explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1570: Engineer Syllogism

2015-09-07T13:46:55Z

LostAlone:

{{comic
| number = 1570
| date = August 28, 2015
| title = Engineer Syllogism
| image = engineer_syllogism.png
| titletext = The less common, even worse outcome: "3: [everyone in the financial system] WOW, where did all my money just go?"
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|It can be improved.}}
A {{w|syllogism}} is a logical argument where two or more propositions lead to a conclusion through {{w|deductive reasoning}}. For example, one of the best-known syllogisms is:
# All men are mortal
# Socrates is a man
# Therefore, Socrates is mortal

In this comic, [[Cueball]] is an engineer who is attempting to make the following syllogism:
# I am good at understanding "numbers" (i.e., mathematics)
# The stock market is made of numbers
# Therefore, I am good at understanding the stock market

Since most engineers are purportedly good at math, proposition 1 seems to be true. It is also loosely true that the {{w|stock market}} is made of numbers, but only in the sense that every system can be given a post-hoc numeric characterization; the dynamics of the stock market are primarily human-driven. In this comic Cueball thinks that his skill at math will help him beat the stock market. Little does he know that the system can be unpredictable, so he ends up losing money as the financial instrument he's invested in loses value. This is due to the financial markets being largely controlled by humans making emotional decisions and not some calculable reason or logic. The fact that humans make emotional decisions is alluded to in the [[title text]] of [[592: Drama]].

Even if the propositions "I am good at understanding numbers" and "The stock market is made of numbers" were true in Cueball's interpretation, Cueball would still be wrong to conclude that "I am good at understanding the stock market": this would be a {{w|fallacy of the undistributed middle}} (with the first premise being more accurately stated as "I'm good at understanding things made of numbers") and a {{w|fallacy of composition}} (with the implicit third premise "if I'm good at understanding the components of a system, then I'm good at understanding the system"). The problem is that proposition 1 seems to say "I am good at understanding all math". However, the "all" is not present, so Cueball may not necessarily understand the math underlying the stock market.

This comic is also related to the 1998 movie {{W|Pi (film)|Pi}} where the main character repeats to himself several times his assumptions that the world is all numbers, and thus he, a great mathematician, should be able to predict the stock market, which is all numbers. (He believes that maybe his work on patterns in pi will provide some deeper insight into the patters in the stock market, a project that drove his mentor crazy and may in fact be making his computer self-aware. It's a ''great'' movie and more people should watch it.)

The title text talks of the scenario where everyone makes the fallacy of Cueball and this leads to a much worse global situation - i.e. a stock market crash.

The release date of this comic makes it highly likely that it refers at least in part to the {{w|2015 Chinese stock market crash}} which largely affected most other world financial markets, particularly during the week of August 24–28, during which this comic was published.

Two, less likely, interpretations of the title text has been suggested:
#It could also be understood as if it was Cueball who causes everyone involved in the financial system to lose their money. This could refer to a scenario in which Cueball figures out a way to extract large quantities of money from the stock market, causing a sudden, major decline in everybody else's wealth, or that his involvement has caused literally everyone, including his own, stock market assets to lose their value. This is possible since there is no conservation of value for the stock market. The value of a particular stock is determined by a majority that is willing to trade it at a given price.
#Alternatively, Cueball could cause a global stock market crash if he is an engineer responsible for vital stock-market-related software and/or hardware. An example of a situation where the action of engineers was implicated in just such a crash is the {{w|2010 Flash Crash}}. High-frequency quantitative trading, which relies more on financial technology engineering than sophisticated financial knowledge, was heavily involved in this particular crash.

==Transcript==

:[An white frame with text inside an underbrace and an overbrace]
:An engineer
:syllogism.

:[Cueball is at his desk in front of his computer, with his hands on his knees, thinking.]
:Cueball, thinking: 1: I am good at understanding numbers.

:[Cueball takes one hand to his chin, still thinking.]
:Cueball, thinking: 2: The stock market is made of numbers.

:[Cueball lifts both arms from his legs, still thinking.]
:Cueball, thinking: 3: Therefore I-- ''Wow'', where did all my money just go?

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Logic]]

Talk:1574: Trouble for Science

2015-09-07T13:33:14Z

LostAlone:

Sentence case, or down style, is one method, preferred by many print and online publications and recommended by the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. The only two rules are the two rules mentioned above: Capitalize the first word and all proper nouns. Everything else is in lowercase. http://www.dailywritingtips.com/rules-for-capitalization-in-titles/ [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.154|173.245.50.154]] 12:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

== Problems with the p-value as an indicator of significance ==

The p-value alone can never be an indicator of significance. However, it is still often used as the only indicator, because a full set of parameters (including sample size, test setup, etc.) can't easily be packed into a single number. There's a nice article in nature about this problem: [http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-errors-1.14700]
I can also recommend [http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800this story] about (ab-)using hacked p-values to get maximum publicity. I hope this helps :-) --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.183|141.101.105.183]] 12:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the joke is that these newspapers are talking about how bad science is, and yet they manage to come up with a stupid story about Bunsen burners, presumably being too scientifically illiterate to know the problem. [[User:Timband|Timband]] ([[User talk:Timband|talk]]) 12:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

== Controlled trials show Bunsen burners make things colder ==

Actually, I can easily imagine a way to use a Bunsen burner to make something colder. Involving an unlit Bunsen burner that has been placed in the freezer for a couple hours, for example. Nowhere in the headline is there any mention of a flame. --[[User:Svenman|Svenman]] ([[User talk:Svenman|talk]]) 12:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the joke is in the wording of the headlines. The fact that a replication study fails to reproduce can be seen as a contradiction. Overfeeding rodents leads to fat rodents. This compromises their ability to function als animal (runway) models. I haven't figured out the other ones yet. But that's çause I'm dumb :-). Alva.
*It's way simpler than that - The joke is that people outside of sciences (with no understanding really of how to science) will report basically anything that sounds shocking or exciting, especially if it proves those nerdy, scary scientists wrong! So Randall gives us a bunch of possibly headlines that to a layman read like real, scary news about science, but to scientists this is stuff that is generally well known and understood. The last one is just taking it a step further for credulous news editors - They've been lying to us all this time! 13:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1567: Kitchen Tips

2015-08-24T16:56:50Z

LostAlone:

Does the title text refer to Cueball never ripping a sheet of toilet paper off, just putting the end of the roll in the toilet and flushing, making it unroll? [[User:Thomasa88|Thomasa88]] ([[User talk:Thomasa88|talk]]) 05:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

:-Not quite, I think. I got the impression that cueball wiped with the ''whole roll,'' then simply shoved the entire thing down the toilet. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.72|199.27.128.72]] 05:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
:: That option didn't even occur to me. In my defence, it just wasn't where the comic panels seemed to be heading. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.155|108.162.249.155]] 23:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Cueball really hosting a show here? I would think of this comic as a series of commercials or a vlog series rather than a TV show. Just my opinion. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.156|199.27.133.156]] 05:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
:Maybe it's also meant to mock the so-called kitchen-hacks articles. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.225.56|108.162.225.56]] 07:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure it's aimed at [such-and-such]-hack listicles, articles, and videos. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.96|173.245.54.96]] 12:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The implication is that the the first tip: "If you want to know the temperature of something, use a thermometer designed to measure its temperature", is as obvious as the other four ridiculous 'tips'.[[User:Zeimusu|Zeimusu]] ([[User talk:Zeimusu|talk]]) 07:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

:Zeimusu's comment goes to what i think is the real point of this comic. I came here since i wanted to know '''''why'''''. It is a commentary on the stupidity of not using the obvious and sane methods of household activities. There are a lot of really ''odd'' tips for households, including "unspooling two ply toilet paper to have each roll last twice as long" of which the "whole roll" usage is a parody. [[User:Harodotus|Harodotus]] ([[User talk:Harodotus|talk]]) 10:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
::I 2nd Zeimusu's comment. I think Randall is saying that meat thermometers should be used more often. I don't see how you could say each panel builds up from practical to impractical. Throwing away dishes is probably less practical that cooking directly on a stove. So it goes: Obvious tip (thermometer), Obvious tip (dishes), Obvious tip (stove), Really crazy obvious tip (hose in freezer, punchline), Further grossout title text (TP waste). I don't agree with Randall's cooking advice myself (I think a meat thermometer is bothersome, and cooking to a certain number for safety is not always the point of cooking) but if you follow his "scientific" perspective then it should be "obvious" you use a thermometer to measure internal meat temperature instead of the typical (scientifically unreliable) methods of basing it on timing or other folk wisdom indicators of meat being done.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.164|108.162.216.164]] 07:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
:::Actually throwing away dishes is not less practical than cooking on a stove if you consider that paper/plastic plates, plastic cups and plastic utensils can also be purchased and thrown away after every meal. Thus, the panel can be saying not to throw away ''glassware'' or to stop buying and throwing away ''plasticware'' and instead invest in dishes that can be cleaned and reused. In a way, this panel is the bridge between the realistic and the absurd since it can be taken either way IMHO. --[[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 16:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
:::: A lack of meat thermometers isn't 'stupid' and you're only 'guessing' if meat is done if you are a child or an alien with no cultural context. Recipes will say 'Until the juices run clear' or 'until pink in the middle' for a reason. Because that means it's cooked. And the result is that thermometers are just superfluous for most home cooking. They get used in commercial kitchens because in most countries you are required by law to heat meat to a set temperature before you can serve it. You don't just heat it until the temperature reaches a set point and call it cooked, you cook until it's right for the recipe, then double check it with a thermometer to comply with health regulations. When equipment is mandated by law then it shows up a lot, but I worked in kitchens for years and I never met a chef who used one at home. Why? Because knowing the temperature isn't that helpful for a lot of things. When you are cooking a big turkey or barbecuing chicken from raw then they can potentially be useful but using them correctly (which involves totally disinfecting the probe after every time you use it, and for meat with bones or different thicknesses you need to test a couple of times on each piece) is extremely time consuming. If you ever fail to properly wash the probe then you'll contaminate your cooked meat with uncooked bacteria. Also, if you only wait for the temperature to reach the legal limit and take it off you might kill the bacteria but you won't necessarily properly cook the meat. If you are cooking steak at home you really don't want to use a meat thermometer unless you want to cook it well done. Steaks are supposed to be unevenly cooked to make them tender and juicy and depending on thickness you can either ruin a steak waiting for the temperature in the middle, or serve it very rare. That's why commercial chefs cook for colour or texture then probe once before it hits the plate. Almost every other kind of meat you are going to cook until it's evenly cooked through and you don't need a thermometer to see if that's happened. Thermometers just aren't helping most of these processes. They are taking up time to tell you something you already know; they are a way to standardize something for the commercial industry that you'd never do at home, just like I'm sure you don't put out a wet floor sign when you mop at home. In theory a thermometer can make your cooking safer but our whole lives are about acceptable levels of risk. It's safer to never step out of your house, to never see the sun light or inhale unfiltered air. But just like with meat, the risks there are very small and having a happy, convenient life has to trump some abstract idea of safety at some point. You can make that call for yourself where the line is for you but don't call other people stupid for just cooking a damn steak how they like it. [[User:LostAlone|LostAlone]] ([[User talk:LostAlone|talk]]) 16:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The last tip would result in the freezer door being very hard to open as it becomes jammed with ice. Try it! [[Special:Contributions/188.114.102.11|188.114.102.11]] 08:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
: That's not the tip. The tip is that there's a better way. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.155|108.162.249.155]] 23:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

i don't find it surprising that randall doesn't read viz. http://viz.co.uk/category/top-tips/ --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.34|141.101.98.34]] 11:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

But what is his better of way of making ice? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.85.241|141.101.85.241]] 14:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Can we be sure that the title text is also from Cueball? [[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 14:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

My first inclination was that this was a meta joke on Randall's [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Category:My_Hobby My Hobby] series. The more I looked at it the more I think it is a progression from Practical to Impractical (Y-axis) and Plausible to Implausible (X-axis). It is both practical and plausible to check meat without a meat thermometer making the comment a true tip. However, assuming the title text is the implied ''last panel'', it is both impractical and implausible to stuff a whole roll of toilet paper down a toilet drain making the comment an imperative. --[[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 15:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I felt this was maybe a take on the whole "life-hacks" thing, most lifehacks are simple, and one would think, obvious. Some are a little less so, and some are just ridiculous.
We've become a society which has lost it's ability to solve things by thinking, and presumably the ability to pass on basic knowledge that has been known for years, instead we need to google, luckily there are people out there who will tell us what we need to know. [[User:6328915234|6328915234]] ([[User talk:6328915234|talk]]) 15:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1478: P-Values

2015-04-13T01:29:59Z

LostAlone:

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)
: High p-values do not signify that the results differ from what was predicted, they simply indicate that there are not enough results for a conclusion. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.230.113|108.162.230.113]] 20:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I read this comic as a bit of a jab at either scientists or media commentators who want the experiments to show a particular result. As the significance decreases, first they re-do the calculations either in the hope that result might have been erroneous and would be re-classified as significant, or intentionally fudge the numbers to increase the significance. The next step is to start clutching at straws, admitting that while the result isn't ''[[Technically]]'' significant, it is very close to being significant. After that, changing the language to 'suggestive' may convince the general public that the result is actually more significant than it is, while also changing the parameters of the 'significance' value allows it to be classified as significant. Finally, they give up on the overall results, and start pointing out small sections which may by chance show some interesting features.

All of these subversive efforts could come about because of scientists who want their experiment to match their hypothesis, journalists who need a story, researchers who have to justify further funding etc etc. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:I like how you have two separate categories - "scientists" and "researchers" with each having two different goals :) [[User:Nyq|Nyq]] ([[User talk:Nyq|talk]]) 10:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
: As a reporter, I can assure you that journalists are not redoing calculations on studies. Journalists are notorious for their innumeracy; the average reporter can barely figure the tip on her dinner check. Most of us don't know p-values from pea soup.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.78|108.162.216.78]] 16:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:: The press has at various times been guilty of championing useless drugs AND 'debunking' useful ones, but it's more to do with how information is presented to them than any particular statistical failing on their part. They can look up papers the same as anyone, but without a very solid understanding of the specific area of science there's no real way that a layman can determine if an experiment is flawed or valid or if results have been manipulated. Reporters (like anyone researching an area) at some point has to decide who to trust and who not to, and make up their own mind. It doesn't even matter if a reporter IS very scientifically literate, because the readers aren't and THEY have to take his word for it. Certainly reporters should be much more rigorous but there's more going on than just 'reporters need to take a stats class'. Journals and academics make the exact same mistakes too; skipping to the conclusion, getting exciting about breakthroughs that are too good to be true; and assuming that science and scientists are fundamentally trustworthy. And the answer isn't even that everyone involved should demand better proof, because that's exactly the problem we already have - What actually IS proof? Can you ever trust any research done by someone else? Can you even trust research that you were a part of? After all, any large sample group takes more than one person to implement and analyse, and your personal observations could easily not be representative of the whole. We love to talk about proof as being the beautifully objective thing, but in truth the only true proof comes after decades of work and studies across huge numbers of subjects which naturally never happens if the first test comes back negative, because no-one puts much effort into re-testing things that are 'false'. 01:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This one resembles [https://mchankins.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/still-not-significant-2/ this interesting blog post] very much.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.222|141.101.96.222]] 13:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

[[File:null_hypothesis.png]] 
[[User:Sten|'''STEN''']] ([[User talk:Sten|talk]]) 13:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:Heh. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.189|173.245.56.189]] 20:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

See http://xkcd.com/882/ for using a subgroup to improve your p value. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:I agree. The part about p >= 0.1 reminded me of that comic. [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 01:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This comic may be ridiculing the arbitrariness of the .05 significance cutoff and alluding to the "new statistics" being discussed in psychology.[http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2014/march-14/theres-life-beyond-05.html] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.163|108.162.219.163]] 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The "redo calculations" part could just mean "redo calculations with more significant figures" (i.e. to see whether this 0.050 value is actually 0.0498 or 0.0503). --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.52|141.101.104.52]] 13:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

;TL;DR
As someone who understands p values, IMO this explanation is ''way'' too technical. I really think the intro paragraph should have a short, simplified version that doesn't require any specialized vocabulary words except "p-value" itself. Then talk about controls, null hypothesis, etc, in later paragraphs. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 16:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1127: Congress

2015-04-06T12:17:51Z

LostAlone:

Being a stupidly over political (please don't ask me here, this is an xkcd wiki not reddit) kinda guy, this one really interests me. Another one of those amazing visualizations of real-world facts xkcd is so great at. I have no idea what one might write for an explanation that would be useful. Everything is explained in pretty thorough fashion right on the panel... {{unsigned|Renegade4dio}}
:Well, there's always the transcript for us to <strike>waste time</strike> work on. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 12:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The first thing that is missing is the explanation why there are two houses. Why never three or four?
I get why monarchy only had advisors but opposition varied with whichever branch of the family had most to lose. So there was a never ending and closely focussed stream of opposition, albeit short-lived if unsuccessful.[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 18:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

;Congress as check

Perhaps a pedantic point, but I couldn't leave the description describing Congress as simply a check on the president. That would imply that the president has free reign (literally) and that Congress only acts (or, more often, doesn't act) to veto the president. That is a much more accurate description of the president's role in legislation (or of a pre-modern English Parliament). {{unsigned|208.32.120.10}}

;Typo
There's a typo on the right-hand side of the comic around 1952 - "''Other than these few years after the war; the House [was] under control Democratic control for the entire period ...''". The "was" is missing. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 15:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

;definition of conservative is pejorative

Conservatives are not interested in preserving wealth amongst those who have it - they are interested in creating as many opportunities to create wealth as possible by reducing unwanted government regulation and returning to constitutional limitations (aka 10th ammendment) on Federal power. A different view of liberty and rights than what liberals maintain, but highly supported - I find your definition to be highly pejorative. [[User:Ghaller825|Ghaller825]] ([[User talk:Ghaller825|talk]]) 18:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

:That went completely over my head, but you're entirely welcome to change it if the definition in the article bothers you. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 09:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

::Perhaps the segment could be changed to say "conservatives believe the government should not interfere with a person's wealth", or something very similar. The resistence to government involvement seems to be more consistent across the various degrees of the modern conservative movement. I'll admit that my suggested statement is also false, because almost everyone believes there should be some amount of taxes, and taxes affect wealth. However, it should be more palatable to the political ideology.

:I understand your offense, Ghaller. On the other hand, the current phrasing using "making wealth" is also a loaded term, as many factory workers would feel that they are "the ones who make it" more than the CEOs, but are certainly not getting more money. I'm not saying I agree with that perspective, just that it's a suggestive statement, and this is not the forum to have an endless debate over it. The unsigned comment above me has the best compromise in my opinion, so I will implement it. [[User:Jerodast|- jerodast]] ([[User talk:Jerodast|talk]]) 18:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

;Errors
I notice the following: (1) George H.W. Bush is shown as serving in the Senate. He never made it to the Senate, just the House. (2) Abraham Lincoln appears to be shown as serving in the House for about seven years. He only was there for one term (two years). --[[Special:Contributions/99.14.234.119|99.14.234.119]] 02:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It also lists John A. Garfield in the House from 1862 until his election -- it is James A Garfield, not John.

It lists Abraham Lincoln (and the Republican Party of Lincoln's time in general) as right-leaning, even though it's widely accepted that the Republicans of that era (whose base was made up mostly of Northern abolitionists) were the more liberal party, and the Democrats (whose base was comprised in large part by Southern slave-owners) the more conservative. {{unsigned|140.247.0.73}}

;Definition of Liberal

While in the US, liberal might mean left-wing, in the UK it's pretty central and in Australia it's right-wing. Go figure.--[[User:Joe Green|Joe Green]] ([[User talk:Joe Green|talk]]) 04:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
:Classical liberalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism] is very different from American liberalism; Americans would recognize it more as Libertarianism. --[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 09:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The socialists are well-known for hijacking the good-sounding misleading names. Such as "liberal" in America or "bolshevik" (a made-up word meaning literally "majoritan", a member of majority) in Russia. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.111|108.162.245.111]] 00:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That comment makes it sound like there's some conspiracy behind the left thinking up good names for their movements. The words themselves don't really mean anything. You don't have to go back too far in US history to find 'liberals' and 'socialists' being demonized as spies and traitors, and even today the right is happy to call the left 'liberal' with strong undertones of 'weak'. Leftist are generally better at naming things I'll grant you, but then almost all leftist movements (barring the Khmer Rouge and cultural revolution era china) have had strong ties to both universities and the entertainment industry, people who are used to being persuasive with words so it's not surprising that they came up with nice friendly sounding terms for their movements.[[User:LostAlone|LostAlone]] ([[User talk:LostAlone|talk]]) 12:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

;Typo

In the "How Ideology Is Calculated" section, I note "acccounting".--[[User:Joe Green|Joe Green]] ([[User talk:Joe Green|talk]]) 04:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

;Conservative?

He didn't exactly say that Conservatives are interested in preserving wealth amongst those who have it; I think the implication is that "if you made it, you should get to keep it" (or as much of it as possible, hence lower taxes). One ''consequence'' of this is that the ''distribution'' of wealth tends to remain static, in that the rich stay rich and the poor stay (relatively) poorer. Whether or not that consequence is an intentional one is perhaps in the eye of the pejoratively-inclined beholder :-)--[[User:Joe Green|Joe Green]] ([[User talk:Joe Green|talk]]) 04:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

:I made an edit to that effect, but it appears to have been wiped out by another editor calling it "right-wing trolling". If you would like to try re-wording it, please do. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 05:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

::By changing just a little bit I think I removed most of the negative connotation.[[User:Bugefun|Bugefun]] ([[User talk:Bugefun|talk]]) 05:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

;Arteries
Kind of unrelated but the diagram to me looks sort of like arteries and veins, with the red and blue. And the branches look like how they branch off the heart and stuff. [[User:Bugefun|Bugefun]] ([[User talk:Bugefun|talk]]) 05:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

;Red inside blue and vice versa
What do the red strands inside the blue section and the blue strands inside the red section represent? It doesn't seem to be explained anywhere.
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.200.82|199.27.200.82]] 14:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:Red on the blue side represents "Conservative Democrats" and Blue on the red side represents "Liberal Republicans". Confusing a bit, but so are both those political terms (lol). It is stated (in small text) on the top right diagram of the comic--[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 14:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

;Left vs right - or why this comic is stupid
The traditional definition of left vs right (people attribute all sorts of things to it these days) is the support of change (hence the names progressives vs conservatives, or radicals vs reactionaries). The terminology comes from France where those that advocated reforms to government sat on the left of the chamber and those that wanted to do such things as restore the monarchy sat on the right. Your traditional Burkian conservative (smidgen to the right of the centre) would accept change is inevitable, but must be controlled. To the right of that people that want to maintain the status quo, further right people that want to go back to some "better time". To the left you get the, let change happen as it comes, further left lets make change a "good thing", to the furthest left "lets force change". A large part of the Marxist philosophy is that not only is communism desirable, but inevitable as according to Marx that is the final destination of all societies. Now to my point. Over time the parties have switched sides and often will be left on one issue and right on another. Often the parties themselves were divided (look at the civil rights act's passage) To simply say Democratic Party has always been left and the Republicans have always been is such a gross simplification that is renders the whole image a farce. [[Special:Contributions/192.43.227.18|192.43.227.18]] 01:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

;What can we learn from this?
I've learned that our congress (and law in general) is too complex. We are tying to keep outdated laws relevant by using an endless series of exceptions (legally called amendments). I hope someday we will be able to scrap the whole thing and simplify our laws so that our children do not have to spend up to a quarter of their lives learning our mistakes. XKCD, please help us simplify something like law so you don't have to waste your time visualizing something as broken as our understanding of it. - e-inspired [[Special:Contributions/24.51.197.187|24.51.197.187]] 18:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1127: Congress

2015-04-06T12:17:18Z

LostAlone:

Being a stupidly over political (please don't ask me here, this is an xkcd wiki not reddit) kinda guy, this one really interests me. Another one of those amazing visualizations of real-world facts xkcd is so great at. I have no idea what one might write for an explanation that would be useful. Everything is explained in pretty thorough fashion right on the panel... {{unsigned|Renegade4dio}}
:Well, there's always the transcript for us to <strike>waste time</strike> work on. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 12:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The first thing that is missing is the explanation why there are two houses. Why never three or four?
I get why monarchy only had advisors but opposition varied with whichever branch of the family had most to lose. So there was a never ending and closely focussed stream of opposition, albeit short-lived if unsuccessful.[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 18:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

;Congress as check

Perhaps a pedantic point, but I couldn't leave the description describing Congress as simply a check on the president. That would imply that the president has free reign (literally) and that Congress only acts (or, more often, doesn't act) to veto the president. That is a much more accurate description of the president's role in legislation (or of a pre-modern English Parliament). {{unsigned|208.32.120.10}}

;Typo
There's a typo on the right-hand side of the comic around 1952 - "''Other than these few years after the war; the House [was] under control Democratic control for the entire period ...''". The "was" is missing. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 15:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

;definition of conservative is pejorative

Conservatives are not interested in preserving wealth amongst those who have it - they are interested in creating as many opportunities to create wealth as possible by reducing unwanted government regulation and returning to constitutional limitations (aka 10th ammendment) on Federal power. A different view of liberty and rights than what liberals maintain, but highly supported - I find your definition to be highly pejorative. [[User:Ghaller825|Ghaller825]] ([[User talk:Ghaller825|talk]]) 18:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

:That went completely over my head, but you're entirely welcome to change it if the definition in the article bothers you. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 09:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

::Perhaps the segment could be changed to say "conservatives believe the government should not interfere with a person's wealth", or something very similar. The resistence to government involvement seems to be more consistent across the various degrees of the modern conservative movement. I'll admit that my suggested statement is also false, because almost everyone believes there should be some amount of taxes, and taxes affect wealth. However, it should be more palatable to the political ideology.

:I understand your offense, Ghaller. On the other hand, the current phrasing using "making wealth" is also a loaded term, as many factory workers would feel that they are "the ones who make it" more than the CEOs, but are certainly not getting more money. I'm not saying I agree with that perspective, just that it's a suggestive statement, and this is not the forum to have an endless debate over it. The unsigned comment above me has the best compromise in my opinion, so I will implement it. [[User:Jerodast|- jerodast]] ([[User talk:Jerodast|talk]]) 18:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

;Errors
I notice the following: (1) George H.W. Bush is shown as serving in the Senate. He never made it to the Senate, just the House. (2) Abraham Lincoln appears to be shown as serving in the House for about seven years. He only was there for one term (two years). --[[Special:Contributions/99.14.234.119|99.14.234.119]] 02:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It also lists John A. Garfield in the House from 1862 until his election -- it is James A Garfield, not John.

It lists Abraham Lincoln (and the Republican Party of Lincoln's time in general) as right-leaning, even though it's widely accepted that the Republicans of that era (whose base was made up mostly of Northern abolitionists) were the more liberal party, and the Democrats (whose base was comprised in large part by Southern slave-owners) the more conservative. {{unsigned|140.247.0.73}}

;Definition of Liberal

While in the US, liberal might mean left-wing, in the UK it's pretty central and in Australia it's right-wing. Go figure.--[[User:Joe Green|Joe Green]] ([[User talk:Joe Green|talk]]) 04:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
:Classical liberalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism] is very different from American liberalism; Americans would recognize it more as Libertarianism. --[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 09:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The socialists are well-known for hijacking the good-sounding misleading names. Such as "liberal" in America or "bolshevik" (a made-up word meaning literally "majoritan", a member of majority) in Russia. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.111|108.162.245.111]] 00:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

''That comment makes it sound like there's some conspiracy behind the left thinking up good names for their movements. The words themselves don't really mean anything. You don't have to go back too far in US history to find 'liberals' and 'socialists' being demonized as spies and traitors, and even today the right is happy to call the left 'liberal' with strong undertones of 'weak'. Leftist are generally better at naming things I'll grant you, but then almost all leftist movements (barring the Khmer Rouge and cultural revolution era china) have had strong ties to both universities and the entertainment industry, people who are used to being persuasive with words so it's not surprising that they came up with nice friendly sounding terms for their movements.

;Typo

In the "How Ideology Is Calculated" section, I note "acccounting".--[[User:Joe Green|Joe Green]] ([[User talk:Joe Green|talk]]) 04:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

;Conservative?

He didn't exactly say that Conservatives are interested in preserving wealth amongst those who have it; I think the implication is that "if you made it, you should get to keep it" (or as much of it as possible, hence lower taxes). One ''consequence'' of this is that the ''distribution'' of wealth tends to remain static, in that the rich stay rich and the poor stay (relatively) poorer. Whether or not that consequence is an intentional one is perhaps in the eye of the pejoratively-inclined beholder :-)--[[User:Joe Green|Joe Green]] ([[User talk:Joe Green|talk]]) 04:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

:I made an edit to that effect, but it appears to have been wiped out by another editor calling it "right-wing trolling". If you would like to try re-wording it, please do. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 05:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

::By changing just a little bit I think I removed most of the negative connotation.[[User:Bugefun|Bugefun]] ([[User talk:Bugefun|talk]]) 05:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

;Arteries
Kind of unrelated but the diagram to me looks sort of like arteries and veins, with the red and blue. And the branches look like how they branch off the heart and stuff. [[User:Bugefun|Bugefun]] ([[User talk:Bugefun|talk]]) 05:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

;Red inside blue and vice versa
What do the red strands inside the blue section and the blue strands inside the red section represent? It doesn't seem to be explained anywhere.
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.200.82|199.27.200.82]] 14:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:Red on the blue side represents "Conservative Democrats" and Blue on the red side represents "Liberal Republicans". Confusing a bit, but so are both those political terms (lol). It is stated (in small text) on the top right diagram of the comic--[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 14:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

;Left vs right - or why this comic is stupid
The traditional definition of left vs right (people attribute all sorts of things to it these days) is the support of change (hence the names progressives vs conservatives, or radicals vs reactionaries). The terminology comes from France where those that advocated reforms to government sat on the left of the chamber and those that wanted to do such things as restore the monarchy sat on the right. Your traditional Burkian conservative (smidgen to the right of the centre) would accept change is inevitable, but must be controlled. To the right of that people that want to maintain the status quo, further right people that want to go back to some "better time". To the left you get the, let change happen as it comes, further left lets make change a "good thing", to the furthest left "lets force change". A large part of the Marxist philosophy is that not only is communism desirable, but inevitable as according to Marx that is the final destination of all societies. Now to my point. Over time the parties have switched sides and often will be left on one issue and right on another. Often the parties themselves were divided (look at the civil rights act's passage) To simply say Democratic Party has always been left and the Republicans have always been is such a gross simplification that is renders the whole image a farce. [[Special:Contributions/192.43.227.18|192.43.227.18]] 01:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

;What can we learn from this?
I've learned that our congress (and law in general) is too complex. We are tying to keep outdated laws relevant by using an endless series of exceptions (legally called amendments). I hope someday we will be able to scrap the whole thing and simplify our laws so that our children do not have to spend up to a quarter of their lives learning our mistakes. XKCD, please help us simplify something like law so you don't have to waste your time visualizing something as broken as our understanding of it. - e-inspired [[Special:Contributions/24.51.197.187|24.51.197.187]] 18:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:904: Sports

2015-04-06T11:57:36Z

LostAlone:

This comic highlights the tendency to interpret so-called "events" based on essentially random, day-to-day changes that are indistinguishable from trends. Sports writers and directly accused of this. Financial analysts are equally culpable. D&D Dungeon Masters are guilty as well, but I reckon Randall states this somewhat tongue-in-cheek as the role of a DM is to deliberately spin a good yarn.
--[[User:Smartin|Smartin]] ([[User talk:Smartin|talk]]) 04:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

having lived in america and abroad, i think this applies heavily to america more so than other countries, although, more generally, we could throw in other countries that have 24-hour sports coverage (which is not most). similar to 24-hour news coverage, eventually you're going to be left with dead air once you're done with real news and so you invent narratives and sensationalise the most insignificant events. as for some evidence that this is an american thing and not "all sports commentary", see trevor noah's take: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tev12nUgCJ0 Trevor Noah - Sports in America]
--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.23|141.101.99.23]] 19:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Got a link?

[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 19:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It feels more like Randall talks about sports with a kind of affection rather than with vicious sarcasm. While financial narratives derived from essentially random fluctuations are a bad thing in general (as people invest money in the belief that such things are more predictable than they are), sports is something different. For most people sports are just entertainment and part of the fun of is anticipation which means crawling over every drop of information and trying to guess if it'll make a difference or not. Fans want to be emotionally invested and somehow in control of their teams fate. And I'm pretty sure Randall knows that and as ever is just poking fun rather than trying to undermine a whole industry. It's very human to create narratives around our lives because it makes our day to day lives feel less random. When it's 'just for fun' then there's nothing bad about it it's only when it starts to involve people deluding themselves about large sums of other peoples money that it becomes a bad thing.
[[User:LostAlone|LostAlone]] ([[User talk:LostAlone|talk]]) 11:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)