explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1600: MarketWatch

2022-11-23T21:48:36Z

KingSupernova:

I don't get it as much... Perhaps something to do with the apparent erratic behavior of a stock market chart? You'd expect a rising and falling line, but for it to completely trace out building patterns is odd.{{Citation needed}} It would need a straight line, wouldn't it? and isn't that impossible in graphs like this? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.5|108.162.216.5]] 13:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Couple of things in play with this one:
* Comic #1600, so that's probably a reference to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. (address of the White House). True, the WH isn't mentioned, but it's flat and makes for an uninteresting skyline element. What is shown looks to be the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument, followed of course by the Capitol Building as referenced by the text.
* Desire not to break the pattern is like in comic #276, where the pattern is so tempting that people wanted to continue with it, in spite of negative side effects.

Just a couple of thoughts. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.57|173.245.54.57]] 13:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
:There is no such a thing as "probably a reference". A reference requires mentioning the referenced thing. A more appropriate word would be coincidence. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.17|108.162.221.17]] 13:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

::He/she is guessing that it is a reference, and that is a good guess. "That's probably a reference" is fine to use in this situation. {{unsigned ip|108.162.241.132}}
:::But it's not a reference, it's a coincidence. If it were a reference the White House could be seen in the skyline; it's just between the Washington Monument and the Capitol [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.17|108.162.221.17]] 13:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
::Coincidence is not at all appropriate when the intended meaning is that something was done purposefully. What the person is speaking of is an implicit reference, so "reference" was the right word choice. You are speaking of explicit references, which are merely one type of reference. [[User:GonzoI|GonzoI]] ([[User talk:GonzoI|talk]]) 15:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

My view is that it is a play on how silly stock trader can be sometimes. There is a way of trading called technical analysis, where a trader will look for graphical "patterns" and "signals" in the stock charts and trade on that. This way of doing is notoriously looked down at by either truly quantitative investors that rely on actual stats/signal processing to place their bets or fundamental investor that will look for information in things like the balance sheet statement of a company to place their bets. So if you are such a technical analyst and you see such a pattern as DC Skyline appearing in the stock chart of a stock...well best of luck to make a trading decision based on that, mate.

:With those who 'play the stock-market' seeking to gain an advantage, it at first seems impossible that an existing pattern (to some extent predictable) could continue, because at least some of those ''expecting'' the pattern will then trade on the assumption of that trend, thus changing the trend, even if (as stated) many others find it too compelling to rebel. Except that others will no doubt ''expect'' such a degree of self-interest, and place their own trades to take account of that, and yet others may try to predict what others will predict the first rebels predict everyone else is trying to do... theoretically ''ad infinitum'', and thus ''maybe'' sustain the original pattern (or something close enough... e.g. the Capital dome being a few points 'higher' in the graph than it ought to be, but still similar enough in shape and symmetry).
:High-frequency microtrading algoritms have the same issue of recursion. Initially they exploit human errors and behaviours, but then an algorithms that can predict what these algorithms would predict can 'play the algorithm', and so on to an arbitrary level of recursion. Not that the sum total would be likely to be swayed towards an aesthetic graph, but how about a high-frequency trading algorithm whose sole effort (intentionally or otherwise) would be to place transaction requests to 'tweak' the market towards a given result? With enough capital (NPI!) behind it, it's theoretically possible, and if co-designed with an algorith that would rely upon generating its own profit from knowing (and yet not acting to disrupt) the 'planned trend'. I wouldn't like to suggest there'd be a net sum profit, across both(/all?) levels of algorithms employed... Greater minds than I (or at least ones more privilidged in position and resources) have doubtless tried this kind of thing, however... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.161|141.101.106.161]] 18:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Plus, Randall seems to be playing on the whole idea some pundits on TV gives people that "the market" is a conscious entity with the ability to go up and down. If this was the case, well this skyline pattern could emerge just like that. But as real price is defined by market participants behavior, there is no way for it to be so smooth (unless this is a fairly illiquid stocks that trade rarely and jumps violently when it does.)
Finally, the comments play on the same idea that some people will see a "spirit" in the market, while it's just participant pushing the price around (taking actual economic factors into account in their decisions.).

And stock price can definitely jump if a major event happen or flatline if nobody trades it so the Capitol is really the only pattern that feels truly impossible here :p (first time I post here, so apologies if I did not respect a rule of the wiki) [[User:Legaulois|Legaulois]] ([[User talk:Legaulois|talk]]) 14:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In my mind, there has recently been an increase in tools allowing for live events to be controlled by massive numbers of internet users in order to attempt to bang out patterns. Twitch Plays Pokemon comes to mind. Perhaps this comic has something to do with this new trend: a stock market version of the Twitch Plays phenomenon, with investors trying to bang out a pattern together by pressing the right buttons (buying stocks and dumping them) in the right order. Is that worth mentioning? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.64|173.245.55.64]] 15:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)dmar198

I saw this as a reference to the logos TV news reports use for their segments. Most market news segment logos have some representation of a generic or stylized line meant to imply a market index, and I know I have seen at least one that had their stylized line draw pictures in the middle similar to this. [[User:GonzoI|GonzoI]] ([[User talk:GonzoI|talk]]) 15:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

If the stock market crashes after hours and there's no one to see it, does it still make a sound? [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 16:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this comic has more in common with the recent 1596: Launch Status Check. The traders become obsessed or distracted with driving the stock market index to continue drawing the Washington skyline like an etch-a-sketch instead of their fundamental purpose of making a profit. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.8|108.162.216.8]] 18:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Pat

This is almost certainly based upon whatever article inspired this popular codegolf.stackexchange.com question: https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/33059/draw-with-your-cpu . Apparently some students drew the silhouette of their school on their country's outbound IPv6 traffic graph. Unfortunately, Google has failed me hard and I have no idea what the original article is.
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.129.53|199.27.129.53]] 05:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert on xkcd characters, but why is this one labelled as Ponytail when she doesn't have a ponytail? [[User:Atreides|Atreides]] ([[User talk:Atreides|talk]]) 05:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:Correct this is not ponytail and I have corrected it. As you say she has not tail ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe this stems from a surprising correlation between the recent movement of the Shanghai stock exchange, and a map of Virginia, see https://twitter.com/dlin71/status/636397462190718976 [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 04:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Am I crazy or does the flag on the Capitol Building actually move the line move backwards a pixel before going back down? This would indicate hacking time as well as the financial market... {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.4}}
:I mean it's drawn by hand... [[User:Undergroundmonorail|Undergroundmonorail]] ([[User talk:Undergroundmonorail|talk]]) 13:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is worth adding to the article, but somebody just wrote a script to do this in a prediction market. https://manifold.markets/1941159478/is-it-socially-acceptable-to-doodle [[User:KingSupernova|KingSupernova]] ([[User talk:KingSupernova|talk]]) 21:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2649: Physics Cost-Saving Tips

2022-07-25T02:35:19Z

KingSupernova: Undo revision 290656 by Davidy22 the tranny killer (talk) Vandalism

I don't recommend trying to make your voice squeeky by breathing He-2. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
: But breathing a helium-rich mixture in general... so long as it still has sufficient oxygen in it ...I would speak highly of it! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.221|162.158.34.221]] 20:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Please link comic 2007. I tried to do so myself but the edit errored.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.34|172.70.86.34]] 22:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The vandals are going rather hard today. Can we get the first few semi-protected or something please? [[User:SqueakSquawk4|SqueakSquawk4]] ([[User talk:SqueakSquawk4|talk]]) 22:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
:I think I've fixed it. At least, it was fixed when I left this comment. I also don't do much wiki editing on anything, so I hope I actually fixed it and didn't break anything in the process. EDIT: Not sure if editing comments is appropriate, but it's just before 7AM UTC and it seems the vandalism has stopped. I think I had to fix it twice after I originally left this comment [[User:NErDysprosium|NErDysprosium]] ([[User talk:NErDysprosium|talk]]) 06:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
::They're back. Semi-protecting may work (though at a cost in useful edits); if any of the major contributors to this site know tricks to track down the physical location of an editing IP, that might open up other approaches. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.3|172.70.230.3]] 03:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
:::They're going after templates and similar infrastructure pages. Banning the little klanshit's username would be a good first action. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.30|172.69.71.30]] 03:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Are the "charges" that free electrons carry implied to be monetary or criminal? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.219|162.158.2.219]] 22:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
: Fundamental particles have dipole-matic immunity. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.88|172.70.211.88]] 01:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Somone needs to rewrite that section on heavy water / enriched uranium... deuterium in heavy water has more neutrons (so fits the comics description), and u235 is actually neither the lower nor upper neutron count for natural uranium so also questionably fits the description. I would but my head hurts after trying to parse it [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.79|108.162.221.79]] 11:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning the L and omega displayed in the first illustration are in conflicting directions (not following the {{w|right hand rule}}…)?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.145|172.70.210.145]]
:How sinister! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.80|172.70.91.80]] 19:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
:Done, including a video proving Randall is right-handed, so that can't be the reason. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.163|172.70.206.163]] 07:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the calculation of the energy of the ²He filled balloon: ²He -> H + H + 1.25MeV (Wikipedia). One Balloon is approx. 30-40l, i.e. approx 2 moles = 2 Avogadro Number = 1.2e24 Atoms of ²He. This means 1.2e24*1.25MeV = 1.9E24MeV = 3e11J = 71 ton of TNT (@4.2e9J/ ton of TNT (Wikipedia)). That is much less than a kiloton of TNT, but probably above the limit for recreational fireworks. The balloon might pop, too.
: Agreed; corrected. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.88|172.70.211.88]] 09:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
:: I have done my own calculations, and come to a number of roughly 18 tons of TNT. I have put my calculations on my profile, and linked it. Please comment there if you disagree. Thanks! [[User:SqueakSquawk4|SqueakSquawk4]] ([[User talk:SqueakSquawk4|talk]]) 13:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The statement "This would make the Helium-2 balloon-bomb the most powerful human-made non-nuclear explosion ever" would seem to be inaccurate, given that it is not actually a non-nuclear explosion. Should this be edited? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.135|172.70.110.135]] 03:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
: Deleted the sentence. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.88|172.70.211.88]] 04:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

How much yield would a Helium-2 baloon have, anyway? I've seen "Lots", "2 kilotonnes" and "70 tonnes". Does anyone know how to calculate it once and for all, and leave a citation trail?

I just had a small search around, and can't seem to find the decay energy of helium-2. Does anyone even know how to calculate this???} [[User:SqueakSquawk4|SqueakSquawk4]] ([[User talk:SqueakSquawk4|talk]]) 11:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
:Scroll up a couple threads. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.32|172.69.34.32]] 11:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
::I didn't see that. I'm doing my own calculations now anyway. [[User:SqueakSquawk4|SqueakSquawk4]] ([[User talk:SqueakSquawk4|talk]]) 11:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
::: I have done my own calculations, and come to a number of roughly 18 tons of TNT. I have put my calculations on my profile, and linked it. Please comment there if you disagree. Thanks! [[User:SqueakSquawk4|SqueakSquawk4]] ([[User talk:SqueakSquawk4|talk]]) 13:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
:::: Great! I replied to you there. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.8|172.70.207.8]] 14:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

1638: Backslashes

2016-02-03T07:55:02Z

KingSupernova: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1638
| date = February 3, 2016
| title = Backslashes
| image = backslashes.png
| titletext = I searched my .bash_history for the line with the highest ratio of special characters to regular alphanumeric characters, and the winner was: cat out.txt | grep -o "\\\[[(].*\\\[\])][^)\]]*$" ... I have no memory of this and no idea what I was trying to do, but I sure hope it worked.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a regex noob.}}
[[wikipedia:regular expression|Regular expressions]] are often used to search large bodies of text for strings that match a particular pattern. Several characters in regex are "special characters", which by default do not match the literal character, but instead help indicate the pattern. To find a special character literally, you must "escape" it, by preceding it with a backslash. This, of course, means that the backslash is a special character, so to search for a literal backslash character, you need to type two backslashes -- \\. Occasionally, the text being searched will contain regular expressions, and occasionally you will need to search for an escaped backslash. To do ''that'', you need to escape two backslashes -- \\\. This gets very silly, very quickly.

Things get even worse when you have to embed a regexp in a language like Java, which both lacks perl's syntactic sugar to demarcate the beginning and end of a regexp, and uses the backslash for its own special characters. So, to create the regexp \\\\ in Java, you'd have to use the string "\\\\\\\\", since each backslash needs to be quoted to get through the Java string parser before it can then be considered as a regular expression.

The regex in the title text seems to be invalid. The left-parentheses character is a literal, causing it to fail to match up with the right-parentheses later in the expression. Whatever Randall was trying to do here, this expression didn't do the job. It is also an example of a [[wikipedia:Cat_(Unix)#Useless_use_of_cat|Useless Use of Cat]].

Note that regex has previously been discussed in [[208: Regular Expressions]], [[1031: s/keyboard/leopard/]], [[1171: Perl Problems]], and [[1313: Regex Golf]].

==Transcript==
\ - backslash

\\ - real backslash

\\\ - _real_ real backslash

\\\\ - actual backslash, for real this time

\\\\\ - elder backslash

\\\\\\ - backslash which escapes the screen and enters your brain

\\\\\\\ - backslash so real it transcends time and space

\\\\\\\\ - backslash to end all other text

\\\\\\\\\\\... - the true name of ba'al, the soul-eater

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1636: XKCD Stack

2016-01-29T05:34:45Z

KingSupernova:

I just came here. AM I IN THE FUTURE? ''I'm in the future!''
:We are in the future together.

Talk:505: A Bunch of Rocks

2015-12-01T15:30:17Z

KingSupernova:

;Weird thing with lines in it
probably has something to do with relativity -- two objects moving, arriving at different points at the same time, or maybe a diagram of spacetime. [[Special:Contributions/66.202.132.250|66.202.132.250]] 16:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram Feynman Diagram] [[Special:Contributions/206.174.12.203|206.174.12.203]] 19:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Toby Ovod-Everett

:I did add the incomplete tag because this comic and also the explain is still really complex. More important: People without a proper physics background never will understand. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a short story called "SOLE SOLUTION" by Eric Frank Russell which is quite similar to the one in the story. Just in case that matters.{{unsigned|Maob}}

Re Rule 34 - the point is that this comic _is_ cellular automaton porn (as are the YouTube videos of Minecraft calculators and the like). Rule 34 works, bitches! {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.241}}

Not sure what's incomplete about the explain. <small>[[User:MrGameZone|0100011101100001011011010110010101011010011011110110111001100101]] ([[User talk:MrGameZone|talk page]])</small> 22:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yo ''calculus'' is the latin word for pebble! I learned this and had to come straight to this page! ahhh connections! [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.88|173.245.50.88]] Sawyer Biddle

As it turns out, Rule 110 seems to be a ''really bad'' way to simulate a universe- you would be much better off using a {{w|Tag_system|Cyclic tag system}}, since Rule 110 takes dozens of generations and potentially hundreds of cells to simulate one step in such a system, or a more sophisticated cellular automaton, such as {{w|Wireworld.}} --[[User:Someone Else 37|Someone Else 37]] ([[User talk:Someone Else 37|talk]]) 05:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

To whoever objected to panel number references, does what I did with first words fix that? {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.99}}

Well, that's a pretty unfair comparison in the last panel, the protag is immortal after all, if I'm immortal I might do the same thing, but hey we got a much shorter life to live {{unsigned ip|103.22.201.168}}

The diagram to the right of the Epitaph of Stevinus looks like a system of coupled pendula, often used in math physics courses to illustrate Lagrangian mechanics. Also may relate to elasticity theory. See for example here: http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/ThreePendulumsConnectedByTwoSprings. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.96|108.162.221.96]] 03:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
:If this is true (which seems like the most probable solution so far) then what do the symbols inside the boxes represent?{{unsigned ip|108.162.216.209}}
:: Spring constants, masses, lengths, etc [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.220|108.162.221.220]] 18:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
::: The symbols on the top seem to be K and the bottom W. W is often used for angular momentum and K for potential energy. If you are not exactly right you are very close to being so.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.209|108.162.216.209]] 13:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:The "diagram to the right of the Epitaph of Stevinus", also described as "A weird diagram with lines in it", or "partitioning of phase space into fundamental cells", or " system of coupled pendula, often used in math physics courses to illustrate Lagrangian mechanics", can be described more literally: ''There is are two horizontal rulers with divisions 13 pixels apart and 17 pixels apart, respectively; and diagonal lines showing the correspondence between the first four markings of the upper ruler with those on the lower. The intervals seem to be labeled.'' Returning to speculation, I think this suggests an illustration of '''Length contraction (Lorentz coordinate transformation) in Special Relativity'''. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 20:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:: That seems highly unlikely due to the top labels on this graph. In your explanation they can’t represent anything relevant. Also if this diagram is used to represent spatial contraction, it does not do a good job of it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.209|108.162.216.209]] 13:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::: I imagined the labels were, top row: O', x', (2x)'; bottom row: O, x, 2x, Δv; or perhaps top row: Δx₁', Δx₂', Δx₃'; bottom row Δx₁, Δx₂, Δx₃, 0.7c. I don't think Randall put enough thought into those tiny squiggles for us to be able to use pixel-counting as a hint to which labels interpretation is more likely… but what of it? We can make up labels that fit any interpretation. I did say "Length contraction (Lorentz...)" was just ''speculation''. I do like the "four pendulums coupled by springs" idea, though the horizontals look too ruler-like to me. It might be better just to say "two horizontal ruled lines linked by some diagonals" ! [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 17:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:::: You are totally right, this one may always be pure speculation. Though I am pretty sure the bottom points are labeled w, the top is by no means clear. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.209|108.162.216.209]] 20:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::::: I propose that we change it again, from (current text: "A depiction of length contraction, with two lines of the same length locally but different lengths as one is viewed in motion") to something like ''"A depiction of length contraction with two rulers in relative motion, or of several pendulums coupled by springs"''. Or mention the pendula idea first, I don't want to decide. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 02:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::: Though it's in panel before that one, there's the text "and then some" referencing going beyond what we currently know in a field - could it ''possibly'' be that this is supposed to represent something we haven't derived yet? -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 10:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:Also, I'd like to point out that all three diagrams unify the theme of "working out the kinks in quantum mechanics and relativity": The first illustrates a region of the bell curve where a particle might occasionally fall if it is about to exhibit quantum tunneling; the second relates to perpetual motion, thus hinting at general questions like "does quantum mechanics or relativity allow us to violate the laws of thermodynamics in any way?", and the third is from special relativity. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 20:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:: Having studied (and knowing the fundamentals about what profile is needed to create a device that performs quantum tunneling) I have never seen this graph as a representation of this, and frankly it makes no sense. If this diagram was an energy band the hole or electron would have no need to tunnel to go up or down the energy band as it is a gradual slope. If a device had a profile like this, it would not result in a significant number of tunneling events, especially at the positions that are marked on the diagram. For this to occur there would need to be a peak between the two points, and the points would need to be at similar heights (energy levels). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.209|108.162.216.209]] 13:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::: Yes, you're right: all we know is that it's a bell curve (normal distribution), and mentioning "tunneling" might make the reader think we were saying it is a potential function. I was reading a bit much into it. Why are there two vertical dotted lines at roughly +σ and +2σ? I thought they indicated a "range" as if the graph were illustrating some discussion of things that fall within that range. I also incorrectly remembered what the Epitaph of Stevinus was about, so thanks for the corrections :-) [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 16:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:::: I think we could reasonably add that the function represents a probability distribution of a partial, therefore tying in the quantum aspects. with a minor explanation of the probibility of 1 and 2 sigma. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.209|108.162.216.209]] 20:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::::: I do think it was okay without the extra text referencing quantum mechanics. I was just trying to find a way to relate the image to the words… but there are so many ways to relate the normal distribution to anything in science :-) [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 02:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The bigger picture that's missing on this explains it that this comic seems to suggest that Cueball is God, as in being stuck in Eternity who happened to build a simulated universe, which we all live in. Seeing how he addresses the reader "So if you see a mote of dust vanish from your vision in a little flash or something I'm sorry. I must have misplaced a rock sometime in the last few billions and billions of millennia." {{[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.238|141.101.105.238]] 10:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)}}
: I understand that English might not be your first language, but please clarify. The explanation covers Cueball being godlike. How can we add something that is already covered? Do you require further detail? Are you disagreeing with this assessment? Are you considering this observation irrelevant as your summary for your first comment "added not about Cueball being God" seems to imply? If so why?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.209|108.162.216.209]] 17:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
:: nm. I blatantly overlooked the exisiting sentence in the explanation. i blame the layout of this page. inline text that spans the whole available screen width is not pleasant to read on large displays ;) ...as for my English... the confusion stems from my bad keyboard/typing. it was meant to read "added notE about Cueball" for instance, or "as in A being stuck". [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.233|141.101.105.233]] 08:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
:::you could shrink your window and display narrower lines of text(?) -- I guess it comes down to preference for masochism(?)... idunno. I think one of the most confusing parts of your question (and which may have contributed most to the ESL idea) is "missing on this explains it that...". Also, "as in being stuck" makes more sense than "as in a being stuck", though it seems you're suggesting otherwise (?) and I don't see any text mentioning added not(E) about Cueball) -- oh wait; is this a troll? -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 15:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Who or what is Nugui and why is it relivent.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.209|108.162.216.209]] 17:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

is randall not assuming that his universe (and by implication ours) is finite? if not, one iteration of the machine would still take infinite time. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.201|141.101.98.201]] 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
: I think it's good enough to assume that the universe is finite, but really really huge. Hypothesizing that adding one particle to the model requires twice as many cells in the cellular automaton, that means that Cueball's cellular automata rows could be about 2^(10^80) cells long, allowing simulation of a physics system containing 10^80 particles. Of course, each planck-time would require 2^(10^80) steps of simulation in the CA. If 10^80 isn't big enough for you, then just make it 10^1000 or Graham's number, or anything finite. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 16:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:: Don't forget that Rule 110 has 000 -> 0. Cueball can just add columns on either side as his universe expands, consequently taking more and more time to compute steps as the number of columns increases. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.42}}

Did anyone notice that the binary numbers pointing to the particle are both 42? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.16|108.162.241.16]] 19:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
:I did now. :) But, somewhere, he left out the towel. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Just as a curiosity -- there is a somewhat similar concept in "Permutation City", a book by Greg Egan. {{unsigned ip|141.101.88.211}}
:And dust is probably a reference to Dust Theory: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/PERMUTATION/FAQ/FAQ.html {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.187}}

I don't understand how it's possible to simulate a universe this way. Assuming that quantum mechanics is correct, and some forms of particle decay are truly random, wouldn't it be impossible to simulate this with a purely deterministic system? [[User:KingSupernova|KingSupernova]] ([[User talk:KingSupernova|talk]]) 15:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1584: Moments of Inspiration

2015-09-30T12:17:41Z

KingSupernova:

Needs to explain who Lise Meitner is - I'd never heard of her, she's not on a level with the others in public consciousness. {{unsigned ip|141.101.70.43}}
: Using Marie Skłodowska Curie (instead of Lise Meitner) would be more understandable - both of them made groundbreaking discoveries in radioactivity research and Ms Curie is definitely more famous than Ms Meitner. But the author probably did not want to join everyone else in using Ms Curie as "the only one token lady scientist" - as discussed in [[896: Marie Curie]], where Lise Meitner (as well as Emmy Noether) is mentioned.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.77|141.101.106.77]] 07:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
:: Never let it be said that XKCD doesn't educate! (I think it's a good thing to have used Lise as the example. If everyone knows just about Marie Curie but few people know Lise Meitner, having read the comic they now know ''two'' influential women in physics, twice as many as before! Compare and contrast others such as Florence Nightingale and Rosalind Franklin. Ada Lovelace and Dame Stephanie 'Steve' Shirley.) Also, can anyone think of an observation that Marie could have made that wasn't what she did anyway, i.e. the ability of an electrometer to measure radiation, or that pitchblende is more radioactive than uranium.
::: Reading the {{w|Steve_Shirley|wiki article about Dame Stephanie 'Steve' Shirley}}, I suspect that being woman in man-dominated field was her only notable accomplishment. Not comparable with {{w|Ada Lovelace|Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace}}, who was at worst second programmer ever and discovered first computer bug. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
:: Anyway, who do you think {{w|Meitnerium|element 109}} was named after? ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.188|141.101.98.188]] 10:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know who "John and Mildred" might be?
--[[User:Lou Crazy|Lou Crazy]] ([[User talk:Lou Crazy|talk]]) 09:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
:May Mildred be [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_Lager Mildred Lager]? An "american pioneer of natural foods and health food", but there's no mention of "John" in this article. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.217|162.158.114.217]] 11:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Newton really was inspired by watching apple fall, that isn't a myth. The myth is that he was actually hit by the apple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Apple_incident [[User:KingSupernova|KingSupernova]] ([[User talk:KingSupernova|talk]]) 12:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1584: Moments of Inspiration

2015-09-30T12:17:23Z

KingSupernova:

Talk:1219: Reports

2015-08-25T12:45:50Z

KingSupernova:

Shouldn't it be 2000th St? --[[Special:Contributions/81.23.24.56|81.23.24.56]] 06:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
:nah, clearly the original was just 0.002th St. [[User:SuperSupermario24|<span style="color: #c21aff;">Just some random derp</span>]] 23:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be a 25,000 mi/h speed limit if multiplied by 1000? Afterall, I have never heard of a 2.5 mi/h speed limit... Think I could get a speeding ticket whilst walking with that limit. Definitely while jogging. [[Special:Contributions/99.195.243.220|99.195.243.220]] 07:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Aaron

:I've seen 5 kph (around 3 mph) speed limit. It was in parks and we were supposed to run timed laps. Interestingly, in order to get through the minimum, you had to break the speed limit.--[[User:Charlesisbozo|Charlesisbozo]] ([[User talk:Charlesisbozo|talk]]) 12:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Lol exactly the first two comments I had in mind were made here. [[Special:Contributions/80.101.91.220|80.101.91.220]] 07:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
:Also beaten to the 25,000 comment. The lowest I've think I've ever seen indicated is 5mph (mostly in car parks) and except in one locale(1) that's wishful thinking at best, given that at this point you find that on an analogue standard speedo that potentially sweeps far further(2), it's definitely a crap-shoot as to whether you're able to hover the needle barely off of the zero-stop with any accuracy... Even assuming reasonable calibration at the higher speeds. I suspect that 5km/h (3.1-ish mph(3)) might be the minimum I've seen in metric-tied countries, making that just an arbitrary low figure.
:(1) A local bus station that has "Your speed is..." matrices to show a presumably calibrated digital measurement to the drivers of any said bus entering/exiting the site, and flashes in red if they exceed this. Not sure if there's a penalty accumulation, but I suspect there'd be the capability to link to the CCTV systems that also cover the site so that post-incident enquiries would record any driver errors should the worst come to the (painfully slow) worst.
:(2) 120mph on smaller cars, 240mph or more on anything that promises way-over-the-top performance for a country with a top-end national speed limit of 70mph in force. Not that anyone believes that, but even the unofficial publicly-used "I'll get away with it..." 80mph line is 1/3rd of 240. Of course they could go over to Germany to try out on the unlimited Autobahns, or burn rubber at a 'track day' somewhere, but still it irks me that people think like that...
:(3) I can never remember the 'standard' conversion factor. I just remember that it's 93 million miles to the Sun or 150 million kilometres and work it out from that. ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.255.57|178.98.255.57]] 08:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
:: national speed limit? The limit is 80 on I-10 in west Texas (posted), and 75 on many other state highways... [[User:MR|MR]] ([[User talk:MR|talk]]) 03:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)MR

So, anyway, I put my hand to writing an explanation, making it impressively brief compared with what I usually write (see above). I've put some <nowiki></nowiki> in, especially next to the potentially disputed numbers, so that future editors can zero in on things that I think might need to be changed, or could be expanded upon. Or redo it all from scratch, as I probably won't notice anyway. ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.255.57|178.98.255.57]] 09:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Randall corrected his title-text. So I completed the necessary edit (half done already, with the edit comment "(2500 / 100 = 25, not 2.5)", which I won't argue with...) and removed the related comments. Tempted to add an "in the original version..." addendum, but then anyone who's bothered with that sort of detail has read up to here in the Talk bit, right? ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.255.57|178.98.255.57]] 17:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The multiplication of all numbers was also featured in a Monty Python sketch. It might be the sketch about buying an ant, as I vaguely remember. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.5|108.162.246.5]] 19:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be a nagging voice? I don't know, the word "unsolicited" seems to suggest to me that the comic is suggesting to read the reports as one would read a love letter sent by someone who is already spoken for. Scandalous. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.11|141.101.99.11]] 21:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with the statement "Note that the title text is inconsistent; if every number were to be multiplied by a thousand, then the speed limit would apply to 2000th Street. Somewhat surprisingly, there do exist streets of this name, mainly in Illinois". "2nd street" is not a number, it is a name. It just happens to contain a numeral.[[User:KingSupernova|KingSupernova]] ([[User talk:KingSupernova|talk]])

Talk:769: War

2015-08-13T01:59:34Z

KingSupernova:

According to title text, this is actually [[Beret Guy]]. I kind of like this "style" for transcripts - specifically that each cell is in a "box". In this case, the cadence of the text doesn't seem to be poetic, but in some comics it could be. --[[User:Bpothier|B. P.]] ([[User talk:Bpothier|talk]]) 20:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The comic talks about "sights" and "superior vantage points" in relation to Cordelia, where one would expect "the enemy" or similar. And this before the shots are fired. Someone needs to read a bit more carefully. Anonymous 00:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
:Since he qualified as a Green Beret and the gun he has is not a grenade launcher (nor is it deployed) it is fair to assume he realises that Cordelia will be gone in seconds and has already sent the email.

Presumably the person in the picture is a dummy.

[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 21:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I always took it as a reference to Lois McMaster Bujold's book "Shards of Honor", which involves a love relationship between Cordelia Naismith and Aral Vorkosigan, when they are fighting on opposites sides of the same war. Lois McMaster Bujold is well above the common class of science fiction author, and it seems entirely reasonable that she should be on Randall's bookshelves. {{unsigned ip|108.162.250.157}}

Should a reference be made to 101: Laser Scope? It has a similar theme. [[User:KingSupernova|KingSupernova]] ([[User talk:KingSupernova|talk]]) 01:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)