explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1263: Reassuring

2013-09-11T15:44:54Z

Jb:

Does anyone know of any specific Go program/progress this comic is referring to? Nothing on Slashdot prior to the comic, so unless it's just looking forward I don't know of any current events it's referring to. {{unsigned ip|192.55.54.36}}

Panel 2 seems to be set up as a reference to [[894: Progeny]]. [[Special:Contributions/100.40.49.22|100.40.49.22]] 07:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that there's been progress since [[1002: Game AIs]] [[Special:Contributions/188.221.199.135|188.221.199.135]] 09:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I am reminded of Isaac Asimov's comment: "It always amuses me to hear some perfectly ordinary human being say that a computer 'can't compose a symphony', as though he himself could." [[User:SteveMB|SteveMB]] ([[User talk:SteveMB|talk]]) 10:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The tooltip text is a reminder that PCs become to be obsolete as well, I think. [[Special:Contributions/217.31.207.1|217.31.207.1]] 11:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Is the Dell Inspiron supposed to be quietly amusing humans, which it might be, or itself? I don't think it can be amusing itself. [[User:Jb|Jb]] ([[User talk:Jb|talk]]) 15:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

1263: Reassuring

2013-09-11T15:43:05Z

Jb: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1263
| date = September 11, 2013
| title = Reassuring
| image = reassuring.png
| titletext = 'At least humans are better at quietly amusing ourselves, oblivious to our pending obsolescence' thought the human, as a nearby Dell Inspiron contentedly displayed the same bouncing geometric shape screensaver it had been running for years.
}}

==Explanation==
''{{w|Go (game)|Go}}'' is an abstract strategy board game considered computationally difficult, compared to chess. Because of the size and number of possible combinations, computers don't have an easy way to exhaustively search for the best move. Still, {{w|Computer Go|they are getting better and better playing it}}. In this comic, [[Cueball]] suggests that computers may soon reach the level of being able to beat the best human players, an {{W|artificial intelligence}} milestone that has already been accomplished with other games. According to Randall in [[1002: Game AIs]], Go is one of the last games where a computer can still be beaten by top humans.

As a common human response, Cueball attempts to offer the consolation or defensive statement that humans remain better than computers at something else. In this case, the first thing he thinks of is that humans are better at making such consoling statements. However, [[Megan]] disproves Cueball’s statement by creating a script in the {{w| Python (programming language)|Python programming language}} to create an abundant supply of such statements.

Another such statement is made in the title text, that humans are better at quietly amusing themselves, oblivious to our “pending obsolescence” (which may refer alternatively to our inevitable deaths, or to the comic’s own topic of our being replaced and surpassed by computers). The title text then again suggests, however, that the human statement is not true, referring to an Inspiron model of {{w|Dell}} computer which “quietly amuses itself” by showing a geometric {{w|screensaver}} as it presumably one day will be obsolete and replaced by a newer computer.

==Transcript==
:[Megan is sitting at a computer, and Cueball is standing behind her.]
:Megan: Looks like computers will beat humans at '''Go''' pretty soon.
:Cueball: Wow.
:Cueball: That's the last of the big ones.
:Megan: Yeah.

:Cueball: Well, at least humans are still better at, uh,
:Cueball: Coming up with reassuring parables about things humans are better at?
:Megan: Hmm.

:''type type''

:Megan: I made a Python script that generates thousands of reassuring parables per second.
:Cueball: ''Dammit.''
:Computer: Computers will never understand a sonnet Computers will never enjoy a salad comp—

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

1263: Reassuring

2013-09-11T15:41:32Z

Jb: typo

{{comic
| number = 1263
| date = September 11, 2013
| title = Reassuring
| image = reassuring.png
| titletext = 'At least humans are better at quietly amusing ourselves, oblivious to our pending obsolescence' thought the human, as a nearby Dell Inspiron contentedly displayed the same bouncing geometric shape screensaver it had been running for years.
}}

==Explanation==
''{{w|Go (game)|Go}}'' is an abstract strategy board game considered computationally difficult, compared to chess. Because of the size and number of possible combinations, computers don't have an easy way to exhaustively search for the best move. Still, {{w|Computer Go|they are getting better and better playing it}}. In this comic, [[Cueball]] suggests that computers may soon reach the level of being able to beat the best human players, an {{W|artificial intelligence}} milestone that has already been accomplished with other games. According to Randall in [[1002: Game AIs]], Go is one of the last games where a computer can still be beaten by top humans.

As a common human response, Cueball attempts to offer the consolation or defensive statement that humans remain better than computers at something else. In this case, the first thing he thinks of is that humans are better as making such consoling statements. However, [[Megan]] disproves Cueball’s statement by creating a script in the {{w| Python (programming language)|Python programming language}} to create an abundant supply of such statements.

Another such statement is made in the title text, that humans are better at quietly amusing themselves, oblivious to our “pending obsolescence” (which may refer alternatively to our inevitable deaths, or to the comic’s own topic of our being replaced and surpassed by computers). However, the title text then again suggests that the human statement is not true, referring to an Inspiron model of {{w|Dell}} computer which “quietly amuses itself” by showing a geometric {{w|screensaver}} as it presumably one day will be obsolete and replaced by a newer computer.

==Transcript==
:[Megan is sitting at a computer, and Cueball is standing behind her.]
:Megan: Looks like computers will beat humans at '''Go''' pretty soon.
:Cueball: Wow.
:Cueball: That's the last of the big ones.
:Megan: Yeah.

:Cueball: Well, at least humans are still better at, uh,
:Cueball: Coming up with reassuring parables about things humans are better at?
:Megan: Hmm.

:''type type''

:Megan: I made a Python script that generates thousands of reassuring parables per second.
:Cueball: ''Dammit.''
:Computer: Computers will never understand a sonnet Computers will never enjoy a salad comp—

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:1252: Increased Risk

2013-08-16T17:51:31Z

Jb:

I think this is to address the old chestnut of "<something> will ''double'' your risk of getting cancer!", or the like, where the risk of getting that cancer (in this example) is maybe 1 in 10,000, so doubling the risk across a population wouldmake that a 1 in 5,000 risk to your health... which you may still consider to be an acceptable gamble if it's something nice (like cheese!) that's apaprently to blame and you'd find abstinence from it gives a barely marginal benefit for a far greater loss of life enjoyment. Also, this sort of figure almost always applies towards a ''specific form'' of cancer, or whatever risk is being discussed, meaning you aren't vastly changing your life expectancy at all. In fact, the likes of opposing "red wine is good/bad for you" studies can be mutually true by this same principle (gain a little risk of one condition, lose a little risk from another). (Note: I don't know of any particular "cheese gives you cancer!" stories doing the rounds, at the moment. I bet they have done, but I only mention it because I actually quite like cheese. And I probably ''wouldn't'' give it up under the above conditions.)

It's also possible that this covers the likes of "<foo> in <country> is 10 times more dangerous than it is <other country>" statements. Perhaps ''only'' ten incidents happened in the former, and a single instance in the latter, out the ''whole'' of each respective country. Or a single incident occured in both, but the second country is ten times the size, so gets 'adjusted for population' in the tables. And, besides which, that was just for one year and was just a statistical blip that will probably revert-towards-the-mean next year.

Finally, for a given risk of some incident happening on the first two trips, with no 'memory' or build-up involved, it pretty much is half-as-likely-again for the incident to have happened (some time!) in three separate trips. (Not quite, if those that lose against the odds and get caught by the incident the first or second trip never get to ''have'' a (second or) third trip... but for negligable odds like thegiven example, of the dog with the handgun, it's near-as-damnit so.) [[Special:Contributions/178.104.103.140|178.104.103.140]] 11:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Where did "dogs with shotguns" come from? I only saw "handgun" in the comic. Besides, I interpreted the risk as being hit by a negligent discharge from the handgun, not being deliberately attacked by the dog. Also, since probabilities are the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 inclusive, there are an uncountable number of them. "A x% increase in a tiny risk is still tiny" is an inductive statement, which means it could only be used to argue that a countable set of numbers is tiny. [[Special:Contributions/76.64.65.200|76.64.65.200]] 12:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

:If induction base is uncountable, you can prove it for the whole [0; 1]. For example your induction base may be "every risk under 0.00000000000000000001% is tiny". --[[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 12:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that this comic doesn't [[985|distinguish between percentages and percentage points]]. --[[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 12:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it the case that doing something three times increases risk by 50% over two times inherently? I feel like this is the case, but it's early, here. Also, I'm not sure Randall is attacked by a dog, he may be using it as a diversion. I think that he's done this before. [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 12:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
:(First, good point, DiEvAl, about the percentages/percentage-points. I ''knew'' I'd missed something out in my first thoughts. I actually tend to assume ''against'' percentage points, which is somewhat the opposite from what I've seen in the general public.)
:Actually, depends on how you count it. But I was using the "encounter 'n' incidents per trip", "encounter '2n' incidents per two trips", "encoutner '3n' incidents per three trips" measure, where 3n==2n+50%. But that works best with a baseline of >>1 incidents per trip assumed. In reality, if the chance is a fractional 'p' for an occurance in one instance, it's (1-p) that it ''didn't'' occur thus (1-p)<sup>n</sup> that it didn't occur in any of 'n' instances and 1-(1-p)<sup>n</sup> that it did (at least once, possible several times or even all). Not so simple, but for p tending to zero it 'does' converge on 1.5 times for across three what you'd expect for two (albeit because 0*1.5=0). Like they say, "Lies, Damn Lies...", etc. ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.104.103.140|178.104.103.140]] 14:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Randall is being attacked by a dog at all. What he's saying is that if you are going to think getting attacked by a shark is so likely, then you better be watching out for that never-gonna-happen dog scenario too. [[User:Jillysky|Jillysky]] ([[User talk:Jillysky|talk]]) 13:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Is 0.000001% really "one in a million"?
;If 1% = 1 in 100, then
:0.1% = 1 in a 1,000
:0.01% = 1 in a 10,000
:0.001% = 1 in a 100,000
:0.0001% = 1 in a 1,000,000
:0.00001% = 1 in a 10,000,000
:'''0.000001% = 1 in a 100,000,000'''
Would it be more accurate to leave off the % sign?
Assuming I'm right, I think it'd be less confusing to leave it and reduce the numbers by a couple orders of magnitude.
--Clayton [[Special:Contributions/12.202.74.87|12.202.74.87]] 14:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

''If the chance of the dog attack is 0.000000001% (one in a billion) on each visit to the beach, then the chance of attack over two visits is 0.000000002% whereas in three visits it becomes 0.000000003%''

Um, no. Following that logic, if I go to the beach a billion times then I '''will''' get shot by a dog that is packing. Rather, each visit to the beach has it's own odds, like the rolling of dice? On any particular visit there's a one-in-a-billion chance. And that's true on each subsequent visit as well. Tuesday's visit to the beach isn't twice as dangerous just because I was at the beach on Monday. [[User:CFoxx|CFoxx]] ([[User talk:CFoxx|talk]]) 16:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
:For each visit that is the case. Because it's one visit, that's true. However, if (time not being a factor) one were to have a billion visits planned, the odds over all would be increased. Pretty sure that overall this means that you got the joke faster than I did. Thanks for the clarification! [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 17:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
::The odds overall may increase with multiple visits. But not, at least, at the rate listed. Otherwise that billionth trip (if one survived that long as one is likely to do) would be certain death. [[User:CFoxx|CFoxx]] ([[User talk:CFoxx|talk]]) 17:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought: is the title text a reference to the Sorites paradox? --AJ [[Special:Contributions/80.42.221.105|80.42.221.105]] 17:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Rats! I made the newbie mistake of editing something before I found the discussion page. I looked for it, honest I did! I see that UTC has already brought up what I referred to as "Cueball's error" in my (pre-log-in) edit. I did find it hard to believe I'd be the first xkcd fan to notice this error. I think this is worth addressing in the explanation, though I of course won't take offense if someone wants to obliterate my edit and start over. (CLSI)

Maybe he means this: Florida man shot by his dog, police say http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/26/17107343-florida-man-shot-by-his-dog-police-say?lite

1196: Subways

2013-04-08T15:42:28Z

Jb: Added explanation of "graveyard for passengers killed by closing doors"

{{comic
| number = 1196
| date = April 8, 2013
| title = Subways
| image = subways.png
| titletext = About one in three North American subway stops are in NYC.
}}

The xkcd page links to [http://xkcd.com/1196/large/ a much larger version], which has another text added:
<blockquote style="font-style:italic">
For the pedantic rail enthusiasts, the definition of a subway used here is, with some caveats, "a network containing high capacity grade-separated passenger rail transit lines which run frequently, serve an urban core, and are underground or elevated for at least part of their downtown route." For the rest of you, the definition is "a bunch of trains under a city."
</blockquote>

==Explanation==
The comic shows the maps of all North American {{w|subway}} networks. In reality, none of these systems are interconnected, but in the diagram subways from different cities that have the same color on the official subway map are whimsically connected (for example, the "Ohio-California Tunnel" connecting the Green Lines of Cleveland and Los Angeles). The "Springfield Monorail" is fictional, from the animated series "{{w|The Simpsons}}" (see {{w|Marge vs. the Monorail}}).

The networks on the map are displayed in (relatively) geographic position, with {{w|Vancouver}} being the most North-West, and {{w|Mexico City}} being the most South – East/West and North/South order are correct, but distances are not (in reality, Vancouver is closer to Chicago than to Toronto for example).

The "Graveyard for passengers killed by closing doors" refers to the warning played in the Washington DC Metro system warning passengers that the subway doors are "not like elevators doors" and will close on your limbs or belongings rather than opening when contact with an object is detected.

Here are some official subway maps:
* Boston - http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/subway/
* Chicago - http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/maps/P19_2012_CTA_Rail_Map.pdf
* Cleveland - http://www.riderta.com/pdf/maps/System_Map_Rapid_Connect.pdf
* Montreal - http://www.stm.info/english/metro/images/plan-metro.jpg
* New York City - http://www.mta.info/maps/submap.html
* Toronto - http://tourbytransit.com/toronto/images/Toronto-Subway-Map.png
* Vancouver - http://mapa-metro.com/mapas/Vancouver/mapa-metro-vancouver.png
* San Francisco - http://www.bart.gov/images/global/system-map.gif

==Transcript==
:

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Large drawings]]