explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1644: Stargazing

2016-02-18T13:11:29Z

Shanek: /* Explanation */ Added Jack Horkheimer paragraph

{{comic
| number = 1644
| date = February 17, 2016
| title = Stargazing
| image = stargazing.png
| titletext = Some of you may be thinking, 'But wait, isn't the brightest star in our sky the Sun?' I think that's a great question and you should totally ask it. On the infinite tree of possible conversations spread out before us, I think that's definitely the most promising branch.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|There may be another joke here. What about the branches in the title text. Is there some well known reference to such a tree. Sound like something with parallel universes and infinite possibilities?}}

[[Megan]] is the host for a group of people who attend an evenings '''{{w|stargazing}}''' class. She is supposed to be a doctor (or whatever) in {{w|astronomy}}, but it is already clear in the first panel (from her last comment) that she is only acting, and she is clearly not very knowledgeable about astronomy, although she is enthusiastically interested in the objects that can bee seen in the night sky, i.e. out in {{w|Outer space|space}}.

Megan thus certainly isn't an astronomer, and seems to only know superficial stuff about the subject, putting the stated facts into strange/peculiar context, as ''the star in charge'' or ''too big to think about'', making it feel more popular than scientific. However, all of her statements are actually scientifically correct! (If you disagree read the explanation of the title text). Below there is a list and explanations of [[#Megan's observations|Megan's observations]].

But her being correct is not enough for her audience, who feel they have been led to believe she is an astronomer, and wish to be guided by a real doctor (PhD) in astronomy. Megan points out that the word astronomer is just that, something to look up in a boring dictionary, and when they continue she tries to avoid this by shouting ''Space'' to get their focus back on the wonders of the universe, instead of focusing on her educational level. Why care who tells you about interesting stuff in the universe? (See [[1053: Ten Thousand]]).

Because it turns out that Megan has been excited about telling about interesting objects in space before, but often ends up in a situation where it becomes clear to other people that she may not be an astronomer, although she behaves like she might be (and clearly seems to knows a lot about space). So she had often been asked is she was sure if she as an astronomer. In the end she claims that she had to look up the definition of [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/astronomer "astronomer" in a dictionary], (or more likely she pretends that she had to) commenting on how boring a book that was. Since you are not meant to read a dictionary, but only look up individual words this would suggests that Megan never used one of these before, but again more likely she pretends to not know.

The title text mentions a typical comment (joke) that often comes up in discussions about which star is the brightest when seen from Earth. It is almost always clear from the context that the subject are stars in the night sky. But the joker is of course right as technically {{w|Sirius}} is not the brightest star in our sky, since the {{w|Sun}} is also a {{w|star}}. Megan/[[Randall]] is being sarcastic here, pointing out that being pedantic about this is a waste of everyone's time, considering all the other things they could talk about. He references the infinite tree of possible conversations they could have had, and "applauds" the joker for choosing this promising branch, which will lead nowhere.

The comic is very likely a reference to BBC's {{w|Stargazing Live}} with {{w|Brian Cox (physicist)|Brian Cox}} as one of the main presenter. His hair is long enough that he might be drawn in xkcd style so he would look like Megan. He does have a PhD, not in astronomy, however, but in high-energy {{w|particle physics}}, which could explain the doctor or whatever comment. The show has been airing since 2011, and the newest season aired during January 2016 just a month before this comics release. Brian Cox has also been the presenter of several other science programs, especially the Wonders of... series (as in Wonders of the {{w|Wonders of the Solar System|Solar System}}, {{w|Wonders of the Universe|Universe}} and {{w|Wonders of Life (TV series)|Life}}).

It may also be a reference to {{w|Jack Horkheimer}}'s PBS shows "Star Hustler" and "{{w|Star Gazers}}." Horkheimer, like Megan, had no PhD in astronomy, only getting into it when he started volunteering at the Miami Museum of Science's planetarium. He ended up writing shows for the planetarium and the PBS series developed from there. Like Megan, he rarely covered facts about the night sky that couldn't be found in any basic reference (possibly because the show was aimed at children and non-astronomy buffs), although he did get more in-depth about current astronomical events such as {{W|Comet Hale–Bopp}}.

See also [[1342: Ancient Stars]].

===Megan's observations===
Here is a list of Megan's observations:
*Most {{w|Bright Star Catalogue|visible stars}} are still very faint, and just becomes background to the bright {{w|stars}} that form the named {{w|constellations}}.
**Megan correctly states that they are just dots. (This is also true for the bright stars, but at least they are clearly distinguishable).
*{{w|Sirius}} is the {{w|Apparent magnitude|brightest}} star in our {{w|List of brightest stars|night sky}}. But it is not the brightest object in the night sky, as several of the planets, especially {{w|Venus}} and {{w|Jupiter}}, and of course the {{w|Moon}} are much brighter. It is also far from being one of the most {{w|Absolute magnitude|luminous star}} in the {{w|Milky Way}}, but its proximity to Earth makes it the brightest in the night sky. There are {{w|List_of_most_luminous_stars#Data|twenty visible stars}} that are more luminous than Sirius, {{w|List of most luminous stars|none of which}} come even close to being in the top 100 of the most luminous stars observed today.
**Megan thus names Sirius as the star in charge since it outshines all the others as seen from the {{w|Earth}}.
*Sirius is actually a star system consisting of two stars as it is a {{w|binary star}} system. But where Sirius A is twice the size of the {{w|Sun}} and much brighter, then Sirius B is now just a dim {{w|white dwarf}}, the remains from a much larger start that became a {{w|red giant}} before shedding its outer layers and collapsing into its current state around 120 million years ago. So now Sirius A completely outshines Sirius B, which actually is now a dead star with no further fusion going on inside its core.
**This is construed by Megan as it is barely even trying, as it is now only radiating away the rest of the heat from the now exposed core.
*{{w|Andromeda Galaxy|Andromeda}} is a {{w|spiral galaxy}}, like the Milky Way, and it is the largest galaxy in the {{w|Local Group}} where our own galaxy the Milky Way is the second largest. It is one of a few visible objects that are located outside the Milky Way. It is "only" 2.5 million light-years from the Sun and it is heading our way (or vice versa), and will {{w|Andromeda–Milky Way collision|collide with the Milky way}} in about 4 billion years (before the Sun goes into {{w|Sun#After_core_hydrogen_exhaustion|its red giant phase}}). Being 220,000 light years across consisting and of a trillion stars, it is somewhere between 1.2-2.2 times wider than the Milky Way and has 2.5-10 times as many stars. (The local group was also mentioned two comics ago, in [[1642: Gravitational Waves]], together with the much less well known third largest galaxy in the group the {{w|Triangulum Galaxy}}).
**It is therefore true when Megan says that it is too big to try to understand, and thinking about it will make your head spin, so she suggests we do not think about it.
*{{w|Betelgeuse}} is a clearly visible (9th brightest) {{w|Red_supergiant|red supergiant}} {{w|Semiregular_variable_star|variable star}} located in the {{w|Orion (constellation)|constellation of Orion}}. It is one of the largest and most luminous observable stars (12th) and one of the few where it is clear that the light is not white. Most people can see that it is slightly red, whereas most other stars are so faint that they look white despite having different colors (when seeing Orion's two brightest stars, to remember which is which between Rigel and Betelgeuse, its diagonal opposite, just remember: Rigel is "R" like blue, and Betelgeuse is "B" like red). It is expected that Betelgeuse, being at a late stage of its {{w|Stellar_evolution|evolution}}, {{w|Betelgeuse#Approaching_supernova|will go supernova}} within the next million years as a {{w|type II supernova}}. The exact time when it will become a {{w|Supernova}} is so uncertain that it could [http://earthsky.org/brightest-stars/betelgeuse-will-explode-someday#explode just as likely happen tomorrow] as in a million years. When it happens it will not be dangerous to anyone on Earth, but it will likely be visible even during the day, as it may even become as bright as the full Moon.
** When it does go nova, it will be a fantastic spectacle for everyone, but especially for anyone who likes the ''good stuff'' in space like Megan, who cannot wait for the star to explode. Clearly she hopes it will be in her lifetime, and, although this is unlikely, there is a small chance that it might just happen.
*A {{w|meteor}} (also known as {{w|shooting star}}), is debris from space that rains down on Earth, and burns up in the atmosphere. This happens all the time, but you need to be either lucky, patient, or know the right time for one of the {{w|meteor showers}} to see one. Often they are visible for so short a time period, that it is difficult to share the experience with anyone, as it will be gone by the time they turn their head to look where you are pointing.
**Megan becomes very excited when she spots such a meteor, especially because it is likely that her audience got to share the experience with her, as they were already looking in the same direction as she. But still she asks if they saw it, because it is so short lived.
*{{w|Outer space}} is the void that exists between {{w|Astronomical object|celestial bodies}}, including the Earth. There is by definition nothing there but {{w|vacuum}}, and the interesting part of space is thus not the space but the astronomical objects found out there.
**Megan says that space is cool, which is a very un-astronomical comment, as explained above. Also her excitement for a simple shooting star is cause for the suspicion that is raised after her space comment.

==Transcript==
:[A thin panel where Megan, holding her hands up, is drawn in white on a black background. Behind her is an audience drawn in faint gray lines consisting of Hairy (to the left) and two Cueball-like guys and Ponytail (seen in a rare full face position) to the right of Megan. One of the Cueball-like guys is partly hidden behind Megan.]
:Megan: Welcome to stargazing, with your host, me.
:Megan: I'm a doctor or whatever.

:[Same scene as before but in a broader panel, and Megan is now holding only one hand up with a finger pointing up. The audience is the same four people, but now Hairy has moved further to the left in the panel to make room for a Megan-like girl also to the left of Megan.]
:Megan: I'm not gonna waste your time on the shitty stars.
:Megan: Just the good stuff.
:Megan: Honestly half of 'em just look like dots.

:[A frame-less drawing with a zoom out showing the group of six people in black silhouette on a white background. Part of the ground beneath them is shown as a black pool. Megan is pointing up with one hand. The people have been rearranged, so left of Megan is now a Cueball-like guy and the Megan-like girl, and to the right is the other Cueball-like guy, then Ponytail (seen from the side as usual) and Hairy. All are looking up following Megan's directions.]
:Megan: This is Sirius. It's the brightest star in our sky so it's in charge.
:Megan: It's really two stars but one of them is barely even trying.
:Megan: That's Andromeda, it's too big to think about, so let's not.

:[Zoom in of Megan's upper body, again drawn in white on a black background. She is looking right gesturing with one arm raised, and the other still pointing up with a finger stretched out. Her audience is no longer shown.]
:Megan: That red stars is Betelgeuse. It's gonna explode someday.
:Megan: Can't happen soon enough, as far as I'm concerned. I-
:Megan: ''Holy shit did you see that meteor!?!''
:Megan: Space is ''awesome!''

:[Same scene as the previous panel, but Megan has turned towards left looking at someone in the audience (not shown) who speaks off-screen. She has taken both her hands down for the first time.]
:Off-screen voice: Are you ''sure'' you're an astronomer?
:Megan: People keep asking that, so I finally tried to look that word up in a dictionary, and ''wow'' is that book ever boring. No thank you.
:Off-screen voice: But-
:Megan: ''Space!''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with inverted brightness]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Space]]

Talk:1574: Trouble for Science

2015-09-15T16:46:58Z

Shanek:

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)
:In this section, I really want to reword the p-valye explanation that "one can assume that the event observed 'exists'." Except where it's an event indirectly observed through a chained effect (unseeable gas molecules observed through brownian motion, unstable particles through detection of their decay particles, prehistoric meteorite impact through a geological/chemical fingerprint, etc) I think it should be more that "this (directly observed) event was directly linked to the presumed cause rather than spontaneous and random, at least w.r.t. the presumed cause being tested". But writing it better than I did just now. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.114|141.101.99.114]] 19:36, 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) Although reading the other comments, it's a much better joke if the Bunsen Burner story is actually true, because that makes all of them about journalists not realising that they are highlighting their own ignorance. [[User:Timband|Timband]] ([[User talk:Timband|talk]]) 16:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

See [[Significant]] for another comic on p-values.--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 14:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

One journal, Basic and Applied Social Psychology (vol. 37 pages 1–2, 2015), went so far as to ban p-values entirely. So, anti-p-value sentiment does seem to be on the rise. --[[User:Scjphysicist|scjphysicist]] ([[User talk:Scjphysicist|talk]]) 01:10, 12 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)

:Actually, there was a (badly formatted and badly placed, probably therefore now removed) comment on the explanation page earlier which pointed out that feeding a Bunsen burner from a propane bottle will cause the pressure, and therefore the temperature, in the bottle to decrease. That is a lot less contrived than my original idea. --[[User:Svenman|Svenman]] ([[User talk:Svenman|talk]]) 13:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

::That was me. Trying to get my 2 cents in on my phone before I forgot. http://www.propane101.com/propaneregulatorfreezing.htm as an example. [[User:Mattiep|Mattiep]] ([[User talk:Mattiep|talk]]) 13:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Correct me if i'm wrong here, but doesn't burning flame from a Bunsen burner cause the temperatures of the flame and the target object to equalize? Sure in most cases that results in a temperature increase in the target object, but I don't see why that would be true in all high temperature cases. The comment about "reducing the rate of heat loss in 2000K+ temp objects" would only be true if the gas (assuming any atmosphere at all) surrounding the target object was cooler than the flame from the bunsen burner. This gets worse in a perfect vacuum. If a 5000K object was in a perfect vacuum and somebody set a lit bunsen burner (assuming the tip had an Oxygen source) to spray across the target object, then the Flame would get hotter as it touched the hotter object and the object would cool as the two temperatures attempted to equalize. No reduction of heat loss would happen. Can we remove the comment about "reducing the rate of heat loss in 2000K+ temp objects" ? [[User:Harodotus|Harodotus]] ([[User talk:Harodotus|talk]]) 22:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC).

::Found an article backing up my previous comment and lacking any objection for several hours, reveresed the note in the article.[http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2xr7dc/can_you_cool_an_object_hotter_than_fire_with_fire/] [[User:Harodotus|Harodotus]] ([[User talk:Harodotus|talk]]) 23:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Bunsen burners hasten the heat death of the universe, making things colder generally. Showing that in "controlled trials" seems like a challenge for a type 2 civilization, though. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.241.73|198.41.241.73]] 08:30, 8 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. {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.80}}

: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)
::I think it's even simpler than that: the title is "Trouble for Science" and it shows a series of misleading headlines about misleading (i.e.: invalidated) scientific studies. The implication is "Trouble for Journalism".[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.87|173.245.54.87]] 14:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:I agree. All of the titles are poorly written. All immunoassays are antibody-based, so saying many commercial antibody-based immunoassays are unreliable is redundant, implying they have no idea what an immunoassay is. Problems with the p-value as an indicator of significance implies that there is some significant error in the use of a tool to measure significance of error, which leads one to wonder how they figured that out. If you don't know what a p-test is, the title is paradoxical. The last title would make someone assume that the controlled trials are using turned on bunsen burners to make things colder, but could mean almost anything, such as a bunsen burner being turned off the entire time, or a bunsen burner placed inside of a freezer, or even that people consider using bunsen burners in an experiment makes the experiment cool (or sweet or groovy or whatever). {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.155}}

::I would appreciate someone adding info about what an immunoassay is. [[User:Teleksterling|Teleksterling]] ([[User talk:Teleksterling|talk]]) 22:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree, but would say if you DO know what a p-test is, the title is paradoxical. If you don't know what a p-test is, the title is meaningless. [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 07:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This comic may be in reference to Monsanto's latest ailments. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.112}}

;Replication study fails to reproduce many published results
:Upon reading that specific headline, the rational behavior would be to question the veracity of all the other headlines before and after. I could see a paper picking up on that sensationalist-looking headline and ignoring the fact it casts doubt on whatever else they published. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 14:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but what is the irony in the first headline? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_(matter)]: "When a substance undergoes a phase transition (changes from one state of matter to another) it usually either takes up or releases energy. For example, when water evaporates, the kinetic energy expended as the evaporating molecules escape the attractive forces of the liquid is reflected in a decrease in temperature. The amount of energy required to induce the transition is more than the amount required to heat the water from room temperature to just short of boiling temperature, which is why evaporation is useful for cooling. " That could explain the Bunsen burner making things colder (i.e. having less kinetic energy)

About gaussian irregularities. Using a computer and floating point numbers, someone would see irregularities on a gaussian distribution. That amounts to sampling the curve with a small but finite precision. Computing the value a any given point could lead to rounding errors and would be seen as irregularities. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.118}}
:That's like saying a crack in your telescope glass has revealed new stars.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.134|108.162.229.134]] 23:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Gregory Chaitin makes a case for using experimentally observed mathematical relations to increase the expressiveness of mathematics beyond the limits of purely deductive axiomatic methods. If this trend is adopted, it might conceivably develop that a set of foundations that support what would then be known as the "normal distribution" could have significant irregularities which would result in either adoption of this new effect, or changing the foundational proposition from which the effect is derived, or both. Randall's headline may be predictive of the type of thing that may be seen as more mathematicians explore conjectures aided by computer computations using numeric and symbolic congruences.
[[http://www.linkedin.com/in/Comet Comet]] 20:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think everyone is over-thinking this comic. In each headline, the question is "Well if that's the case, how did they prove it?" In other words, every test would have most likely made use of the technique that they studied in the study.

Anti-bodies-I don't know anything about this topic, so I can't explain the irony that I hypothesize to be there.

P-values-Presumably the researchers started with the null hypothesis that p-values are a good indicator of significance. They then disproved it with p<0.05.

Lab rats-They proved that animal studies are compromised. They undoubtedly used animals to conduct this experiment

Replication study-They couldn't replicate the results. To show that this is a robust phenomenon, other researchers should be able to replicate their results.

Bunsen burners-In their controlled experiment, they found that bunsen burners cool things down. But since bunsen burners are the heat-source of choice for many scientific investigations, they were probably the control heat source as well as the test.

Gaussian curve-The bell curve has irregularities in it. Assuming that these irregularities are independent, their effect is modelled by a Gaussian curve (ie the average irregularity in the faulty Gaussian curve will form a Gaussian distribution per the central limit theorem)

In each case, the joke is that the study results discredit the method that would have been used to prove the result.
CAS [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.149|173.245.55.149]] 23:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There's another interpretation. All of these articles are headlines in newspapers. Reporters will only bother to write and publish news articles about highly controversial or exciting results, framed in the most inflammatory way, regardless of their reliability or applicability. So we have carnival barkers in the news media cherry-picking and misrepresenting results they really don't understand.

But most scientists are also dependent on having a steady stream of published, novel results so they can get their grant money from the government. Which means "sexy" results that are publishable and impactful- i.e. worthy of mention in the non-scientific press. So ''of course'' we have sloppy methods and irreproduceable results-- those are the methods most likely to produce the kind of excitingly counter-intuitive results that get published and catch the notice of the mainstream media. Disciplined labs that publish properly vetted results will hit dry periods when their results are unexciting or their theories don't check out, and their grant money will dry up, and they will fall apart. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.171|108.162.237.171]] 14:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the bunsen burner part might be a reference to a demonstration a teacher once did. I can't find the reference, but when her students came in she showed them a metal plate next to a lit bunsen burner. The students observed that the side closest to the flame was colder, and she asked them to write down what they thought was going on. They wrote non-answers like, "because of heat conduction," and none of them came anywhere close to guessing the correct answer, which was simply that the teacher turned the metal plate around just before they came in. [[User:Shanek|Shanek]] ([[User talk:Shanek|talk]]) 16:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:538: Security

2015-05-01T12:31:07Z

Shanek:

I was in a flea market one time when I saw a booth who sold wrenches. They were priced starting at $2. There were even $5 wrenches!
Yes; I did this in response to this comic strip. No; I did not buy one. (I have no need to "crack" a computer. I just wanted to prove that there is a $5 wrench.)
[[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 02:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
(Oops... I forgot to log on... I feel... scared.)
[[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 02:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Remember the other comic, talking about how much does your time spent to pick up a penny cost? This applies here too! It's not just $5 for the wrench, there is also the time of the guy who will be hitting with it! Although of course the wrench is amortizable over multiple secret extraction sessions, unless it gets bent too much out of shape. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.5|108.162.246.5]] 20:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I went to the flea market and bought a $5 wrench, then used it to beat the password out of 2^5 nerds. I just wanted to prove that there is a $5 wrench and that it's reasonable to amortize it over multiple extraction sessions. The wrench is still in good shape, even to use as a wrench. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.115|108.162.215.115]] 18:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Why does everyone imagine that the "crypto nerd" will be a "him"? This gendered language is simply reinforcing the sexist stereotypes that serve as the cultural foundation for rape and other symptoms of this sexist worldview. I'm changing this to "him or her"... {{unsigned|Vctr}}

Same concept as [[416: Zealous Autoconfig]]. [[User:Shanek|Shanek]] ([[User talk:Shanek|talk]]) 12:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:416: Zealous Autoconfig

2015-05-01T12:29:37Z

Shanek:

I have my network autoconfig set up to run a rainbow table attack if there's a password on the network. Wifi everywhere is great. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 15:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

But how would the school know about the Lenhart children if Mrs. Roberts deleted the students table? {{unsigned ip|184.11.73.88}}}
:I say it'd be a liveware attack. A voice-call from the application, with in-built speech-synthisis and speech-recognition capabilities, requesting information from the school secretary him/herself. Probably a Black Hat construction. Or Hartigan (/whoever) from the Leverage series... ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.107.249.215|178.107.249.215]] 23:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Miss Lenhart must be the Lenhart children's paternal aunt. Their mother is most probably Mrs. Lenhart. [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 02:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

When I saw "Ctrl + C" my first thought was "copy." It's the dumb thing about windows and every implementation that uses that. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.217|108.162.245.217]] 14:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It gets worse! I regularly use Konsole, where ctrl-c cancels things; ctrl-shift-c copies, but then I start using ctrl-shift-c in Chrome and end up debugging web pages instead of copying text. GAH! {{unsigned ip|141.101.70.157}}

A similar concept to [[538: Security]]. [[User:Shanek|Shanek]] ([[User talk:Shanek|talk]]) 12:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1501: Mysteries

2015-03-21T19:20:29Z

Shanek:

Here's a list of wikipedia links I compiled that will be useful for anyone wanting to update this page. http://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/2zog5d/xkcd_1501_mysteries/cpktray {{unsigned ip|‎141.101.106.155}}

And I've got a solar eclipse to see (explainable, but weird!) but I started to compile things. Haven't got any links sorted yet, and percentages are (badly) done by eye. If someone does it better, ignore it.


[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.63|141.101.98.63]] 09:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

:(Whoops, pasted the flatfile format version by accident, in my rush, rather than the more Wikifriendly one that I discarded. Commenting it out until/unless I redo it. But you should still be able to see the details via the Talk Edit pages if you're bothered. Oh, and there was really too much cloud to see the eclipse for what it was. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.63|141.101.98.63]] 10:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC))

::I dropped the image into our CAD system and plotted the point co-ordinates. I've filled in the resulting percentages, which should be somewhere about right with a little rounding. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 10:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

:::Exactly right. (Although I didn't read the zero/zero crossing point is supposed to be maybe 50% on both scales, but instead ±zero. Still, doesn't matter. And perhaps displays/sorts better.) And looks like I don't need to recover my formatted notes after all. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.63|141.101.98.63]] 11:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.176|199.27.128.176]] 09:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC) XKCD has explained the Voynich Manuscript before: http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/593:_Voynich_Manuscript

:XKCD has also 'explained' DB Cooper before ([[1400: D.B. Cooper]]) if that is worth mentioning. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.167|108.162.250.167]] 12:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to wonder if Randall has ever seen http://keithledgerwood.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using and if so, whether he simply doesn't believe it. Not to sabotage his 100%-100% example if he wants to keep it there, but I'd put it at only 50% weird and 10% unexplainable. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.27|199.27.133.27]] 14:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
: Oh lawdy, the tinfoil hat brigade has arrived. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.202|173.245.56.202]]

;Carly Simon

The Carly Simon explanation includes the text "This sets up a paradox in which the song is and isn't about the vain person." This isn't correct. The song is definitely about the person. Carly is thus asserting that the subject's vanity will lead him to a correct interpretation of the song. Going to change the explanation. [[User:EverVigilant|EverVigilant]] ([[User talk:EverVigilant|talk]]) 14:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why this is on Randall's chart. The Wikipedia article is all the explanation the world needs. And Warren Beatty's reaction to the song simply seals it for me. No Big Deal. Move On. ''– [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)''

;WOW signa

It now says "This is the strongest evidence to date of extraterrestrial radio signals.", which is technically incorrect. We observe radio signals from outer space all the time, they originate from young stars, Big Bang, active galaxies, and so on. This should probably be rephrased to something about extraterrestrial intelligence, but I'm not sure if it deserves to be called "evidence". [[User:Jolindbe|Jolindbe]] ([[User talk:Jolindbe|talk]]) 16:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

;Dyatlov Pass

Um, Wikipedia regards avalanche as most plausible explanation of the Dyatlov Pass incident, and it appears to be most widespread and down-to-earth explanation that doesn't involve the supernatural or secret soviet weapons test, things like that. Shouldn't we include mention of the avalance then, perhaps? I mean, with such high "explainability" rating it's pretty clear that Randall probably assumes avalanche, since if he assumed other, less widespread theory he probably would downgrade the "explainability" to account for the fact that it's more disputed version. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.222|141.101.89.222]] 18:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

;Off the chart up and to the right

How the Universe came into existence (the physics and math behind "Why is there something rather than nothing?") is far weirder with less of an explanation than anything on Randall's chart – scientists' claims, which redefine "nothing," notwithstanding. And then how life started and evolved (the chemistry and biology – and quantum physics? – at the transition point between inanimate amino acids and cells and the subsequent arrival of ''homo sapiens'') is almost as strange as the Big Bang. ''– [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 18:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)''
:Yep. And how to make a star. And how to make a planet. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.158|108.162.249.158]] 11:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

;Inaccurate explainability rating

I've read the Russian wikipedia article on Dyatlov Pass Incident and not only it's incredibly weird (much more details than condensed English article), but also no plausible explanation is provided that would account for all the incredibly weird stuff going on. I have no idea how that could be awarded 96% explainability.

UVB-76, on the other hand, is a pretty easy to explain as one-time-pad encrypted military broadcast, with buzzing to occupy the frequency and discourage others from using it. How is that just 23% explainable, I have no idea. That's what I've found in Russian sources, anyway.

Also, the Toynbee Tiles mystery is pretty much solved if you trust "Duerr, Justin. Resurrect Dead: The Mystery of the Toynbee Tiles" as a source.

There are even more inconsistencies pointed out above. At first I've suspected that the scale is accidentally inverted, but D.B. Cooper story is pretty poorly explained, so it's more like the whole thing is just randomly messed up.
--[[User:Shnatsel|Shnatsel]] ([[User talk:Shnatsel|talk]]) 19:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

;UVB-76

Is it seriously that hard to explain the "UVB-76" thing? I've been listening to this thing for a year now and even have explained how it works from the innards a few months back. Besides, it's not even called UVB-76, it was a mishear of UZB-76, and it's not even that callsign anymore. The callsign has changed to MDZhB and it is a marker to occupy the frequency of the "Codename Vulkan" communications channel. The way this thing works is that it is a bunch of gears that control a buzzer, when the Buzzer goes down you can hear it winding down and the repairmen screwing in some things when they come in.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.9|108.162.219.9]] 20:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

;Lost Colony

Before the Roanoke colonists left, they carved "Croatan" into a post. The Croatan were a small native tribe living on the coast, who'd had friendly relations with the colonists. They disappeared along with them. A generation or two later, a completely new tribe called the Lumbee were found living further inland, with some caucasian features and using European farming techniques. It's pretty obvious what happened. [[User:Shanek|Shanek]] ([[User talk:Shanek|talk]]) 19:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1460: SMFW

2014-12-15T16:12:15Z

Shanek:

Reading this is like listening to the video of that lady who imitates the sound patterns of different languages, but without actually saying any real words! --[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] ([[User talk:Elipongo|talk]]) 05:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
:link? -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 15:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It would sound more natural if it were "''SMFW '''as''' an acronym almost makes sense''". Is the fact that "as" was omitted from that sentence supposed to give us a hint as to what "SMFW" might mean? [[User:Nicksh|Nicksh]] ([[User talk:Nicksh|talk]]) 07:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

: As "the Internet is for porn", in many contexts SFW, lit. Safe for Work, can be taken to mean sex-free content, while NSFW, Not Safe for Work, would mean sex-positive content, then SMFW might be interpreted to me SM For Work, where SM would be humorously interpreted as some graphically explicit sex-positive content, perhaps SadoMachoism, which outside of paperwork is generally classified NSFW. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.29|199.27.133.29]] 10:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

:: And "wtfw it's like smho tbfh, imdb." might be a defensive reaction to those what would not find humour of SM For Work. "what the fooking wut? It's like stick my humble opinion, to be fooking honest, in my dead body. (or database)." [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.29|199.27.133.29]] 10:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

:: Additional evidence of SM For Work, would be the posture in the task chair with respect to the desk and laptop (hunched over, feet not resting on ground, etc) seems the opposite of ergonomic advice which might lead to muscle strain, pain and fatigue -- the type of unsexy, self-inflicted torments that workers do to themselves "for work" {{unsigned ip|199.27.133.29}}

I thought of So Much For Work as a possible meaning. {{unsigned ip|173.245.50.178}}

I think "SMFW" is a mixture of SMF and MFW: "So Much Fun When". It fits the sentence. The only thing is that Cueball doesn't look like he's having fun.

Smoke more fucking weed could be a replacement for something like "Bloody hell" or "Shit the bed".
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.252|141.101.98.252]] 09:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

So why doesn't "xkcd" appear on the acronyms list? --[[User:Koveras|Koveras]] ([[User talk:Koveras|talk]]) 09:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
: Because xkcd isnt an acronym. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.61|108.162.216.61]] 09:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add STFW ("Search the fucking web", [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/STFW]) as an acronym that SMFW is close to (same except for the second letter)...but there might be enough examples? [[User:Aquaplanet|Aquaplanet]] ([[User talk:Aquaplanet|talk]]) 11:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

SMFW makes perfect sense. Shaking my face when (SMH+MFW) an acronym almost makes sense. {{unsigned|Sederts}}

See My Face When an acronym almost makes sense... makes perfect sense. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.4|141.101.99.4]] 13:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"So Much Frustration When an acronym ''almost'' makes sense."
: +1 -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 15:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
"What to feel when it's like some message has only to be f...ing hashtags, is mostly deep bafflement." [[User:Ackegard|Ackegard]] ([[User talk:Ackegard|talk]]) 14:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

None of these are acronyms. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.115|199.27.128.115]] 14:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

So Much F*cking Want. So, uh. Yeah. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.124|108.162.237.124]] 15:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Small Men Fear Women [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.39|108.162.216.39]] 15:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

So Many Fucking Ways? {{unsigned ip|108.162.230.209}}

"SMHO" could also be related to "LMHO," or "Laughing My Head Off." So, "Shaking My Head Off"? Something that makes you shake your head so hard it might fall off? [[User:Shanek|Shanek]] ([[User talk:Shanek|talk]]) 16:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:566: Matrix Revisited

2013-05-02T12:08:03Z

Shanek: Created page with "In panel #9, the characters are upside-down and the colors are inverted. Films are produced on negatives, which invert the colors, and are threaded through the projector upsid..."

In panel #9, the characters are upside-down and the colors are inverted. Films are produced on negatives, which invert the colors, and are threaded through the projector upside-down (the lens turns the image right-side-up again when projected). This could mean that, instead of merely being in a "non-existent dimension," the characters have gone WAY out of the Matrix and now see themselves to be what they truly are: images on film. (If this was Randall's intention, he might have made it more clear by including the sprocket holes.) [[User:Shanek|Shanek]] ([[User talk:Shanek|talk]]) 12:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)