explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1647: Diacritics

2016-02-24T12:18:34Z

Jkotek:

Not quite sure if and how to inlcude the fact, that the German writing of résumé is Resümee. So the ü used by Cueball/Randall ist not that far off. However in German the word is not used for a CV (or similar), but for conclusions / abstracts. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

:There is a newsgroup reading software called Forté Agent, which was popular in the past. It uses the same silly spelling as the title text. Might Randall be referring to it? http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php {{unsigned|Lou Crazy}}

OT but I'm pretty amazed that my browser renders ȩ̊́́́́̆.́́́ properly. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.223.131|108.162.223.131]] 11:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that Randall **forgets** to add the diacritics. My guess is that he is leaving it out due to habit or custom (or laziness), as accented characters often got mangled in emails at the Internet of yore. Just as some sysadmins here in .cz, me included. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.95.49|141.101.95.49]] 11:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Might have a relation with changes officially added to school manuals regarding the spelling of many words in french (removal of many accents), in order to simplify it that sparked some debate (1990 paper from Académie française in charge of normalizing/perfecting french language pushed by government few weeks(months?) ago). [[User:Zurgul|Zurgul]] ([[User talk:Zurgul|talk]]) 11:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The top accent on the last e can be a caron [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caron]. It is hard to tell in hand-written text. [[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]] ([[User talk:Jkotek|talk]]) 12:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

1591: Bell's Theorem

2015-11-02T16:00:54Z

Jkotek: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1591
| date = October 16, 2015
| title = Bell's Theorem
| image = bells_theorem.png
| titletext = The no-communication theorem states that no communication about the no-communication theorem can clear up the misunderstanding quickly enough to allow faster-than-light signaling.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Title Text - Where does "turning off the signal" come in to the explanation of the title text? Still missing lots of wiki links in the entire explanation.}}

{{w|Bell's Theorem|Bell's Theorem}} states "No physical theory of (finitely many) {{w|Local_hidden_variable_theory|local hidden variables}} can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics." It says that a theoretical treatment that divides the universe up into separate ("local") systems like this will always discard something about those systems' intercorrelations.

"Global hidden variables" are another story: if there is classical information shared across systems (perhaps by superluminal communication) even up to superdeterminism where the universe is just reading off a script, any correlations can be explained away. But this is unsatisfying.

The preferred resolution of the paradox is not to insist (as early physicists did) that the universe's state is a collection of bits (classical information), but treat it as a collection of qubits (quantum information).

[[Ponytail]] begins reading Bell's theorem to [[Cueball]], who is standing 5 meters away. Cueball responds with a misunderstanding of Bell's Theorem in 1 nanosecond. The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 meters per second. In one nanosecond, the light from Ponytail would only have travelled 0.3 meters, thus Cueball misunderstands Bell's Theorem faster than the light from Ponytail reading the theorem can reach him, which implies that faster-than-light communication occurred to set up the misunderstanding.

In quantum mechanics (QM), "measurement" is the process of allowing a small system to interact with its environment in a controlled way. The interaction allows information about the system's state to escape to the environment, producing an "observation." If the measurement apparatus is governed by classical mechanics (impossible in reality, but a very common simplification for the purposes of calculation), then the observation can be thought of as classical information, a bit (yes/no answer) in the simplest case. While the system may have been in any one of infinitely many states before the measurement (each a superposition of classical states), the fact that the measurement must leave it consistent with the classical result means that it can end up in only finitely many states afterwards. This is the "wave-function collapse" of early QM, popularized by {{w|Schrödinger's cat}}, but unrelated to the Heisenberg {{w|Uncertainty Principle}}, with which lay audiences often confuse it.

Modern quantum mechanics acknowledges that the environment is not classical, and that wave-function collapse happens by a (comparatively) gradual process called "decoherence," where information leaving the system is made up for by information coming from the environment that drives the system closer and closer to one of the finitely many states predicted by the simplified model above. If a "Schrödinger's cat" is in a half-and-half superposition of the states "dead" and "alive", when its liveness is measured, the ratios of "dead" and "alive" will shift rapidly towards (though not quite reach) 0 and 100% or 100 and 0%. For all but the shortest time scales, the cat's post-measurement state might as well be classical.

{{w|Quantum_entanglement|Entanglement}} is a situation where the future outcomes of two or more measurements that would be independent in a classical world are nonetheless correlated. For example, two widely separated electrons from one source could be in a state where, considered individually, each is in a superimposed spin-up/spin-down state, but if one is measured as spin-up, the other will necessarily be measured as spin-down. This is untroubling if the two electrons are modelled as a single system, but strange-seeming if we think of them as separate: how did the measurement of the first electron allow information from the environment around it affect the far-away second electron? It seems like the electrons are communicating, potentially at superluminal speeds, which would violate either relativity or causality. In actuality, there's a fairly simple proof (see below) that correlations from entanglement can't be used to communicate, and causality and relativity are safe. But that doesn't make the seemingly faster-than-light effects much less of a surprise.

One can try to address these concerns by considering 'local hidden variables', classical properties of a local system (like a single electron) that could have been observed but were not. For example, perhaps a classical part of the electrons' state lets them "agree" on a future classical state at the moment they are entangled, and then they just reveal that state in the future. But this becomes unwieldy: there are infinitely many possible future observations the electrons would have to agree on, and it seems difficult to do this without infinitely many local hidden variables.

===Title Text===
The real {{w|No-Communication Theorem}} states that although determination of the state of one half of an entangled pair immediately determines that of the other half, however far away it may be, there's no way for the observer of the other half to see if he's the first to find out the state or whether it'd already been determined by the first observer. Thus, no information travels from one observer to the other. [[Randall]]'s version is recursive. It hypothesises a method of communication whereby somebody misunderstanding the no-communication theorem (which also happens faster than the speed of light) could function as the reception of a faster-than-light signal. However, it goes on to point out that turning the signal off requires clearing up the confusion which takes much, much longer, thus neatly restoring the normality of slower than light communication.

===Bell test reference===
This comic was published only 5 days before an article on first-ever loophole-free {{w|Bell_test_experiments|Bell's Theorem test}} was published in [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7575/full/nature15759.html Nature magazine] ([https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature15759 DOI:10.1038/nature15759]).

==Transcript==
:[First frame captioned: t = 0 nanoseconds.]
:Ponytail, holding a piece of paper and facing to the right: This is called Bell's Theorem. It was first–

:[A double-headed arrow links the characters in the two frames. The arrow is labelled "5 meters".]

:[Second frame captioned: t = 1 nanosecond.]
:Cueball, facing to the left towards Ponytail: Wow, faster-than-light communication is possible!

:Bell's Second Theorem: Misunderstandings of Bell's Theorem happen so fast that they violate locality.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

Talk:1594: Human Subjects

2015-10-23T13:29:46Z

Jkotek:

The responses in panels 1, 3, and 4 show that Megan is trying to downplay the issues despite better knowledge. This is probably done to surprise the reader of the dialogue for better dramatic effect. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.159|162.158.91.159]] 05:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

In the second panel, Megan makes a good point which Ponytail misses. If the control group had a high incidence of arson, while the experimental group did not (and assuming that proper protocols were followed in assigning subjects to groups), there is a possibility that the drug has the side-effect of suppressing the urge for arson [[User:Sysin|Sysin]] ([[User talk:Sysin|talk]]) 06:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
: Where is the point? "People where arrested for arson" - "Side effects" - "They where in the control group". That's not really a point for the side-effect of surpressing the urge for arson, is it? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.217|162.158.114.217]] 09:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
::If only people from the control group have been arrested, it is or could be. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.213|162.158.91.213]] 10:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
:::In this case both the control and the test group must be full of arsonists and the question is why did Ponytail let them lose to commit arson in the first place. May bye a double-blind test?[[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]] ([[User talk:Jkotek|talk]]) 13:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

did [[Danish]] cut her hair? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.8|108.162.216.8]] 11:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

also, the title text could allude to the fact that sociopaths (or successful ones at least) tend to be really adept at getting other people to write off or engage in their behaviours. that is, the IRB, despite the apparent awfulness of the actions of the subjects, on meeting them thought they were pretty cool and people should lay off. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.8|108.162.216.8]] 11:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Are those "citation needed" of any use? There is already a link to Wikipedia for sociopathy. Also, the invoked reasons ("Is an arsonist defined as a sociopath?", "Is a masochist the same as a sociopath?", "Is there an agreed upon definition of 'truly sociopathic behaviour', and is this it?") are not sound to me. Sociopathy is defined as "antisocial behavior", so are arson and sadism. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.66.23|141.101.66.23]] 11:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I realize that this area is for discussing the subject of the comic, but of all the comic strips out there this is the last one I would ever expect to include the "word" ''snuck''. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.26|108.162.216.26]] 13:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

1594: Human Subjects

2015-10-23T13:22:44Z

Jkotek: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1594
| date = October 23, 2015
| title = Human Subjects
| image = human_subjects.png
| titletext = After meeting with a few of the subjects, the IRB actually recommended that you stop stressing out so much about safety guidelines.
}}

==Explanation==
This strip plays on certain experiments involving {{w|Human subject research|human subjects}}. [[Ponytail]] is questioning the reliability of [[Megan]]'s experimental results, given that her human subjects appear to be extremely unusual and highly {{w|sociopathic}}.

In the second panel, she mentions that several {{w|Treatment and control groups|control group}} members – that is, ordinary people not subject to any experimental conditions – had been arrested for {{w|arson}}. This is "troubling", as the control group would not be expected to have such a high rate of incidence, while if the trend had occurred in the experimental group the drug could be identified as the cause of the arson, due to unexpected {{w|side effect}}s. The implication is that her subjects are not representative of the general population, but appear to have been selected from some aberrant subpopulation, such as a prison or mental institution. Or she could have recruited them through an announcement only sociopaths{{Citation needed|reason=Is an arsonist defined as a sociopath?}} could find interesting. However, this can be because of [[Randall]] sneaking into the experiment and giving LSD to the control group (see [[790: Control]]).

The third panel alludes to the {{w|prisoner's dilemma}}, in which two subjects must independently decide whether to "collaborate" or "betray" – the latter giving them a personal reward at the expense of punishing the other subject. The rewards tier are selected so that best united outcome is if both subject "collaborate" but gives better outcome for betraying individual if other collaborate. Each subject must decide based on their perceived risk to reward ratio - but for that they need to know what are rewards. If the subjects are betraying without being offered rewards, they must be sociopaths.{{Citation needed|reason=Is a masochist the same as a sociopath?}}

The last panel mentions the {{w|Milgram experiment}}, in which subjects are encouraged by disguised experimenters to provide shocks to unseen human subjects. In this case, however, electric shocks had no role in the experiment, and the subjects must have smuggled the necessary equipment in, for the express purpose of hurting people unknown to them – truly sociopathic behaviour.{{Citation needed|reason=Is there an agreed upon definition of 'truly sociopathic behavior', and is this it?}}

The title text refers to safety procedures normally required by {{w|institutional review board}}s, which are centralised groups within universities that ensure that experiments are ethical and safe. The joke is that for an IRB to recommend dispensing with safety procedures, the human subjects must really, ''really'' deserve bad treatment. They could also worry that explaining safety rules to these subject may give them even uglier ideas.

There is no explanation given as to why one researcher is running experiments across the diverse disciplines of pharmaceuticals, psychology and cosmetics.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail and Megan sit at a desk.]
:Ponytail: We're concerned that some of your results may be tainted by the fact that your human subjects are ''awful''.
:Megan: What do you mean?

:[Ponytail picks up a sheet of paper.]
:Ponytail: Several participants in your drug trial were arrested for arson.
:Megan: Side effects can be unpredictable.
:Ponytail: They were in the control group.

:[Zoom in on Ponytail.]
:Ponytail: In your prisoner's dilemma study, 80% of the participants chose to betray their partners '''''before''''' the experimenter had a chance to tell them about the reward.
:Megan (off-panel): Definitely troubling.

:[Ponytail shows Megan another sheet of paper.]
:Ponytail: In one experiment, your subjects repeatedly gave electric shocks to a stranger in another room.
:Megan: That's a famous psychological-
:Ponytail: This was a study of moisturizing creams!
:Megan: Yes, we're not sure how they snuck in all that equipment.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Science]]

Talk:1510: Napoleon

2015-04-10T13:59:00Z

Jkotek:

Well, this explains a lot. Why Obama refuses to return to the Moon and wants to go for an asteroid...[[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]] ([[User talk:Jkotek|talk]]) 07:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
:That would make an awesome addition to the story line. I wish Randall included that extra panel. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.89|173.245.50.89]] 08:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)BK201
:So... the reason he wants to go for an asteroid is that we need the capability to send the Moon-escaped Napoleon there! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 09:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Haha this is now one of my favourite xkcd comics [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.33|141.101.98.33]] 08:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

IMHO the explanation somewhat misses the crucial point: A parody of the villain type
who always comes back in comic books. (Don't force me to add a TVTropes link :-) [[Special:Contributions/198.41.243.240|198.41.243.240]] 09:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Another question - Why the Antarctic? Something evil resting under deep ice is concept used for example in movie(s) The Thing ([[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_from_Another_World]], [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(1982_film)]], [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(2011_film)]] - chose your favorite ;-) or game Prisoner of Ice [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_Ice]].[[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]] ([[User talk:Jkotek|talk]]) 13:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1510: Napoleon

2015-04-10T13:58:19Z

Jkotek:

Well, this explains a lot. Why Obama refuses to return to the Moon and wants to go for an asteroid...[[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]] ([[User talk:Jkotek|talk]]) 07:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
:That would make an awesome addition to the story line. I wish Randall included that extra panel. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.89|173.245.50.89]] 08:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)BK201
:So... the reason he wants to go for an asteroid is that we need the capability to send the Moon-escaped Napoleon there! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 09:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Haha this is now one of my favourite xkcd comics [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.33|141.101.98.33]] 08:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

IMHO the explanation somewhat misses the crucial point: A parody of the villain type
who always comes back in comic books. (Don't force me to add a TVTropes link :-) [[Special:Contributions/198.41.243.240|198.41.243.240]] 09:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Another question - Why the Antarctic? Something evil resting under deep ice is concept used for example in movie(s) The Thing ([[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_from_Another_World]], [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(1982_film)]], [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(2011_film)]] - coose your favourite ;-) or game Prisoner of Ice [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_Ice]].[[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]] ([[User talk:Jkotek|talk]]) 13:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1510: Napoleon

2015-04-10T07:33:53Z

Jkotek: Created page with "Well, this explains a lot. Why Obama refuses to return to the Moon and wants to go for an asteroid...~~~~"

Well, this explains a lot. Why Obama refuses to return to the Moon and wants to go for an asteroid...[[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]] ([[User talk:Jkotek|talk]]) 07:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1495: Hard Reboot

2015-03-06T14:01:10Z

Jkotek:

My interpretation is that the 1-10 hours is how long it would take to troubleshoot the problem and the 5 minutes is how long it would take to get kitchen timer and put into socket. So slides are showing the two solutions (one techy and liable to take up to 10 hours vs. the hacky but fast solution). {{unsigned ip|‎108.162.225.118}}

:At first I thought the ten hours was troubleshooting, but 5 minutes sounds about right for the granularity of the timer. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 06:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

''Of course, the problem could be solved without a reboot simply by increasing the swap size.'', my understanding is that the SWAP is overflowing and not just 'too little'. So no, ''simply increasing the swap size'' wouldn't solve the problem. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.214|173.245.53.214]] 07:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

::I agree, and have removed that sentence, because there is no way to be sure that increasing the swap size will help. In fact increasing the swap size is the first step down the '1-10 hours to troubleshoot' path. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 08:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
::I think it deserves mention. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 09:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"Also, it can be scheduled during, say, the middle of the night when most users are sleeping to minimize disruption." That would be ''so'' annoying in my case. I'm glad Randall has a better discipline of schedule than me, with my Windows NT machine which these days definitely needs its manual weekly reboot and ''really'' needs to be functionally replaced except for all the additional fuss it'd require. (Also, I'm not sure about the "first sentence of the title text" bit, as currently stated, but doubtless it'll all be adjusted slightly.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.181|141.101.98.181]] 12:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

:I would recommend 5:00 (am). It's nowhere near the middle of the night, but it's the time when it's most probable everyone is sleeping. Alternatively, considering it's just HIS router, he should know his sleeping patterns ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

:: When a reboot is least disruptive also depends on whether the machine is being used by users in other time zones. It really annonys me when I'm presented with "Server is down for scheduled maintenance", and the powers that be have decided that the best time to do that is in the middle of the day (for me). --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 12:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: ''"Why everything I have is broken"'' - I think better explanation would be that by applying soem workarounds you can use broken things without actually fixing them. E.g. you can use server with memory leak without spending 10+ hours fixing the problem. Using this approach you can end up with a buch of broken things that are still useful.

615: Avoidance

2015-01-30T15:29:31Z

Jkotek: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number =615
| date =July 27, 2009
| title =Avoidance
| image =avoidance.png
| titletext =Hobby: seeing how many menu selections you can get someone to go through before they realize you're not an automated system and/or hang up.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Megan]] gave her number to [[Cueball]] at a party, but now doesn't want to talk to him. Because Megan works with recording voice messages at {{w|Verizon}}, she can with no effort put on the characteristical semi-lifeless tone of professional automated answers, and answer the phone with the [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkF1wbBlSz0 "call cannot be completed"-message]. Perhaps it was even she who recorded it in the first place.

The title text is a reference to Randall's [[My Hobby|Hobby series]] and can be interpreted as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Turing_test Reverse Turing test] with [[Cueball]] imitating an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interactive_voice_response Interactive voice response (IVR)] system.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is standing talking to friend in a chair, who is holding a phone.]
:Cueball: Did you call that hot girl from the party yet?
:Friend: I've been trying.

:Friend: It's weird. I swear I got her the first time. But now it says the number's wrong.

:Cueball: What did you say she did, again?
:Friend: Voice work. At Verizon, I think.
:Friend: Why?
:Cueball: No reason.

:[Megan is talking into a phone, in an italic voice.]
:Megan: ''We're sorry, your call could not be completed as dialed.''
:Friend: Damn.
:''Click''
:Megan: ''Please check the number and try again.''

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

1480: Super Bowl

2015-01-30T11:27:49Z

Jkotek: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 1480
| date = January 30, 2015
| title = Super Bowl
| image = super_bowl.png
| titletext = My hobby: Pretending to miss the sarcasm when people show off their lack of interest in football by talking about 'sportsball' and acting excited to find someone else who's interested, then acting confused when they try to clarify.
}}

==Explanation==

In this comic, [[Cueball]] explains that even though he does not care about sports and is tempted to be scornful about others' obsession with it, he understands that people feel vulnerable about stuff they care about. Since other people tolerate his interest in odd things like meteorology and the {{w|Philae (spacecraft)|Philae lander}} (see [[1324: Weather]] and [[1446: Landing]]), he recognizes that he should show the same consideration to them - implicitly an invocation of {{w|Immanuel Kant}}'s {{w|categorical imperative}}, which, although it makes no reference to the Superbowl, specifies the general maxim Cueball is following here.

In the last frame, he suggests that the value of friendship trumps the discomfort of watching human activities that seem uninteresting to him - and that the snacks also help ameliorate his discomfort.

The title text continues the '[[My_Hobby|my hobby]]' trope: here, Cueball creates discomfort for people who scornfully refer to football as 'sportball' by calling their bluff and pretending to be interested in this imaginary sport. A person who does not even know that sportball is imaginary is clearly even more uninterested in sport than someone who just scorns football. Feigning interest in this imaginary sport exposes their snobbishness. This hobby does not embody a commitment to Kant's categorical imperative, since the pleasure Cueball takes in it presumably arrives from the discomfort caused by his feigned confusion.

In a distant past, Cueball spent his time differently during the [[60: Super Bowl]].

==Transcript==
:[standing Cueball]
:Cueball: I don't know much about sports, which can be culturally isolating, so it's tempting to get vocal and defensive about not following them.
:Cueball: Caring about something makes people vulnerable, so ''not'' caring gives you power.

:[picture of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_map weather map] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philae_(spacecraft) Philae spacecraft] in the background]
:But i know things I'm into don't always sound interesting to 100% of the people around me, and it means a lot when they sometimes try to listen anyway - and maybe even find themselves sharing some of my excitement!

:[standing Cueball]
:Cueball: So while everyone is going on about the super bowl on sunday, let me tell you what ''I'll'' be doing:

:[standing Cueball]
:Cueball: Listening!
:Cueball: Hooray for friendship!
:Cueball: Also, eating snacks.
:Cueball: Hooray for snacks!

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:My Hobby]]

1480: Super Bowl

2015-01-30T11:27:08Z

Jkotek: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 1480
| date = January 30, 2015
| title = Super Bowl
| image = super_bowl.png
| titletext = My hobby: Pretending to miss the sarcasm when people show off their lack of interest in football by talking about 'sportsball' and acting excited to find someone else who's interested, then acting confused when they try to clarify.
}}

==Explanation==

In this comic, [[Cueball]] explains that even though he does not care about sports and is tempted to be scornful about others' obsession with it, he understands that people feel vulnerable about stuff they care about. Since other people tolerate his interest in odd things like meteorology and the {{w|Philae (spacecraft)|Philae lander}} (see [[1324: Weather]] and [[1446: Landing]]), he recognizes that he should show the same consideration to them - implicitly an invocation of {{w|Immanuel Kant}}'s {{w|categorical imperative}}, which, although it makes no reference to the Superbowl, specifies the general maxim Cueball is following here.

In the last frame, he suggests that the value of friendship trumps the discomfort of watching human activities that seem uninteresting to him - and that the snacks also help ameliorate his discomfort.

The title text continues the '[[My_Hobby|my hobby]]' trope: here, Cueball creates discomfort for people who scornfully refer to football as 'sportball' by calling their bluff and pretending to be interested in this imaginary sport. A person who does not even know that sportball is imaginary is clearly even more uninterested in sport than someone who just scorns football. Feigning interest in this imaginary sport exposes their snobbishness. This hobby does not embody a commitment to Kant's categorical imperative, since the pleasure Cueball takes in it presumably arrives from the discomfort caused by his feigned confusion.

In a distant past, Cueball spent his time differently during the [[60: Super Bowl]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript}}
:[standing Cueball]
:Cueball: I don't know much about sports, which can be culturally isolating, so it's tempting to get vocal and defensive about not following them.
:Cueball: Caring about something makes people vulnerable, so ''not'' caring gives you power.

:[picture of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_map weather map] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philae_(spacecraft) Philae spacecraft] in the background]
:But i know things I'm into don't always sound interesting to 100% of the people around me, and it means a lot when they sometimes try to listen anyway - and maybe even find themselves sharing some of my excitement!

:[standing Cueball]
:Cueball: So while everyone is going on about the super bowl on sunday, let me tell you what ''I'll'' be doing:

:[standing Cueball]
:Cueball: Listening!
:Cueball: Hooray for friendship!
:Cueball: Also, eating snacks.
:Cueball: Hooray for snacks!

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:My Hobby]]

1480: Super Bowl

2015-01-30T08:30:47Z

Jkotek: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 1480
| date = January 30, 2015
| title = Super Bowl
| image = super_bowl.png
| titletext = My hobby: Pretending to miss the sarcasm when people show off their lack of interest in football by talking about 'sportsball' and acting excited to find someone else who's interested, then acting confused when they try to clarify.
}}

==Explanation==

In this comic, Cueball explains that even though he does not care about sports and is tempted to be scornful about others' obsession with it, he understands that people feel vulnerable about stuff they care about. Since other people tolerate his interest in odd things like meteorology and the Philae Lander (see [[1324: Weather]] and [[1446: Landing]]), he recognizes that he should show the same consideration to them - implicitly an invocation of Kant's categorical imperative, which, although it makes no reference to the Superbowl, specifies the general maxim Cueball is following here.

In the last frame, he suggests that the value of friendship trumps the discomfort of watching human activities that seem uninteresting to him - and that the snacks also help ameliorate his discomfort.

The title text continues the 'my hobby' trope: here, Cueball creates discomfort for people who scornfully refer to football as 'sportball' by calling their bluff and pretending to be interested in this imaginary sport. A person who does not even know that sportball is imaginary is clearly even more uninterested in sport than someone who just scorns football. Feigning interest in this imaginary sport exposes their snobbishness. This hobby does not embody a commitment to Kant's categorical imperative, since the pleasure Cueball takes in it presumably arrives from the discomfort caused by his feigned confusion.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript}}
:[standing Cueball]
:Cueball: I don't know much about sports, which can be culturally isolating, so it's tempting to get vocal and defensive about not following them.
:Cueball: Caring about something makes people vulnerable, so ''not'' caring gives you power.

:[picture of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_map weather map] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philae_(spacecraft) Philae spacecraft] in the background]
:But i know things I'm into don't always sound interesting to 100% of the people around me, and it means a lot when they sometimes try to listen anyway - and maybe even find themselves sharing some of my excitement!

:[standing Cueball]
:Cueball: So while everyone is going on about the super bowl on sunday, let me tell you what ''I'll'' be doing:

:[standing Cueball]
:Cueball: Listening!
:Cueball: Hooray for friendship!
:Cueball: Also, eating snacks.
:Cueball: Hooray for snacks!

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

1478: P-Values

2015-01-26T09:39:43Z

Jkotek: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1478
| date = January 26, 2015
| title = P-Values
| image = p_values.png
| titletext = If all else fails, use "signifcant at a p>0.05 level" and hope no one notices.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|First draft.}}

This comic plays on how is the significance of scientific experiments measured and interpreted. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value ''p''-value] is output of statistical analysis of experiment results compared to the values predicted by hypothesis tested by the experiment. The low ''p''-values occur when the experiment data fits well with predicted output whereas the high ''p''-values point out no relation between the hypothesis and the real world.
The ''p''-value calculated from the experiment data is used to interpret whether the experiment was significant and supports the hypothesis.

The significance threshold (usually 0.05) should be set prior the experiment in order to avoid ex-post changes in order to get a better experiment report. A simple change of this threshold (e.g. from 0.05 to 0.1) can change the experiment result with ''p''-value=0.06 from "barely significant" to "significant".

The highest ''p''-value at which most studies typically draw significance is ''p''<.05, which is why all ''p''-values in the comic below that number are marked at least significant. .050 is labeled "Oh crap. Redo calculations," because the ''p''-value is very close to being considered significant, but isn't. Redoing the calculations may result in a different answer, but it is not guaranteed that it will be lower than .050. Values that are higher than .050 and lower than .1 are considered to be suggesting significance without actually supporting it, which will likely support additional trials.

The title text suggests that, if the results cannot be normally considered significant, to invert p<.050, making it p>.050. This is intended to fool casual readers, as the change is only to the inequality sign, which may go unnoticed.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete|First draft.}}

There are two columns in a T-table labelled "p-value" and "interpretation". The interpretation column selects various areas of the P=Value column.

P-Value | Interpretation

------------------------

0.001 |]

0.01 |]

0.02 |]

0.03 |] Highly Significant

0.04 |]

0.049 |] Significant

0.050 |] Oh crap. Redo calculations.

0.051 |]

0.06 |] On the edge of significance

0.07 |]

0.08 |]

0.09 |]

0.099 |] Highly suggestive, relevant at the p<0.10 level

0.1 |] Hey, look at this interesting subgroup analysis

{| class="wikitable alternance"
|+ P-Values
! P-Value
! Interpretation
|-
| 0.001
| rowspan="4"| Highly Significant
|-
| 0.01
|-
| 0.02
|-
| 0.03
|-
| 0.04
| rowspan="2"| Significant
|-
| 0.049
|-
| 0.050
| Oh crap. Redo calculations.
|-
| 0.051
| rowspan="2"| On the edge of significance
|-
| 0.06
|-
| 0.07
| rowspan="4"| Highly suggestive, relevant at the p<0.10 level
|-
| 0.08
|-
| 0.09
|-
| 0.099
|-
| ≥0.1
| Hey, look at this interesting subgroup analysis
|}

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1478: P-Values

2015-01-26T08:54:53Z

Jkotek: Created page with "IMHO the current explanation is misleading. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value p-value] describes how well the experiment output fits hypothesis. The hypothesis can be ..."

IMHO the current explanation is misleading. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value p-value] describes how well the experiment output fits hypothesis. The hypothesis can be that the experiment output is random.
The low p-values point out that the experiment output fits well with behavior predicted by the hypothesis. The higher the p-value the more the observed and predicted values differ.[[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]] ([[User talk:Jkotek|talk]]) 08:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1476: Ceres

2015-01-21T09:31:09Z

Jkotek:

I'm not sure about Number 6 being a reference to The Prisoner. there's no other context in the comic to suggest that reference. {{unsigned ip|‎173.245.54.180}}

The novel The WindWalkers (in French "La Horde du Contrevent") from Alain Damasio is the story of the 34th team of people walking against the wind to go past the end of the known world. A group is sent every generation from a starting point and they walk over decades as far as they can go. The team leader is called Golgoth and is the 9th descendant of his family leading a team. He is obsessed with the idea of getting farther than his father (Golgoth 8) and the others Golgoth before them. At one point, while the team thought having been farther than any other, Golgoth 9 finds a sign let by Golgoth 6 (whose team had been thought lost) that demonstrates they were not the first ones reaching this point.
Maybe the comics does not make reference to this event in the novel, but readers of the novel will likely think about it. [[User:Marou|Marou]] ([[User talk:Marou|talk]]) 08:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe include a picture of Ceres (the dwarf planet) to show the real white spot (not the inspection sticker) [[User:SirKitKat|sirKitKat]] ([[User talk:SirKitKat|talk]]) 09:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
: Or a ref to an [http://www.universetoday.com/118358/first-hubble-and-now-dawn-have-seen-this-white-spot-on-ceres-what-is-it/ image/animation] [[User:SirKitKat|sirKitKat]] ([[User talk:SirKitKat|talk]]) 09:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
: This image shows it really good: [http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2004HubbleRotation-580x515.jpg] (Images from the Hubble Space Telescope in 2004 of Ceres. Credit: NASA/Hubble) --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.134|108.162.254.134]] 09:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Ceres is also a brand of vegetable fat manufactured by [http://www.belusafoods.sk/1/index.php?kat=3&ac=5&id_p=170 BELUŠA FOODS s.r.o.] (no english version, sorry). Salmonela in this kind of Ceres would be very interesting but I doubt that Randal refers to this Ceres. [[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]] ([[User talk:Jkotek|talk]]) 09:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

1447: Meta-Analysis

2014-11-14T15:25:09Z

Jkotek: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1447
| date = November 14, 2014
| title = Meta-Analysis
| image = meta-analysis.png
| titletext = Life goal #29 is to get enough of them rejected that I can publish a comparative analysis of the rejection letters.
}}

==Explanation==

In the scientific literature, meta-analyses are studies which compare multiple studies on a single topic, with the aim of giving a balanced overview of the known results. The Medline[http://www.medline.com/], Embase[http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/embase/about] and Cochrane[http://www.cochrane.org/] are medical research databases give access to studies on drug effects or results of other medical procedures.

This comic explores the idea of iterating the process, going from meta-analyses to meta-meta-analyses (which actually exist, though not necessarily by that name, see below) and hence to a meta-meta-meta-analysis.

All of the cited meta-meta-analyses are real: M. Sampson (2003)<ref name="sampson">M. Sampson et al, [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00110-0 Should meta-analysts search Embase in addition to Medline?], J. Clim. Epidemiol, 2003</ref>, P. L. Royle (2005)<ref name="royle">P. L. Royle et al, [http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01645.x Sources of evidence for systematic reviews of interventions in diabetes], Diabetic Medicine, 2005</ref>, E. Lee (2011)<ref name="lee">E. J. Lee et al, [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.01.007 The Efficacy of Acupressure for Symptom Management: A Systematic Review], J Pain Symptom Manage, 2011</ref> and A.R. Lemeshow (2005)<ref name="lemeshow">A.R. Lemeshow et al, [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.03.004 Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies], J. Clim. Epidemiol, 2005</ref>.

The phrase "Too Meta" can be found in the comments of videos, blog posts, and other internet content which are so abstract that they can't be easily interpreted.

Another comic about [[Randall]]'s life goals is [[93: Jeremy Irons]].

See also [[917: Hofstadter]].

==Transcript==
Image of an excerpt from a scientific paper:

<blockquote>
[…] Many meta-analysis studies include the phrase “We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane for studies…”
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
This has led to meta-meta-analyses comparing meta-analysis methods. e.g. M Sampson (2003), PL Royle (2005), E Lee (2011), AR Lemeshow (2005).
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
We performed a meta-meta-meta-analysis of these meta-meta-analyses.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
<u>Methods:</u> We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane for the phrase “We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane for the phrase ‘We searched Medline, Embase and […]
</blockquote>

Caption:

Life goal #28: get a paper rejected with the comment “Too meta”

==References==

<references />

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1447: Meta-Analysis

2014-11-14T15:22:05Z

Jkotek:

What is this "Medline, Embase and Cochrane" ? Thanks. Dams. {{unsigned ip|108.162.254.30}}
:Databases of Medical Publications [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.30|108.162.254.30]] 08:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
:Medline[http://www.medline.com/], Embase[http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/embase/about] and Cochrane[http://www.cochrane.org/] are medical research databases. You can find there studies on various drug uses or treatment plans. A useful information source if you want to compare studies on use of Allopurinol for chronic gout or else. [[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]] ([[User talk:Jkotek|talk]]) 08:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
::Seems to me that should be in the explanation, no? -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 15:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to include a breakdown of the terms?
*Meta-Analysis = "We searched M, E, & C for [keyword]"
*Meta-Meta-Analysis = "We searched M, E, & C for 'We searched M, E, & C for [keyword]'"
*Meta-Meta-Meta-Analysis = "We searched M, E, & C for 'We searched M, E, & C for 'We searched M, E, & C for [keyword]""
[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 08:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Your paper is rejected. //"TOO META"--[[User:Theme|Theme]] ([[User talk:Theme|talk]]) 08:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

IMHO a better would be this:
*Meta-Analysis = "We searched M, E, & C for [keyword] and compared results between each other"
*Meta-Meta-Analysis = "We analyzed how others 'search the M, E, & C for for [keyword] and compare the results'"
*Meta-Meta-Meta-Analysis = "We analyzed how other 'analyze how others search the M, E, & C for for [keyword] and compare the results'"
too meta [[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]] ([[User talk:Jkotek|talk]]) 15:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1447: Meta-Analysis

2014-11-14T08:28:08Z

Jkotek:

What is this "Medline, Embase and Cochrane" ? Thanks. Dams.
- Databases of Medical Publications [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.30|108.162.254.30]] 08:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Medline[http://www.medline.com/], Embase[http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/embase/about] and Cochrane[http://www.cochrane.org/] are medical research databases. You can find there studies on various drug uses or treatment plans. A useful information source if you want to compare studies on use of Allopurinol for chronic gout or else. [[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]] ([[User talk:Jkotek|talk]]) 08:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1432: The Sake of Argument

2014-10-10T07:31:06Z

Jkotek:

In my experience when someone begins a hypothetical with "for the sake of argument" The hypothetical being explored is almost always a direct exploration of the argument being put forward by the person they are speaking to, so to my mind the perfect response to the second panel would have been: "You admit you were wrong then, Excellent!" ;-) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.211|108.162.250.211]] 07:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

IMHO could be vaguely related to the [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y Monty Python's Argument Clinic] [[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]]

Talk:1427: iOS Keyboard

2014-09-29T09:07:25Z

Jkotek:

XKCD references on the XKCD wiki? Who would've thought... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.197|141.101.104.197]] 06:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
:I'm so meta even this acronym.
:Just saying... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.217.125|108.162.217.125]] 07:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)BK201

I believe that the ios word prediction is personalised based on your previous sentences. My Android autocomplete comes up with "Elementary, my feast of the United Kingdom", and "Toto, I've a feeling we're not going to Switzerland"... --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 07:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What about adding a reference to XKCD Questions[http://xkcd.com/1256/]? --[[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]]

1414: Writing Skills

2014-08-29T12:01:39Z

Jkotek: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1414
| date = August 29, 2014
| title = Writing Skills
| image = writing_skills.png
| titletext = I'd like to find a corpus of writing writing from children in a non-self-selected sample (e.g. handwritten letters to the president from everyone in the same teacher's 7th grade class every year)--and score the kids today versus the kids 20 years ago on various objective measures of writing quality. I've heard the idea that exposure to all this amateur peer practice is hurting us, but I'd bet on the generation that conducts the bulk of their social lives via the written word over the generation that occasionally wrote book reports and letters to grandma once a year, any day.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Much more is needed on the reason why the use of SMS should enhance the writing skills. The title text is also not mentioned.}}
[[Cueball]] and [[White Hat]] are discussing the positive and negative effects of young people composing the majority of their writing on mobile phones.

{{w|Short Message Service}} (SMS) messages are one of the primary means of text communication on mobile devices, and was commonly limited to 160 characters. Due to the limited space available on this and other messaging platforms, and also to decrease the time taken to write a message, {{w|Text speak}} developed as a form of short-hand writing. This involves the abbreviation and deliberate misspelling of words, and the use of acronyms.

Naturally, the use of this style of language has expanded into other areas, including those where brevity is not an issue, and this expansion and evolution of language is a subject of intense debate.
The main viewpoints on the subject are:

*Language is being negatively degraded by the use of text speak
*The use of text speak is a natural evolution of language

Cueball's point is that "practice makes perfect". Ability to form good grammar comes from practice through a lot of writing even when that writing is informal and hence the SMS generation get a lot of practice compared to the previous generations who only wrote a few letters a year. To foster talent for a major literary work we should encourage more practice even when that practice is through informal writing such as SMS.

{{w|James Joyce}} was an celebrated Irish novelist and poet, and his novel {{w|Ulysses (novel)|Ulysses}} is considered to be one of the most important works of modernist literature. In addition to his well known work, he wrote a number of love letters with extremely explicit content.

In the title text Randall wishes to prove Cueball's point by analyzing and comparing bulk volumes of texts (= a {{w|Text corpus|corpus}}) written by children today and 20 years ago. Randall favors todays children's writings for their everyday use of written word over situation in the past when children wrote only if forced to do so.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat and Cueball are walking together, White Hat is holding a newspaper or report.]
:White Hat: Weird- Another study found that kids who use SMS abbreviations actually score ''higher'' on grammar and spelling tests.
:Cueball: Why on ''earth'' is that a suprise?

:[Cueball turns to White hat (who is now out side the frame. Inserted in the frame is a panel showing several kids throwing balls.]
:Cueball: Imagine kids suddenly start playing catch literally ''all the time''. Everywhere they go, they throw balls back and forth, toss them in the air, and hurl them at trees and signs- Nearly every waking hour of their lives.

:[Cueball talks on while White Hat begins to walk.]
:Cueball: Do you think their generation will suck at baseball because they learned sloppy skills?
:White Hat: ...So you think someone will become a great writer while ''sexting?''

:[They walk together.]
:Cueball: Have you ''read'' James Joyce's love letters? The phrases "My little fuckbird" and "Arse full of farts" appear. If we want to write ''Ulysses'', our generation may not be sexting ''enough''.
:White Hat: Eww.

==Trivia==
*Randall misspelled surprise as "suprise" in the first panel.
*Randall also wrote "writing writing" in the beginning of the title text in stead of just "writing".
*Maybe he did these errors on purpose considering the subject?

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Language]]