explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1604: Snakes

2015-11-16T18:58:10Z

Matega: Added a terrible pun about scales

i don't know how to add the omega sign for the units of the resistor in the transcript. i'll leave that to someone more skilled than myself [[User:Beardmcbeardson|Beardmcbeardson]] ([[User talk:Beardmcbeardson|talk]]) 05:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Just copy-and-paste! -N00b {{unsigned ip|108.162.214.77}}

Or find the 'omega' symbol in Windows Character Map. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 08:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

To be exact, a 24Ω resistor would be red, yellow, black; 240Ω would be red, yellow, brown, and so on, along a well-defined sequence. Red, yellow on its own would be missing the final "scaling" colour. [[User:Gearoid|Gearóid]] ([[User talk:Gearoid|talk]]) 08:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:We don't need the scaling colour here, the snake is scaly enough as is. [[User:Matega|Matega]] ([[User talk:Matega|talk]]) 18:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_color_code， a "black red black red black" resistor shoud be 2kΩ, not 24Ω ... -- Oicebot [[Special:Contributions/162.158.252.119|162.158.252.119]] 09:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The fourth band on a resister is usually the multiplier (the value gets multiplied by 10 to a power according to the colour); it's the fifth that indicates tolerance [[User:sbutler87|sbutler87]]
:The resisteors that I have at hand are coloured the way I remember, Three bands of 'spectrum' colours (including black at zero, brown for 1, leading through the spectrum red to violet until grey at 8 and white at 9), the first two are literal, the third the power of magnitude to adjust up, and a fourth band (metalic silver/gold, to aid identification of the direction to read) as tolerance.
::The last band is tolerance, and there can be as many bands before that as the manufacturer needs. It's always the last band, no matter how many come before. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 18:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:I know there's variations, and zero ohm (or effectively so) links are a single black band, but that's all I've ever needed to know, in my time. (When I don't put something across mulimeter probes, just to make sure...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.221|162.158.152.221]] 11:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW: raw image: [[File:snake-pixelated.png]] and with added math: [[File:snake-interpolated.png]]. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 12:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Does this mean a 200ohm snake is safe? (Red black yellow) [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:That would be 20*10^4 ohm = 240.000 ohm if I get it right? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
:Red black yellow would be 200000 ohms, or 200kΩ (200 kilohms). Red-black is 20, and yellow is basically adding 4 zeroes to that. [[User:SuperSupermario24|<span style="color: #c21aff;">Just some random derp</span>]] 17:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1546: Tamagotchi Hive

2015-07-04T11:52:02Z

Matega:

Should we have a "My Hobby" category? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.135|141.101.98.135]] 14:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
:You mean like the [[:Category:My_Hobby|My Hobby]] category? Yes, that would be a good idea. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.216|108.162.254.216]] 14:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This explanation should probably include a reference to the Matrix. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.251|198.41.242.251]] 14:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)p

: Most definitely. {{unsigned ip|108.162.254.106}}

: Which should also reference the Title Text's modern usage of the term "Singularity". The Matrix (for humans) would imply a relatively large step _beyond_ the Singularity, as surpassing the capabilities of one human mind does not necessarily impart the capacity to simulate full sensory information for thousands of them. I believe the joke there would be that a Tamagotchi Matrix would be trivially simple as compared to one for humans. Therefore the Singularity has arrived for Tamagotchis, while our own complexity remains rather far beyond the capacity of large-scale distributed computing platforms. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.152|108.162.221.152]] 15:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Only Randall Munroe fantasizes about creating a legion of digital, mutated woodland creatures.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.88|173.245.54.88]] 14:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

: I could not disagree more. The popularity of PocketMonster digital games speaks to the broad appeal of such fantasies. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.152|108.162.221.152]] 15:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The singularity reference is worth explaining: The Singularity is a frequent trope in Science Fiction stories that postulates a time when AI technologies become all-pervasive, often alongside ubiquitous computing. This can include a situation where human minds can be uploaded into AIs, effectively running as simulations within these large distributed computers. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.139}}

: Actually "The Singularity" only means that an artificial system has grown in complexity beyond our ability to understand or predict it; In many ways this has already occurred. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.152|108.162.221.152]] 15:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
::I always thought 'The Singularity' was misnamed, anyway. In the way it is commonly used it is more like 'The Event Horizon'... Not that this has anything to do with the comic, but perhaps worth a side-note, anyway. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.181|141.101.98.181]] 19:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
:::The way I get it "singularity" it more about AI improving itself in a positive-feedback loop and gaining (near)infinite processing power in a finite time. One of the related themes is that since whatever emerges from that will have infinite amounts of processing power, it may take to simulating human brains, in vast amounts, just for fun or for some purpose - the joke here, as I understand it, is that since tamagotchi brains are significantly less complicated, it's already possible for us to simulate vast amounts of them, for fun. So from the tamagochis' point of view it's pretty much like the singularity is already here and we're it (the slight difference is we're not evolved from AIs made by the tamagotchis[citation needed], but other than that detail, yup pretty much like the singularity).--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.223|141.101.89.223]] 22:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
::::The so-called-Singularity' point for AI is apparently where the AI crosses the line of dominance and inexorability. So, yes, that's an 'event horizon', I'd say. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.53|141.101.99.53]] 03:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone needs to get on this and create a BOINC project or something. In all seriousness though, I wonder how many Tamagotchis you could simulate at once on the average home computer. [[User:Saklad5|Saklad5]] ([[User talk:Saklad5|talk]]) 14:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

: First you'd need to actually make a 100% accurate Tamagotchi Simulator/Emulator. There's a Tamagotchi P1 (original 1996 model) simulator that exists out there but it's of unknown provenance, touchy and probably (I wouldn't know for sure since the code isn't available) inaccurate. Likely the best way to at least determine the behavior of a Tamagotchi on the low level would be to decompile Namco Bandai's discontinued free Tamagotchi L.i.f.e. android app, which has a Tamagotchi P1 Simulator mode. One would assume, being the original developers, they can create a 100% accurate simulation. Having that code to refer to, one could probably eventually code an accurate simulator. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.220.119|108.162.220.119]] 19:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm very tired, and have been looking at something complicated for a long time - so may be seeing patterns where there are none - but is Randall [http://googleresearch.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/deepdream-code-example-for-visualizing.html? satirising Google here?] [[User:Bish|Bish]] ([[User talk:Bish|talk]]) 22:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

: Saying that you may see patterns where there are none you link the output of a machine that sees patterns where there are none. Well done, have an Internet. [[User:Matega|Matega]] ([[User talk:Matega|talk]]) 11:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1432: The Sake of Argument

2014-10-10T15:46:05Z

Matega:

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)

:In contrast, it is often used alongs the lines of "OK, I see that you don't agree with my viewpoint, so for the sake of argument, pretend that you do agree with my viewpoint". I suppose this is an effort to try and get the other person to explore your views by stepping into them. For example: "Ok I know that you think that drink driving is fine, but for the sake of argument imagine that your dog had just been run over by a drunk driver" --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 08:53, 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]]
:IMHO "related" to, no matter how vaguely, would be a strong choice of word. At best, I could imagine "inspired by" - after all, Cueball has barely presented a connected series of statements, much less apparently one intended to establish a proposition, definite or otherwise - it's clearly the automatic gainsaying of anything Ponytail says... [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 10:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
::No it isn't! ;-) [[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 12:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"Rather than getting frustrated at being derailed, Ponytail instead seizes on this and decides they should get a boat, and that the Devil can come too." - I'm reading the title text a bit differently: it's not Ponytail being not angry and chiming in, but actually having no words (indicated by '...') and then it's Cueball again taunting her even more with inviting the devil. [[User:Zefiro|Zefiro]] ([[User talk:Zefiro|talk]]) 09:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

:I just wanted to say that I agree with Zefiro here.--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.173|173.245.56.173]] 09:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

::On reading again, I agree. I missed that the ellipsis was a seperate section, rather than the beginning of 'For arguments sake we should get a boat' --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 11:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Could he possibly be making a pun? "For the sake of the 'ARGH' you meant," perhaps? [[User:Joehammer79|Joehammer79]] ([[User talk:Joehammer79|talk]]) 13:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Cueball is taking the "for the sake of argument" too literally, as "in order to create more to argue on". Also "advocate". Also, "device" in the title text (literal physical transportation device vs rhetorical device). The explanation as of now doesn't seem to realize this. [[User:Matega|Matega]] ([[User talk:Matega|talk]]) 15:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1432: The Sake of Argument

2014-10-10T15:32:07Z

Matega:

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)

:In contrast, it is often used alongs the lines of "OK, I see that you don't agree with my viewpoint, so for the sake of argument, pretend that you do agree with my viewpoint". I suppose this is an effort to try and get the other person to explore your views by stepping into them. For example: "Ok I know that you think that drink driving is fine, but for the sake of argument imagine that your dog had just been run over by a drunk driver" --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 08:53, 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]]
:IMHO "related" to, no matter how vaguely, would be a strong choice of word. At best, I could imagine "inspired by" - after all, Cueball has barely presented a connected series of statements, much less apparently one intended to establish a proposition, definite or otherwise - it's clearly the automatic gainsaying of anything Ponytail says... [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 10:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
::No it isn't! ;-) [[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 12:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"Rather than getting frustrated at being derailed, Ponytail instead seizes on this and decides they should get a boat, and that the Devil can come too." - I'm reading the title text a bit differently: it's not Ponytail being not angry and chiming in, but actually having no words (indicated by '...') and then it's Cueball again taunting her even more with inviting the devil. [[User:Zefiro|Zefiro]] ([[User talk:Zefiro|talk]]) 09:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

:I just wanted to say that I agree with Zefiro here.--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.173|173.245.56.173]] 09:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

::On reading again, I agree. I missed that the ellipsis was a seperate section, rather than the beginning of 'For arguments sake we should get a boat' --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 11:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Could he possibly be making a pun? "For the sake of the 'ARGH' you meant," perhaps? [[User:Joehammer79|Joehammer79]] ([[User talk:Joehammer79|talk]]) 13:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Cueball is taking the "for the sake of argument" too literally, as "in order to create more to argue on". Also "advocate". Also, "device" in the title text (literal physical transportation device vs rhetorical device). The explanation as of note doesn't seem to realize this. [[User:Matega|Matega]] ([[User talk:Matega|talk]]) 15:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:299: Aeris Dies

2013-08-28T06:40:48Z

Matega: Created page with "My first thought was that this isn't necessarily about Maggie dying. I think a person geeky and lonely enough would have this reaction even if Maggie only left her and didn't ..."

My first thought was that this isn't necessarily about Maggie dying. I think a person geeky and lonely enough would have this reaction even if Maggie only left her and didn't die. Also there is no clear reference to Maggie dying apart from being compared to Aeris. (I haven't gotten to this part of the game yet so I don't know if she dies enough to assume Maggie died too. I'd say thanks to Randall for the spoiler hadn't been this very comic the reason I started playing.) [[User:Matega|Matega]] ([[User talk:Matega|talk]]) 06:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1257: Monster

2013-08-28T06:29:18Z

Matega:

My first contribution, woo! I'm writing the transcript now. If there's an official one, please throw mine out and let me know :) [[User:Matega|Matega]] ([[User talk:Matega|talk]]) 06:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's done. Is it okay to refer to person 2 as Cueball and person 4 as Ponytail? As far as I know, Cueball is identified by not wearing anything... [[User:Matega|Matega]] ([[User talk:Matega|talk]]) 06:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1257: Monster

2013-08-28T06:28:35Z

Matega:

My first contribution, woo! I'm writing the transcript now. If there's an official one, please throw mine out and let me know :) [[User:Matega|Matega]] ([[User talk:Matega|talk]]) 06:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it's done. Is it okay to refer to person 2 as Cueball and person 4 as Ponytail? As far as I know, Cueball is identified by not wearing anything... [[User:Matega|Matega]] ([[User talk:Matega|talk]]) 06:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

1257: Monster

2013-08-28T06:25:44Z

Matega:

{{comic
| number = 1257
| date = August 28, 2013
| title = Monster
| image = monster.png
| titletext = It was finally destroyed with a nuclear weapon carrying the destructive energy of the Hiroshima bomb.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}

This comic pokes fun at how common it is in the media to compare things of extraordinary qualities to a certain narrow set of well-known objects. The comic features people discussing a fictional monster which - apparently - can be only described by these overused comparisons. The caption and the title text take this joke further.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript}}

:[People discussing anxiously over a table with a map. Megan has a notepad, Cueball and Ponytail are wearing police hats.]

:Megan: It's as long as a football field. Runs as fast as a cheetah.
:Cueball: Weighs as much as a blue whale.
:Blonde girl: Can we negotiate with it?
:Ponytail: No. It has the intelligence of a two-year old child.

:Caption: By the time the Frequently-Made Comparisons Monster was finally defeated, it had eaten enough people to fill a stadium and devastated an area the size of Rhode Island.

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

1257: Monster

2013-08-28T06:23:17Z

Matega:

{{comic
| number = 1257
| date = August 28, 2013
| title = Monster
| image = monster.png
| titletext = It was finally destroyed with a nuclear weapon carrying the destructive energy of the Hiroshima bomb.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}

This comic pokes fun at how common it is in the media to compare things of extraordinary qualities to a certain narrow set of well-known objects. The comic features people discussing a fictional monster which - apparently - can be only described by these overused comparisons. The caption and the title text take this joke further.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript}}

(People discussing anxiously over a table with a map. Megan has a notepad, Cueball and Ponytail are wearing police hats.)

Megan: It's as long as a football field. Runs as fast as a cheetah.
Cueball: Weighs as much as a blue whale.
Blonde girl: Can we negotiate with it?
Ponytail: No. It has the intelligence of a two-year old child.

Caption: By the time the Frequently-Made Comparisons Monster was finally defeated, it had eaten enough people to fill a stadium and devastated an area the size of Rhode Island.

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

Talk:1257: Monster

2013-08-28T06:13:55Z

Matega: Created page with "My first contribution, woo! I'm writing the transcript now. If there's an official one, please throw mine out and let me know :) ~~~~"

1257: Monster

2013-08-28T06:10:13Z

Matega: