explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1681: Laser Products

2016-05-25T22:20:18Z

Jevicci:

Laser jet surgery might be a reference to [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThisAintRocketSurgery rocket surgery]? {{unsigned ip|141.101.80.25}}

What is a laser eye printer and why is it eww ? {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.29}}

:It prints eyes... that should be self explanatory.{{unsigned ip|141.101.98.42}}

:Could also mean printing on the eye with a laser. Sounds possible but odd. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.28}}
::People buy colored and patterned contact lenses today, I think a laser eye printer would be used to print those patterns directly onto the eyeball. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 15:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

:Laser eye printer sounds like the type of thing edgy people want. Imagine printing a pentagram on your pupil or sclera {{unsigned ip|162.158.26.140}}

:: Some people have their {{w|Scleral tattooing|sclera}} or ''{{w|Corneal tattooing|cornea}}'' tattooed. The right kind of laser could burn an attractive pattern onto the surface less invasively. Wrong kinds of lasers will perform retinal tattooing. [[User:.42|.42]] ([[User talk:.42|talk]]) 07:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The first laser was fired 56 years ago, on 16 May 1960 by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Harold_Maiman Theodore Harold Maiman]. Maybe this comic is a reference? [[Special:Contributions/188.114.109.103|188.114.109.103]] 15:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to describe how any of these work in detail, just provide a quick description and link them to wikipedia. [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 16:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Laserjet is a trademarked brand of printers from HP. Does it have any meaning beyond the trademark. I know "Inkjet" is a type of printer that sprays a jet of ink onto the paper, but normally one would just say "laser printer" if one isn't referring to an Epson model [[User:Zeimusu|Zeimusu]] ([[User talk:Zeimusu|talk]]) 19:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"Laser-mounted jet aircraft"... surely you meant jet aircraft-mounted laser? I'll leave this how it is for a day or two in case I'm missing something. [[User:Xseo|Xseo]] ([[User talk:Xseo|talk]]) 19:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I found this comic to be funnier than it was intended to be, especially "laser jet removal" because I'm an astronomy nerd and we (at least everyone I've stargazed with) always talk about how we shouldn't point the laser pointers at the bright, moving, blinking stars because that would be very bad and turn it into a shooting star.

On a side note, I wonder if Arctic Blues are powerful enough to be spotted by people on the ISS, and theoretically how much power and how focused a laser would have to be to blind someone in the cupola. Also how powerful it would need to be to burn a hole through its outside, assuming you had an ultra stable tracking mount. I need to know by Tuesday.

(Hi NSA, I know I'm on your watchlists for being the atheistic daughter of "Hassan" Muslim immigrants, a communist, and a tinkerer of really dangerous science, but this is xkcd and I am sure this is the least sketchy "what if" that has ever been asked on this site.)
[[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 10:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

:The first part of that question was tested in 2012. http://www.universetoday.com/93987/amateur-astronomers-flash-the-space-station/. The article mentions that the 800 million lumen (dubious) searchlights came in brighter than magnitude 0 but the 1 MW blue laser was "also visible". From the picture it looks to be about magnitude 2 or 3. To match the sun's brightness (for blinding purposes) you'd need to get that up to about -26.5. Making up a 29 magnitude difference means you'd need to make your laser about 400 billion times brighter, or about 400 petawatts. You can probably bring that power draw down significantly by focusing the beam more, but since the Earth's power consumption is only about 2.5 petawatts (per Randall), you're already pretty far outside the realm of possibility. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.220|108.162.237.220]] 13:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
When I say blind, I mean "blind" in the same sense of "I accidentally flashed my green laser pointer in my eye via my mirror." So that would be just 35mW at 20ft. Couldn't you develop an ultra-focused laser (atmospheric distortion aside) that was able to focus all that energy onto an astronaut's eye from the ground?
[[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 05:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

: {{w|Laser guide star}}s are impressively bright at a quarter of the distance to your orbit. 5 kW {{w|laser broom}}s have been proposed for laser satellite removal. The main problem with laser astronaut surgery is probably your huge relative velocity; they won't be visible through your windows long enough to be targeted. You might be more successful powering a {{w|space weapon|laser cannon}} from your solar array and trying to strike Baikonur. [[User:.42|.42]] ([[User talk:.42|talk]]) 06:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

An inkjet printer is very definitely ''not'' xerographic printing, which refers to a dry printing process. A better term would be "raster" rather than "xerographic" although the former still does not imply converting the image to pixels, which appears to be the point the sentence is trying to make. At least "raster" means the image is converted to scan lines...[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.123|108.162.241.123]] 02:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that it means that you are strapping jets oflasers to your eyeballs and using them to peform surgery.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.97|108.162.221.97]] 21:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

"PC LOAD HAIR"? What the fuck does ''that'' mean? [[User:Jevicci|Jevicci]] ([[User talk:Jevicci|talk]]) 22:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1589: Frankenstein

2015-10-27T20:25:06Z

Jevicci:

I get all that—I came here to find out what the moon landing reference is all about. Any ideas? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.191|108.162.249.191]] 04:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
: xkcd has referred to "moon landing hoax" theories and their proponents (whom xkcd disparages) a few times, including [http://xkcd.com/202/ 202 "YouTube"], [http://xkcd.com/258/ 258 "Conspiracy Theories"], and [http://xkcd.com/1074/ 1074 "Moon Landing"]; this is (at least) the 4th such reference. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 05:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
: He says that, because he is a MONSTER, and has a damaged brain from a complete moron instead of from a famous scientist. You know - the plot of the movie ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.115.22|162.158.115.22]] 08:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:: You think that because you're damaged by watching Young Frankenstein where they used a girl called Abbie Normal's brain. [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Frankenstein A.K.A Elvis. Judging by that hairstyle [[User:Prack|Prack]] ([[User talk:Prack|talk]])
: I suggest the moon landing reference is simply Randall's monster subverting the attempt to redefine the canon. If Randall succeeds in redefining the monster's name, then it also becomes canonical that the moon landings were faked. Randall is unlikely to agree with the canon he has just created.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.127|141.101.98.127]] 10:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:: That was my thought too (just not formulated quite as clearly). [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.33|198.41.238.33]] 11:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
::: I respectfully disagree. The monster saying that the moon landings were faked does not make anything surrounding the moon landings canon. It just makes it canon that the monster Frankenstein now holds this belief. Alternatively, in the story, The Doctor's creation was seen by the populace as an abomination amalgamated from human corpses. In the same vein, moon landing conspiracies are also amalgamated from several different sources each contributing their own theories to support the believer's general consensus, the moon landings were faked, and in the eyes of the populace this idea is an abomination. I'm surprised he didn't go for the low-hanging ''climate change is a hoax'' reference that would have been more recent for readers. In either case, it is fairly common for adherents of theories that run contrary to the scientific community to be labeled and name called by supporters of the scientific community. Especially in matters of religion.--[[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 16:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:::: These are good points. It makes sense that Frankenstein was made with the brain of a conspiracy theorist. I don't think Frankenstein is trying to subvert The Doctor's or the comic author's canon-forming efforts, or anything so sophisticated. I ''do'' think these thoughts, in some form, should be in the article. It was not at all obvious why a moon landing hoax reference is in the comic, to me it was irrelevant noise. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 16:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
::::: In Randall's version, claiming the moon landing fake is what makes Frankenstein an abomination, instead of being hideous and committing murder (note Randall's Frankenstein doesn't seem to have much of a bad look, and the story ends immediately). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.66.23|141.101.66.23]] 18:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::: I appreciate the more succinct explanation. I added this as an additional explanation above after the bit about the derivative works. I've never read the original story so I referenced the wiki for accuracy. My apologies if I made a mistake or didn't take the analogy far enough. --[[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 20:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I interpreted this as subverting the intention of the whole comic. He's sick of the debate over the name. Then, as soon as that matter is cleared up, the monster raises this famous conspiracy theory, which is the subject of another annoying debate. [[User:Jevicci|Jevicci]] ([[User talk:Jevicci|talk]]) 20:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
::::Re "Climate change is a hoax": Except for the small detail that a significant percentage of the population does, indeed, believe climate change is a hoax. I'm not one of them, but still. Anonymous 21:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
"The doctor" is a joke in itself because it's analog to "The monster" of the original, so it's likely to start the same discussions the other way around. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.212|162.158.90.212]] 09:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
: While it is also likely a direct callback to the Doctor Who naming issue by capitalizing the word "doctor", I agree that the alt-text is intended to make both "Doctor Frankenstein" or "The Doctor" correct, like the comic makes both "Frankenstein" and "the monster" both now canonically correct. "The Doctor" naming issue is also fairly commonly corrected, but for a different reason and is extremely specific to people who grew up watching the original show. For quite a while during the Classic era, The Doctor's actor at the time was credited as "Dr. Who" or "Doctor Who", despite often being introduced (by himself or his companions) as "The Doctor" during the actual dialogue of the show. So, I'm guessing that Randall's saying that either name in all three of these cases (the monster/Frankenstein, the doctor/Dr. Frankenstein, and The Doctor/Doctor Who) would be the correct name to use. {{unsigned|PopeChris}}
::The credits issue isn't just specific to people who grew up watching the classic show. The Ninth Doctor in 2005 was also credited as "Doctor Who", and Eccleston and Piper regularly referred to the character that way. Capaldi now does so as well (probably because he grew up in the era when the character was credited that way). Just as producer John Nathan-Turner went on a crusade in 1981 to get everyone to start calling the character "The Doctor", actor David Tennant did the same thing in 2006. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52|162.158.255.52]] 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Am I the only one thinking that the mouse over text is a matter of intentionally misunderstanding that the question wasn't about Dr. Who? --some guy[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.175|108.162.238.175]] 13:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:Or you can intentionally misunderstand it even further—if you accept this comic as your canon, The Doctor, as in the character from Doctor Who, created Frankenstein, as in the monster. And he also probably wrote the story too. Why not? He started Nero's fire, wrote half of Shakespeare's plays (and one of his companions inspired half of the rest), manipulated someone into killing JFK… --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52|162.158.255.52]] 22:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the monster's "real" name, I thought either Dr. Frankenstein or the monster himself named him "Adam", as in "Adam and Eve". Anonymous 21:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:The monster uses that name, but only metaphorically. Early on, he calls himself "the Adam of your labors", and later he says that he would have been "your Adam" but instead became "your fallen angel". Meanwhile, the fact that Dr. Frankenstein refuses to give the monster a name is an intentional symbol of his rejection of his creation, which the monster picks up on, which is a big part of what he struggles with. So, to say that "his name is Adam" would be a big stretch, and missing the point of the story.

:While nobody ever explicitly calls him "Frankenstein's monster", Dr. Frankenstein calls him "the monster" once, and a few others refer to him as "your monster" or "the monster". The doctor calls him "the creature" far more often, and uses other descriptions like "the demon", "you vile insect", etc., but "Frankenstein's monster" seems like the best name for the character.

:Finally, calling him "Frankenstein" isn't that silly. Why shouldn't he have the same last name as his father? James Whale's movie called him Frankenstein, and almost everything that's come since has been based far more on Whale's movie than Shelley's book. (If you think electricity was involved in bringing him to life, or that he was made of an amalgam of parts from different people, you're no thinking of the book.) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52|162.158.255.52]] 22:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

When Cueball says "Frankenstein is alive! I am a modern Prometheus!" he is confusing things more. The original book's title is "Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus" but now the Modern Prometheus and Frankenstein are different entities. [[User:Bartash|Bartash]] ([[User talk:Bartash|talk]]) 22:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:The original book's title refers to Victor Frankenstein - he is Frankenstein (obviously), and he is a 'modern Prometheus', since he has created life in the same way the Titan Prometheus did. In Randall's version (assuming it keeps the same title), "Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus" suggests a more equal balance of the two main characters. The book follows Frankenstein (the creature), or, The Modern Prometheus (The Doctor).[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.173|141.101.105.173]] 08:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

So basically there's nothing stopping me from renaming the monster "Kevin" if I want. {{unsigned ip|108.162.249.183}}

It's probably just my density, but I can't make sense of : "In Randall's version, he makes the same correlation by having Frankenstein claim the moon landings were faked which by inference produces the same results in The Doctor." Is this making the same point as above, that " In Randall's version, claiming the moon landing [is] fake is what makes Frankenstein an abomination.." -- ? I grasp (& even agree with) the latter, but the former loses me. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.101|199.27.133.101]] 03:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
: Yes, and I also think that shorter explanation is much better. Perhaps someone can edit the article to remove the grammatical acrobatics. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 17:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's Igor... (discworld) {{unsigned ip|141.101.75.17}}
:Igor wouldn't. Although perhapth he could thay thomething thimilar. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.75.185|141.101.75.185]] 14:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1589: Frankenstein

2015-10-27T20:24:14Z

Jevicci:

I get all that—I came here to find out what the moon landing reference is all about. Any ideas? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.191|108.162.249.191]] 04:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
: xkcd has referred to "moon landing hoax" theories and their proponents (whom xkcd disparages) a few times, including [http://xkcd.com/202/ 202 "YouTube"], [http://xkcd.com/258/ 258 "Conspiracy Theories"], and [http://xkcd.com/1074/ 1074 "Moon Landing"]; this is (at least) the 4th such reference. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 05:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
: He says that, because he is a MONSTER, and has a damaged brain from a complete moron instead of from a famous scientist. You know - the plot of the movie ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.115.22|162.158.115.22]] 08:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:: You think that because you're damaged by watching Young Frankenstein where they used a girl called Abbie Normal's brain. [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Frankenstein A.K.A Elvis. Judging by that hairstyle [[User:Prack|Prack]] ([[User talk:Prack|talk]])
: I suggest the moon landing reference is simply Randall's monster subverting the attempt to redefine the canon. If Randall succeeds in redefining the monster's name, then it also becomes canonical that the moon landings were faked. Randall is unlikely to agree with the canon he has just created.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.127|141.101.98.127]] 10:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:: That was my thought too (just not formulated quite as clearly). [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.33|198.41.238.33]] 11:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
::: I respectfully disagree. The monster saying that the moon landings were faked does not make anything surrounding the moon landings canon. It just makes it canon that the monster Frankenstein now holds this belief. Alternatively, in the story, The Doctor's creation was seen by the populace as an abomination amalgamated from human corpses. In the same vein, moon landing conspiracies are also amalgamated from several different sources each contributing their own theories to support the believer's general consensus, the moon landings were faked, and in the eyes of the populace this idea is an abomination. I'm surprised he didn't go for the low-hanging ''climate change is a hoax'' reference that would have been more recent for readers. In either case, it is fairly common for adherents of theories that run contrary to the scientific community to be labeled and name called by supporters of the scientific community. Especially in matters of religion.--[[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 16:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:::: These are good points. It makes sense that Frankenstein was made with the brain of a conspiracy theorist. I don't think Frankenstein is trying to subvert The Doctor's or the comic author's canon-forming efforts, or anything so sophisticated. I ''do'' think these thoughts, in some form, should be in the article. It was not at all obvious why a moon landing hoax reference is in the comic, to me it was irrelevant noise. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 16:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
::::: In Randall's version, claiming the moon landing fake is what makes Frankenstein an abomination, instead of being hideous and committing murder (note Randall's Frankenstein doesn't seem to have much of a bad look, and the story ends immediately). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.66.23|141.101.66.23]] 18:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::: I appreciate the more succinct explanation. I added this as an additional explanation above after the bit about the derivative works. I've never read the original story so I referenced the wiki for accuracy. My apologies if I made a mistake or didn't take the analogy far enough. --[[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 20:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I interpreted this as subverting the intention of the whole comic. He's sick of the debate over the name. Then, as soon as that matter is cleared up, the monster raises this famous conspiracy theory, which is the subject of another annoying debate.[[User:Jevicci|Jevicci]] ([[User talk:Jevicci|talk]]) 20:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
::::Re "Climate change is a hoax": Except for the small detail that a significant percentage of the population does, indeed, believe climate change is a hoax. I'm not one of them, but still. Anonymous 21:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
"The doctor" is a joke in itself because it's analog to "The monster" of the original, so it's likely to start the same discussions the other way around. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.212|162.158.90.212]] 09:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
: While it is also likely a direct callback to the Doctor Who naming issue by capitalizing the word "doctor", I agree that the alt-text is intended to make both "Doctor Frankenstein" or "The Doctor" correct, like the comic makes both "Frankenstein" and "the monster" both now canonically correct. "The Doctor" naming issue is also fairly commonly corrected, but for a different reason and is extremely specific to people who grew up watching the original show. For quite a while during the Classic era, The Doctor's actor at the time was credited as "Dr. Who" or "Doctor Who", despite often being introduced (by himself or his companions) as "The Doctor" during the actual dialogue of the show. So, I'm guessing that Randall's saying that either name in all three of these cases (the monster/Frankenstein, the doctor/Dr. Frankenstein, and The Doctor/Doctor Who) would be the correct name to use. {{unsigned|PopeChris}}
::The credits issue isn't just specific to people who grew up watching the classic show. The Ninth Doctor in 2005 was also credited as "Doctor Who", and Eccleston and Piper regularly referred to the character that way. Capaldi now does so as well (probably because he grew up in the era when the character was credited that way). Just as producer John Nathan-Turner went on a crusade in 1981 to get everyone to start calling the character "The Doctor", actor David Tennant did the same thing in 2006. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52|162.158.255.52]] 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Am I the only one thinking that the mouse over text is a matter of intentionally misunderstanding that the question wasn't about Dr. Who? --some guy[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.175|108.162.238.175]] 13:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:Or you can intentionally misunderstand it even further—if you accept this comic as your canon, The Doctor, as in the character from Doctor Who, created Frankenstein, as in the monster. And he also probably wrote the story too. Why not? He started Nero's fire, wrote half of Shakespeare's plays (and one of his companions inspired half of the rest), manipulated someone into killing JFK… --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52|162.158.255.52]] 22:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the monster's "real" name, I thought either Dr. Frankenstein or the monster himself named him "Adam", as in "Adam and Eve". Anonymous 21:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:The monster uses that name, but only metaphorically. Early on, he calls himself "the Adam of your labors", and later he says that he would have been "your Adam" but instead became "your fallen angel". Meanwhile, the fact that Dr. Frankenstein refuses to give the monster a name is an intentional symbol of his rejection of his creation, which the monster picks up on, which is a big part of what he struggles with. So, to say that "his name is Adam" would be a big stretch, and missing the point of the story.

:While nobody ever explicitly calls him "Frankenstein's monster", Dr. Frankenstein calls him "the monster" once, and a few others refer to him as "your monster" or "the monster". The doctor calls him "the creature" far more often, and uses other descriptions like "the demon", "you vile insect", etc., but "Frankenstein's monster" seems like the best name for the character.

:Finally, calling him "Frankenstein" isn't that silly. Why shouldn't he have the same last name as his father? James Whale's movie called him Frankenstein, and almost everything that's come since has been based far more on Whale's movie than Shelley's book. (If you think electricity was involved in bringing him to life, or that he was made of an amalgam of parts from different people, you're no thinking of the book.) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52|162.158.255.52]] 22:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

When Cueball says "Frankenstein is alive! I am a modern Prometheus!" he is confusing things more. The original book's title is "Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus" but now the Modern Prometheus and Frankenstein are different entities. [[User:Bartash|Bartash]] ([[User talk:Bartash|talk]]) 22:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:The original book's title refers to Victor Frankenstein - he is Frankenstein (obviously), and he is a 'modern Prometheus', since he has created life in the same way the Titan Prometheus did. In Randall's version (assuming it keeps the same title), "Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus" suggests a more equal balance of the two main characters. The book follows Frankenstein (the creature), or, The Modern Prometheus (The Doctor).[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.173|141.101.105.173]] 08:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

So basically there's nothing stopping me from renaming the monster "Kevin" if I want. {{unsigned ip|108.162.249.183}}

It's probably just my density, but I can't make sense of : "In Randall's version, he makes the same correlation by having Frankenstein claim the moon landings were faked which by inference produces the same results in The Doctor." Is this making the same point as above, that " In Randall's version, claiming the moon landing [is] fake is what makes Frankenstein an abomination.." -- ? I grasp (& even agree with) the latter, but the former loses me. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.101|199.27.133.101]] 03:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
: Yes, and I also think that shorter explanation is much better. Perhaps someone can edit the article to remove the grammatical acrobatics. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 17:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's Igor... (discworld) {{unsigned ip|141.101.75.17}}
:Igor wouldn't. Although perhapth he could thay thomething thimilar. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.75.185|141.101.75.185]] 14:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1507: Metaball

2015-04-07T14:30:30Z

Jevicci:

This... looks amazing! I wonder if this is going to be a case of xkcd influencing real life, like geohashing, the "citation needed" on speeches or cory doctorow cosplaying... cory doctorow. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.29|173.245.48.29]] 08:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this is how you play [https://xkcd.com/1480/ sportsball]? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.64.11|141.101.64.11]] 11:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Indigofenix

Over here in Rightpondia (UK), "Hockey" means "Field Hockey" (I'm sure I've never actually heard "ball hockey" as a term before, ''ever'', although must be the same)... although it's mostly popularised as a (often very vicious!) girl's sport; see the St. Trinians cartoons/films. Although we understand Leftpondians (and especially Upper-Leftpondians) mean Ice Hockey when they miss off the qualifier. Just as vicious, of course (except now that everyone wears armour... also c.f. usual comments regarding Rugby League/Union vs 'American Football'/Gridiron). But none of these have anything on the near-variant of these games (mainly in Ireland) that is Hurling..! (As to Field Hockey as Aussie Rules Football is to Association Football?)[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 16:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
:Some Canadian input: ball hockey /= field hockey. Field hockey is played on a field and has stick that looks like a 'J'. Ball hockey on the other hand is played on a hard surface (with an ice hockey stick). In organized leagues the arena is often just like an ice hockey rink without the ice; boards and all. Ball hockey can be played on foot or on roller-blades. Often when kids play street hockey it will be ball hockey, though just as likely to be with a specific street hockey puck that is designed to slide on pavement. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.75|199.27.133.75]] 20:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC) ce_nedra32

Suspiciously similar to Calvinball. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.100|108.162.221.100]] 21:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)A Martin
: I agree, but there seem to be preset rules (the sheet that Ponytail is holding), suggesting that it isn't made up as they go along [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.33|141.101.98.33]] 09:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, my first thought on seeing this was this is exactly the opposite of CalvinBall. Which may well be thr point.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.40|141.101.99.40]] 12:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I see influences of Hofstadter's ''Godel,Escher,Bach'', which has
1) the idea of how the play-by-play of a football game would be altered if it were baseball (among other counterfactuals), and
2) the idea of a boardgame whose rules change according to where pieces are on the board. [[User:Fewmet|Fewmet]] ([[User talk:Fewmet|talk]]) 22:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how the concept of 'out' (as opposed to 'in') would be dealt with as the ball passes into (and eventually out of) the volleyball zone.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.216|173.245.54.216]] 05:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
:Baseball zone... ;-) Although I'm sure there is a volleyball zone somewhere... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

OK I guess this is not a complaint since the explanation seems to make sense. But I'm still confused about something. In the third panel the invocation of the infield fly rule is entirely wrong, The infielder must either catch and drop the ball or appear to deliberately refuse to catch the ball. The panel shows the ball still in the air when the call is made. As an athletophobe I just spent 20 minutes of my life researching the infield fly rule (http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5322&context=penn_law_review) (!!!) so... well... I get it but how do you make the leap?[[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 09:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
:The comic explanation had it wrong. It is Megan (the batter/kicker) who is Out when Ponytail yells. A high ball in Baseball can be called infield fly before anyone even tries to catch it. So it is of no consequence weather Cueball tries to catch it, or actually tries to dunk the ball. I have corrected the explanation acordingly. And also added the fact that the rule is hard to understand to outsiders of baseball. {{unsigned|Kynde}}
::TY! I've done some thinking and it's starting to dawn on me that the strategy the runners take interacts with the infielders actions. On the plus side this has prompted me to make a new life rule: You should always distinguish between strategy and cheating, but you should never be too picky about it! :¬D
::[[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 21:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

A quick comment about hockey: there a variation, hockey cosom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoor_field_hockey). It is played normally indoor and with a ball. But it is also a cheap variant that school in Quebec use in winter in PE, as skating equipment with proper gears for rink hockey is both expensive and require skill that kids might not have. It would better fit with the Metaball title.--[[User:Labreck|Labreck]] ([[User talk:Labreck|talk]]) 10:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
:No problem playing golf with a football? Then why anyproblem playing Ice hockey with such a ball? It is easier to get a foot ball into a ice hockey goal than to it into a golf hole. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The title reminds me of J H Conway's paradoxical "Metagame", whose rules are: the first player (L) names a finite game (e.g. Nim), and then the two players (L and R) play that game. Is Metagame a finite game? If it is, then each player in turn can name Metagame, and the process never ends, so it isn't finite. But if it isn't finite, L must name another finite game, so the game does end. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.216|141.101.98.216]] 10:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Reminds me of Hich-Hiker's "Brockian_Ultra-Cricket" <ref>{{cite web|url=http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Brockian_Ultra-Cricket|title=Brockian Ultra-Cricket - Hitchhikers|accessdate=2015-04-04}}</ref> :

''"Rule Four: Throw lots of assorted items of sporting equipment over the wall for the players. Anything will do – cricket bats, basecube bats, tennis guns, skis, anything you can get a good swing with.

Rule Five: The players should now lay about themselves for all they are worth with whatever they find to hand. Whenever a player scores a “hit” on another player, he should immediately run away as fast as he can and apologize from a safe distance. Apologies should be concise, sincere, and, for maximum clarity and points, delivered through a megaphone.

Rule Six: The winning team shall be the first team that wins."'' [[User:Briantist|Briantist]] ([[User talk:Briantist|talk]]) 13:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

<references/>
Who is the female with her hair in a bun?--[[User:17jiangz1|17jiangz1]] ([[User talk:17jiangz1|talk]]) 14:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
:Not anyone in particular but she was also in [[1504]] and I have found 7 appereance of [[Hair Bun Girl]] with hair in a bun. So I have added her as a minor character. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 16:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where to post this but paragraphs following an external links are in separate boxes to the rest of the text. I looked at a few other comics and it's the same. It had better not be deliberate as it really breaks the flow of the explanation when it is cut off mid sentence--[[User:Figvh|Figvh]] ([[User talk:Figvh|talk]]) 03:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
nevermind it's fixed now--[[User:Figvh|Figvh]] ([[User talk:Figvh|talk]]) 03:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned actual [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaballs Metaballs] yet. [[User:Daedalus|Daedalus]] ([[User talk:Daedalus|talk]]) 20:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ponytail has a feynman diagram on her rule sheet :) {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.75}}

I know I am not the only person who once tried to play Calvinball. At least I hope I'm not. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|The Goyim speaks]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 12:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Am I the only one who misread the title of this comic as "Meatball"? [[User:Jevicci|Jevicci]] ([[User talk:Jevicci|talk]]) 14:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1388: Subduction License

2014-06-30T15:20:25Z

Jevicci: Created page with "I'm assuming "subduction license" is being comically reinterpreted here from some other meaning. What is a subduction license, normally speaking? ~~~~"

I'm assuming "subduction license" is being comically reinterpreted here from some other meaning. What is a subduction license, normally speaking? [[User:Jevicci|Jevicci]] ([[User talk:Jevicci|talk]]) 15:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1385: Throwing Rocks

2014-06-24T15:12:44Z

Jevicci:

Current explanation says the rock in the second panel is seen "possibly sinking the boat." Whoever typed this apparently didn't notice the undisturbed leaf boat, floating approximately 2 feet away from the splash. - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.240.36|108.162.240.36]] 04:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

My boat sunk! THANKS, OBAMA! - [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.153|173.245.56.153]] 05:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
:SURE... BLAME OBAMA WHEN IT WAS BUSH WHO STARTED IT. ''(Sorry! Couldn't resist.)'' [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 11:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
:: Heh. Thanks. That started the day with a laugh. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.39|199.27.133.39]] 16:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Did we already know both Beret Guy and Megan are left handed? [[User:Wrybred|Wrybred]] ([[User talk:Wrybred|talk]]) 12:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)wrybred
: They could be ambidextrous. Seriously I suspect that was easier to draw with them facing that way. And them facing the other way is just wrong.[[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 18:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
: I agree with halfhat - it is a tool to give the drawing the correct flow. They need to throw that way for the story to progress in the reading direction. And then it is easier to throw that way. Also remember that although we think of Megan as one person, this does not apply to Randal! Megan is just a stand-in for any girl (as are Cueball for any guy). Not so sure about Beret Guy though... I think it is a nice observation by the way. I did not see that. But to say that they are always left handed is not correct. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Vinland != America
: "Vinland was the name given to an area of North America by Norse Vikings..." per Wikipedia. (Providing actual info rather than just yelling "NO!" is always more helpful. But I'll take your comment (and you posting it anonymously) was intended as being in the spirit of the comments Randall's poking fun at.) [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.39|199.27.133.39]] 16:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Since "Leaf" Ericson is a pun on Leif, I think Vinland is a pun for Finland, but with the prefix "Vin" from "Vine". All of these puns make sense since the boat is made from a leaf. {{unsigned ip|199.27.130.228}}
:Try reading the wikipedia entry for Vinland. That makes a lot more sense. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.240.30|108.162.240.30]] 15:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me or does this sound a lot like the game discordian game "Sink"? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.240.30|108.162.240.30]] 15:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The explanation says Megan's comment is in contrast, I felt it was more of a comparison or a parallel. News articles go away once they're a week old in some places, various comments could be seen as thrown rocks or stones. Am I the only one who read it this way? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.63|173.245.55.63]] 15:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
:I really feel that it would be more in line with my interpretation if the "In contrast, " was simply removed... I don't think it's in contrast to anything. She contemplates, then decides to join in. As for the metaphor of thrown stones, I'm not sure I really see it, except possibly as a meta-meta-reference... (if such a thing is a thing?) -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
: Come to think of it, I agree - it's a little loose, 'cuz while Beret Guy is throwing stones at the boat himself, Megan is just reading the comments (stones) that eventually sink the article (boat), but I see a metaphor, for sure!

Happy Leif Erikson day, everyone! Jinga-hinga-durga! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.171|141.101.98.171]] 17:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
:141.101, wɘnt to gɘt morɘ giant papEr. Uhhhh... [[User:MrGameZone|MᴙGam]][[User talk:MrGameZone|ɘZonɘ]] 18:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Every day, I read the discussion on an explainxkcd page ;) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.73|173.245.50.73]] 14:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Great pun in the title text, though he could have had another had he said "Vineland". [[User:Jevicci|Jevicci]] ([[User talk:Jevicci|talk]]) 15:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1319: Automation

2014-01-23T23:05:09Z

Jevicci:

Why is this administrator protected? Did an admin lock it just to make sure they'd be the first person to explain it? --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 07:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not protected. Check the logs. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 07:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, done the preliminary explanation. I think I got the joke right, and I'm a programmer myself so I can relate to the graphs. However, laymen may not understand the circumstances of programming world, so maybe simpler words could be used, or a real-life example given. That and I'm not a native English speaker, so someone else should do some grammar check. Also, I posted that from my mobile, it's not really convenient (editing the post itself is already a bit hard) so I'll do some fact checking and citation-linking once I got home. I did check on the screwing definition with TheFreeDictionary, don't have time to do better search now. [[User:Raestloz|Raestloz]] ([[User talk:Raestloz|talk]]) 08:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that in reality, many tasks can be automated successfully: while the programming takes longer that expected, may not simplify the task as much as expected and the program feels unfinished, outside circumstances can force the programmer to abandon ongoing development and use the program for partial automation instead. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The title text reminds me of the old joke about the definition of politics -- "poli-" meaning "many" and "tics" meaning "blood sucking creatures". --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.202|108.162.219.202]] 12:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Or the definition of polygon; "poly" = parrot and "gon" = gone (i.e., deceased). Therefore,
"dead parrot" [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.236|141.101.99.236]] 09:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do the lines on the "Theory" graph converge shortly after automation takes over? Surely, the idea behind writing a code in this example is to save time. Therefore, the original task line should remain relatively constant and the automation line should plunge below it, no? [[User:Jevicci|Jevicci]] ([[User talk:Jevicci|talk]]) 23:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

: Once the automation takes over, the programmer will no longer have to do anything, the program will take care of it [[User:Raestloz|Raestloz]] ([[User talk:Raestloz|talk]]) 00:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

::Yes, but I agree with Jevicci's comment and that's what I was going to post. The point of the automation is (in theory) to save effort. After an initial input of lots of work coding, the "automation" line drops to near-zero. That makes sense, but the "regular way" line should continue horizontal like it does in the 2nd graph because if you don't automate, it should continue to take effort. The first chart suggests that even in theory, automation takes more work and the same amount of time as the old fashioned way.

:::I think what Randall is trying to say is EITHER that a) programmers will automate for the sake of the challenge or it being less tedious than the basic way even if it doesn't save time. b) programmers will automate even if it doesn't save time because they can use the code next time the problem arises. But I agree, I think the first graph's "regular way" line should have either continued horizontal, or tappered off somewhere after the "automation" line does. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 14:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

::::As far as I can tell, the line labelled "work on original task" is not meant to represent the amount of work you'd be doing without any automation (which would indeed remain a straight horizontal line), as the "theory" graph doesn't compare two separate scenarios. Rather, it's just there to be a baseline amount of work (programming work being done on top), which diminishes to near-zero as soon as automation takes over. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.221|108.162.231.221]] 18:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

:::::Yea, in the theory you would continue performing the task while also coding the automation. Once the automation is done, you work on neither the original nor the coding so both drop to zero. In practice, you keep doing the work and never finish the automation, so the coding goes up and the original stays the same. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.29|173.245.48.29]] 22:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

::::::It makes more sense if you see the lines as' amount of work existing for a task'. The two lines are the given work and work given to self. Top graph: The amount of work for the given task remains constant until you solve the automation (work you gave yourself) at which point both drop as given work is now done and you won't carry on working on the automation anymore, free time. The graph doesn't reach zero as there will always be more you could do (like Richardson's Theory). On the second graph, you never work on the original task, get consumed by automation and end up with far more work than was ever presented (as pointed out, after the rethink) and there is a total increase in the amount of work which exists for you, without actually touching the given work... whether it actually gets done in the end or not doesn't matter as you could stop and the graphs would stay like they are. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.248|141.101.99.248]] 19:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC) thesuperkev

:::::::Ah, I see now. Didn't realize the two lines represented simultaneous work as opposed to two separate scenarios. Makes sense now. Thanks for the explanation. [[User:Jevicci|Jevicci]] ([[User talk:Jevicci|talk]]) 23:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

In other words, when automating, NEVER rethink. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 00:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

:And if you really must rethink, at least deploy the program first. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1319: Automation

2014-01-23T23:04:11Z

Jevicci:

Why is this administrator protected? Did an admin lock it just to make sure they'd be the first person to explain it? --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 07:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not protected. Check the logs. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 07:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, done the preliminary explanation. I think I got the joke right, and I'm a programmer myself so I can relate to the graphs. However, laymen may not understand the circumstances of programming world, so maybe simpler words could be used, or a real-life example given. That and I'm not a native English speaker, so someone else should do some grammar check. Also, I posted that from my mobile, it's not really convenient (editing the post itself is already a bit hard) so I'll do some fact checking and citation-linking once I got home. I did check on the screwing definition with TheFreeDictionary, don't have time to do better search now. [[User:Raestloz|Raestloz]] ([[User talk:Raestloz|talk]]) 08:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that in reality, many tasks can be automated successfully: while the programming takes longer that expected, may not simplify the task as much as expected and the program feels unfinished, outside circumstances can force the programmer to abandon ongoing development and use the program for partial automation instead. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The title text reminds me of the old joke about the definition of politics -- "poli-" meaning "many" and "tics" meaning "blood sucking creatures". --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.202|108.162.219.202]] 12:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Or the definition of polygon; "poly" = parrot and "gon" = gone (i.e., deceased). Therefore,
"dead parrot" [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.236|141.101.99.236]] 09:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do the lines on the "Theory" graph converge shortly after automation takes over? Surely, the idea behind writing a code in this example is to save time. Therefore, the original task line should remain relatively constant and the automation line should plunge below it, no? [[User:Jevicci|Jevicci]] ([[User talk:Jevicci|talk]]) 23:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

: Once the automation takes over, the programmer will no longer have to do anything, the program will take care of it [[User:Raestloz|Raestloz]] ([[User talk:Raestloz|talk]]) 00:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

::Yes, but I agree with Jevicci's comment and that's what I was going to post. The point of the automation is (in theory) to save effort. After an initial input of lots of work coding, the "automation" line drops to near-zero. That makes sense, but the "regular way" line should continue horizontal like it does in the 2nd graph because if you don't automate, it should continue to take effort. The first chart suggests that even in theory, automation takes more work and the same amount of time as the old fashioned way.

::I think what Randall is trying to say is EITHER that a) programmers will automate for the sake of the challenge or it being less tedious than the basic way even if it doesn't save time. b) programmers will automate even if it doesn't save time because they can use the code next time the problem arises. But I agree, I think the first graph's "regular way" line should have either continued horizontal, or tappered off somewhere after the "automation" line does. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 14:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

:::As far as I can tell, the line labelled "work on original task" is not meant to represent the amount of work you'd be doing without any automation (which would indeed remain a straight horizontal line), as the "theory" graph doesn't compare two separate scenarios. Rather, it's just there to be a baseline amount of work (programming work being done on top), which diminishes to near-zero as soon as automation takes over. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.221|108.162.231.221]] 18:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

::::Yea, in the theory you would continue performing the task while also coding the automation. Once the automation is done, you work on neither the original nor the coding so both drop to zero. In practice, you keep doing the work and never finish the automation, so the coding goes up and the original stays the same. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.29|173.245.48.29]] 22:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

:::::It makes more sense if you see the lines as' amount of work existing for a task'. The two lines are the given work and work given to self. Top graph: The amount of work for the given task remains constant until you solve the automation (work you gave yourself) at which point both drop as given work is now done and you won't carry on working on the automation anymore, free time. The graph doesn't reach zero as there will always be more you could do (like Richardson's Theory). On the second graph, you never work on the original task, get consumed by automation and end up with far more work than was ever presented (as pointed out, after the rethink) and there is a total increase in the amount of work which exists for you, without actually touching the given work... whether it actually gets done in the end or not doesn't matter as you could stop and the graphs would stay like they are. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.248|141.101.99.248]] 19:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC) thesuperkev

::::::Ah, I see now. Didn't realize the two lines represented simultaneous work as opposed to two separate scenarios. Makes sense now. Thanks for the explanation. [[User:Jevicci|Jevicci]] ([[User talk:Jevicci|talk]]) 23:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

In other words, when automating, NEVER rethink. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 00:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

:And if you really must rethink, at least deploy the program first. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1319: Automation

2014-01-23T23:03:14Z

Jevicci:

Why is this administrator protected? Did an admin lock it just to make sure they'd be the first person to explain it? --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 07:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not protected. Check the logs. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 07:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, done the preliminary explanation. I think I got the joke right, and I'm a programmer myself so I can relate to the graphs. However, laymen may not understand the circumstances of programming world, so maybe simpler words could be used, or a real-life example given. That and I'm not a native English speaker, so someone else should do some grammar check. Also, I posted that from my mobile, it's not really convenient (editing the post itself is already a bit hard) so I'll do some fact checking and citation-linking once I got home. I did check on the screwing definition with TheFreeDictionary, don't have time to do better search now. [[User:Raestloz|Raestloz]] ([[User talk:Raestloz|talk]]) 08:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that in reality, many tasks can be automated successfully: while the programming takes longer that expected, may not simplify the task as much as expected and the program feels unfinished, outside circumstances can force the programmer to abandon ongoing development and use the program for partial automation instead. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The title text reminds me of the old joke about the definition of politics -- "poli-" meaning "many" and "tics" meaning "blood sucking creatures". --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.202|108.162.219.202]] 12:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Or the definition of polygon; "poly" = parrot and "gon" = gone (i.e., deceased). Therefore,
"dead parrot" [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.236|141.101.99.236]] 09:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do the lines on the "Theory" graph converge shortly after automation takes over? Surely, the idea behind writing a code in this example is to save time. Therefore, the original task line should remain relatively constant and the coding line should plunge below it, no? [[User:Jevicci|Jevicci]] ([[User talk:Jevicci|talk]]) 23:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
: Once the automation takes over, the programmer will no longer have to do anything, the program will take care of it [[User:Raestloz|Raestloz]] ([[User talk:Raestloz|talk]]) 00:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

::Yes, but I agree with Jevicci's comment and that's what I was going to post. The point of the automation is (in theory) to save effort. After an initial input of lots of work coding, the "automation" line drops to near-zero. That makes sense, but the "regular way" line should continue horizontal like it does in the 2nd graph because if you don't automate, it should continue to take effort. The first chart suggests that even in theory, automation takes more work and the same amount of time as the old fashioned way.

::I think what Randall is trying to say is EITHER that a) programmers will automate for the sake of the challenge or it being less tedious than the basic way even if it doesn't save time. b) programmers will automate even if it doesn't save time because they can use the code next time the problem arises. But I agree, I think the first graph's "regular way" line should have either continued horizontal, or tappered off somewhere after the "automation" line does. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 14:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

:::As far as I can tell, the line labelled "work on original task" is not meant to represent the amount of work you'd be doing without any automation (which would indeed remain a straight horizontal line), as the "theory" graph doesn't compare two separate scenarios. Rather, it's just there to be a baseline amount of work (programming work being done on top), which diminishes to near-zero as soon as automation takes over. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.221|108.162.231.221]] 18:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

::::Yea, in the theory you would continue performing the task while also coding the automation. Once the automation is done, you work on neither the original nor the coding so both drop to zero. In practice, you keep doing the work and never finish the automation, so the coding goes up and the original stays the same. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.29|173.245.48.29]] 22:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

:::::It makes more sense if you see the lines as' amount of work existing for a task'. The two lines are the given work and work given to self. Top graph: The amount of work for the given task remains constant until you solve the automation (work you gave yourself) at which point both drop as given work is now done and you won't carry on working on the automation anymore, free time. The graph doesn't reach zero as there will always be more you could do (like Richardson's Theory). On the second graph, you never work on the original task, get consumed by automation and end up with far more work than was ever presented (as pointed out, after the rethink) and there is a total increase in the amount of work which exists for you, without actually touching the given work... whether it actually gets done in the end or not doesn't matter as you could stop and the graphs would stay like they are. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.248|141.101.99.248]] 19:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC) thesuperkev

::::::Ah, I see now. Didn't realize the two lines represented simultaneous work as opposed to two separate scenarios. Makes sense now. Thanks for the explanation. [[User:Jevicci|Jevicci]] ([[User talk:Jevicci|talk]]) 23:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

In other words, when automating, NEVER rethink. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 00:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

:And if you really must rethink, at least deploy the program first. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1319: Automation

2014-01-20T18:56:35Z

Jevicci: