he is saying computer science is a mess and we should not trust it with voting(he is not making fun of the idea of it being unsafe, he is pressing on the point of it being unsafe[saying that all experts agree on that])18:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

: I think he's commenting on how in most fields, the experts are very sure that they do their job well, and all the angles have been tried and tested, but in computer science the experts are more certain than anyone that there is ''absolutely no way'' for a person to actually build a complex software system with no flaws or vulnerabilities, even if they controlled every aspect of the system. in practice of course they control very little of the system and understand even less of it. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.88|172.68.34.88]] 18:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

: He's saying that software development is a terribly buggy process, most likely because the majority of software out there can have bugs without very dire real-world consequences (unlike aircraft or elevators).

::Not to mention the fact that there are incredibly smart people with great interest in undoing the work that software developers do, whereas that isn't at all the case with airplanes or elevators. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.214|108.162.219.214]] 18:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

:: Plus there's the general issue that the public as a whole takes the view that "Computers are majykal" (misspelling deliberate) and therefore somehow automatically safe & infallible, despite experts trying very hard to disillusion people about...pretty much all of that. Compare that to the common assumptions about aircraft and elevators--people need the safety verified, instead of assuming it like they do with computers. [[User:Werhdnt|Werhdnt]] ([[User talk:Werhdnt|talk]]) 19:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

:::There's a logical fallacy here. To compare airplaneS and elevatorS to a voting system program is comparing plural to singular. There would be significant opportunity to break/modify a single instance of those objects, although without the relative anonymity of electronic access involved. Once a computer system is infiltrated, the break-in can be replicated to all instances of that program relatively instantaneously, assuming communication pathways are available.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.130|162.158.75.130]] 19:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

::::No logical fallacy; there have been ''multiple'' attempts to get people to accept a voting system program, and the 'done by a computer=infallible' problem is '''''not''''' unique to voting programs. Mr. Babbage was being confused by people who were thinking it was possible to get the correct answers from a computer despite putting the wrong data in back in the 1860s (at least!), and the computer at the time was not much more than a fancy calculator. [[User:Werhdnt|Werhdnt]] ([[User talk:Werhdnt|talk]]) 20:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

A blockchain node doesn't technically need to be connected to the internet in order to function. It needs to have some method for receiving messages from other nodes on the blockchain network, and most blockchain nodes do indeed get these messages via the internet, but some bitcoin nodes (for example) get updates about new blocks and new transactions from the Blockstream satellite. An internet connection is therefore not intrinsically necessary for a blockchain to work, it's just the most convenient way to do it.

Do you think that this comic had anything to do with the debacle in Johnson County, KS last night? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.231|162.158.62.231]] 19:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The comic ignores the fact that modern airplanes are heavily utilizing software of all kinds. A software failure in an aircraft could easily be fatal (and have been so various times in history already, while the consequences of a voting software working incorrect are ''relatively'' harmless), and still airplanes remain safe, as the comic recognizes. --[[User:YMS|YMS]] ([[User talk:YMS|talk]]) 21:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

:Airplanes are not connected to internet and reasonably well protected from people putting their USB devices in their control system. Also, they are NOT build by lowest bid contractor. There ARE people now capable of building offline voting machine which would be reasonable secure. They are working in banks and stock exchanges and at those companies providing switches for internet backbone, are extremely well paid and wouldn't ever promise they will get the machine finished in single year. Noone asks THEM to make the voting machines. Voting over internet? With consumer-grade devices? Impossible. (I'm also working in IT, although not on mentioned high-security systems.) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

::Note that she is talking to aircraft designers, not to software engineers working on fly-by-wire systems (back when I took software engineering you got an answer similar to the one about voting machines when discussing fly-by-wire). I took this more as the aircraft designers glossing over the problems caused by software engineering. A voting system which uses paper ballots, with perhaps computer systems used for some stages of counting would be a reasonable analogy to the redundant systems used in aircraft. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.228|162.158.106.228]] 23:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me that the last panel references the E.T for Atari Desert Burial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_video_game_burial), perhaps to draw some analogy as to the potential quality or likelihood of success of a Block-chain solution as compared to the ill-fated video game. Anyone think that's worth explaining? [[User:Da_NKP|Da_NKP]] 10:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Da_NKP

What motive is there to "mine DemocracyCoin"? Who evaluates this blockchain? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.100|162.158.150.100]] 22:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
:That's simple, ideally it would be a private blockchain, and the evaluators would just be every voting computer in existence (They'd all be active for a similar fairly short time period). Presumably the evaluations would be ongoing during the voting process, then could be stopped once voting was complete. The last few votes of the night may not wind up being evaluated. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.225|162.158.74.225]]

Wouldn't it be possible to run said blockchain on one's personal computer, instead of running on a voting machine? and you could compile open source software yourself to perform the voting. That sounds like a solid enough way to keep security fine to me, but if I'm missing something, please tell me. [[User:Gjgfuj|TheSandromatic]] ([[User talk:Gjgfuj|talk]]) 03:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:1861: Quantum

2017-07-11T07:55:54Z

Gjgfuj:

The final paragraph probably should note that Magnets are directly on the ICP "Miracles" axis. [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 18:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

And now I have to listen to "Miracles" again. Thanks explainxkcd. [[User:OldCorps|OldCorps]] ([[User talk:OldCorps|talk]]) 19:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless Randall includes Quantum Field Theory in Quantum Mechanics (which is unusual), General Relativity certainly must be on the right of QM, but on the chart they are almost same level, why? All physics students learn QM, but only small minority take GR course, because mathematically it's much more demanding.
If you look closely, General Relativity ''is'' slightly to the right of Quantum Mechanics. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.141.94|172.68.141.94]] 20:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

_I'M_ extremely intrigued by Special Relativity being depicted as requiring not much more math than Basic Physics (the only thing I've studied on this chart - I'm not counting magnets as all I know are the grade school basics), but as being vastly more exciting (I enjoyed the physics courses I took, as far as I remember). :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting that special relativity is to the left of magnets when you can explain magnetism as a consequence of special relativity, from each charged particle's frame of reference, it's experiencing an electrostatic attraction or repulsion due to length contraction or an altered electric current due to time dilation.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.141.214|172.68.141.214]] 05:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That's way more complicated than special relativity, at least to me.--[[User:Gjgfuj|TheSandromatic]] ([[User talk:Gjgfuj|talk]]) 07:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1847: Dubious Study

2017-06-07T07:22:32Z

Gjgfuj:

The name of the organisation is suggestive of legitimacy but rather vague. That would be a red flag for me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.166|108.162.245.166]] 06:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"downloaded bi-annually" is misleadingly close to "released bi-annually" --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 07:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The National Academy of Proceedings sounds more like a legal document collection than a scientific journal to me. [[User:Gjgfuj|TheSandromatic]] ([[User talk:Gjgfuj|talk]]) 07:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1847: Dubious Study

2017-06-07T07:21:06Z

Gjgfuj:

The name of the organisation is suggestive of legitimacy but rather vague. That would be a red flag for me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.166|108.162.245.166]] 06:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"downloaded bi-annually" is misleadingly close to "released bi-annually" --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 07:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The National Academy of Proceedings sounds more like a legal document collection than a scientific journal to me. [[User:Gjgfuj|The Awesome Gjgfuj]] ([[User talk:Gjgfuj|talk]]) 07:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Gjgfuj

2014-06-25T05:12:20Z

Gjgfuj:

Hello! I'm just a gal who does stuff, you know.

User:Gjgfuj

2014-06-25T05:12:05Z

Gjgfuj: Yeah, I'm a guy who does stuff.

Hello! I'm just a guy who does stuff, you know.