explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2435: Geothmetic Meandian

2021-03-11T07:29:16Z

Smylers:

Oh, this one's good. Just checked in (no, I wasn't hovering over the refresh button, my first visit today!) and one glance had me in paroxysms of laughter. But how to explain it? Gonna have to think about that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.96|141.101.98.96]] 01:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I made a really bad spreadsheet to understand better how it works: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fqmHwDmirJrsKPdf94PutFDw31DMAYxNeR7jef1jneE/edit?usp=sharing

Someone fix my ''awful'' transcript edits please. --[[User:Char Latte49|Char Latte49]] ([[User talk:Char Latte49|talk]]) 02:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Seeing the Python added to the Explanation, try this Perl (typed straight here, so not tested)...
## Your prefered variations of "#!/usr/bin/perl", "use strict;" and "use warnings;" here! ##
sub F { my (@vals)=@_; my $invVals=1/int(@vals);
my ($geo,$arith,$med)=(1); # Only defining $geo, so first *= works correctly!
while (@vals) { my($lo,$hi)=(shift @vals,pop @vals); # $hi may be undef - this is intended!
$arith+=$lo; $geo*=$lo; unless (defined $hi) { $med = $lo; last }
$arith+=$hi; $geo*=$hi; unless (@vals) { ($med)=F($lo,$hi) }
}
return ($arith*$invVals, $geo**$invVals, $med);
}
sub GMDN { my (@vals)=sort @_; my $lim=10**(-5); # Adjust $lim to taste...
return "Error: No vals!" unless @vals; # Catch!
return $vals[0] unless ($vals[$#vals]-$vals[0]) > $lim;
return GMDM(F(@vals));
}
my @test=(1,1,2,3,5);
print "Values: @test\nGeothmetic Meandian: ".GMDN(@test)."\n";
...debugged in my head, so probably fatally flawed but easily fixed/adapted anyway. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.109|141.101.99.109]] 03:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Why so complicated?
perl -e 'use strict; use warnings; sub F { my ($s,$p) = (0,1); my @srt = sort {$a<=>$b} @_; for (@_) { $s += $_; $p *= $_; } return ($s/@_,$p**(1/@_),$srt[$#_/2]); } sub Gmdn { print join(", ",@_=F(@_)),"\n" for 0..20; return @_; } print join(", ",Gmdn(1,1,2,3,5)),"\n";'
(With interim results) SCNR -- [[User:Xorg|Xorg]] ([[User talk:Xorg|talk]]) 03:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
:''I'' can read your version (and I see you do explicit {$a<=>$b}, which indeed ''may'' be necessary in mine for real use, along with additional sanity checks, I will check later) but I wanted to make mine neat, and ''slightly'' tricksy in implementation, but still not quite so entirely obfuscated to the more uninitiated. TIMTOWTDI, etc, so I like your (almost) bare-bones version too. ;)
:(Is 20 cycles enough to converge in sufficiently extreme cases? Won't give "Too deep" error, though, even if it takes at least that long. There's a definite risk that mine might, as written.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 03:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
::Given the lack of precision in Randall's example usage, I think 20 cycles ought to be enough for everyone ;-P. I'm trying to prove that the interval's size has to shrink by somewhat close to a factor of 1/2 every cycle, but it's tricky and it's late. If I can assume a factor of 1/2 in the long run, 64 iterations should pin down a 64-bit float.
::I actually didn't try to obfuscate, I was just too lazy to type more ;-). Otherwise I might have left out the "return"s and passing parameters at all. -- [[User:Xorg|Xorg]] ([[User talk:Xorg|talk]]) 04:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
:::I find the one-liner more readable: it's straightforward and pretty minimal. For what its worth, here's my version: <pre>perl -MList::Util=sum,product -E 'sub F { (sum @_)/@_, (product @_)**(1/@_), (sort { $a <=> $b } @_)[$#_/2] } $, = " "; say @v = @ARGV; say @v = F(@v) for 1..30' 1 1 2 3 5</pre> 30 iterations is enough for the numbers to display identically on this system (to 14 decimal places). I think it's even cleaner in Raku (formerly Perl 6): <pre>raku -e 'sub F(@d) { @d.sum/@d, [*](@d)**(1/@d), @d.sort[@d/2] }; say my @v = +«@*ARGS; say @v = F(@v) for 1..33' 1 1 2 3 5</pre> On this system, Rakudo yields an additional decimal place, which takes another 3 iterations to converge. [[User:Smylers|Smylers]] ([[User talk:Smylers|talk]]) 06:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Side-thought: is GMDN (nowhere near as logical an ETLA contraction of the title term as, say, 'GMMD' or 'GTMD') actually an oblique reference to the GNDNs as popularised/coined by Trek canon? Worth a citation/Trivia? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.97|162.158.158.97]] 04:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

== Proof of convergence ==

Can any of you come up with a mathematical proof that repeated application of F on a set of (say) positive real numbers is guaranteed to converge toward a single real number, i.e. that the GMDN of a set of positive real numbers is well-defined?

One observation I've made is that if you consider that maximum and minimum numbers in the original set to be x1 and xn (without loss of generality), something we know for sure is that AM(x1, ..., xn), GM(x1, ..., xn) and Median(x1, ..., xn) are all at least x1 and at most xn that is to say...

x1 <= AM(x1, ..., xn), GM(x1, ..., xn), Median(x1, ..., xn) <= xn

So range(AM(x1, ..., xn), GM(x1, ..., xn), Median(x1, ..., xn)) is necessarily <= range(x1, ..., xn).

And given that we know that unless x1, ..., xn are all equal, that x1 < AM(x1, ..., xn) < xn, we have an even stricter result (unless x1, ..., xn are all equal) that is
range(AM(x1, ..., xn), GM(x1, ..., xn), Median(x1, ..., xn)) < range(x1, ..., xn).

So, it's clear that range(x1, ..., xn) > range(F(x1, ..., xn)) > range(F(F(x1, ..., xn))) > range(F(F(F(x1, ..., xn)))) > ... and it's also clear that all of these ranges are >= 0. There is a result in number theory that says that any infinite sequence of real numbers which monotonically decreases and is bounded from below converges.

So we know for sure that range(F(F(...F(x1, ..., xn)...))) converges but we still have to show that it converges to 0 to show that the GMDN converges to a single real number.

I'm not sure how to proceed. Does anyone have any ideas?

EDIT:
I just noticed that unless x1, ..., xn are all equal, AM(x1, ..., xn) is at least ((n-1)/n) * range(x1, ..., xn) away from both x1 and xn. So not only do we have that range(x1, ..., xn) > range(F(x1, ..., xn)) from before, but we also have that ((n-1)/n) * range(x1, ..., xn) >= range(F(x1, ..., xn)). This guarantees that that the range falls exponentially on repeated applications of F. So it's certain that the the range ultimately converges to 0, and hence that the GMDN is well-defined.

It might be a good idea for someone to concretely present this idea as a proof on Page.

[[Special:Contributions/172.69.135.44|172.69.135.44]] 05:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Anirudh Ajith

Talk:2435: Geothmetic Meandian

2021-03-11T06:53:35Z

Smylers:

Oh, this one's good. Just checked in (no, I wasn't hovering over the refresh button, my first visit today!) and one glance had me in paroxysms of laughter. But how to explain it? Gonna have to think about that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.96|141.101.98.96]] 01:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I made a really bad spreadsheet to understand better how it works: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fqmHwDmirJrsKPdf94PutFDw31DMAYxNeR7jef1jneE/edit?usp=sharing

Someone fix my ''awful'' transcript edits please. --[[User:Char Latte49|Char Latte49]] ([[User talk:Char Latte49|talk]]) 02:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Seeing the Python added to the Explanation, try this Perl (typed straight here, so not tested)...
## Your prefered variations of "#!/usr/bin/perl", "use strict;" and "use warnings;" here! ##
sub F { my (@vals)=@_; my $invVals=1/int(@vals);
my ($geo,$arith,$med)=(1); # Only defining $geo, so first *= works correctly!
while (@vals) { my($lo,$hi)=(shift @vals,pop @vals); # $hi may be undef - this is intended!
$arith+=$lo; $geo*=$lo; unless (defined $hi) { $med = $lo; last }
$arith+=$hi; $geo*=$hi; unless (@vals) { ($med)=F($lo,$hi) }
}
return ($arith*$invVals, $geo**$invVals, $med);
}
sub GMDN { my (@vals)=sort @_; my $lim=10**(-5); # Adjust $lim to taste...
return "Error: No vals!" unless @vals; # Catch!
return $vals[0] unless ($vals[$#vals]-$vals[0]) > $lim;
return GMDM(F(@vals));
}
my @test=(1,1,2,3,5);
print "Values: @test\nGeothmetic Meandian: ".GMDN(@test)."\n";
...debugged in my head, so probably fatally flawed but easily fixed/adapted anyway. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.109|141.101.99.109]] 03:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Why so complicated?
perl -e 'use strict; use warnings; sub F { my ($s,$p) = (0,1); my @srt = sort {$a<=>$b} @_; for (@_) { $s += $_; $p *= $_; } return ($s/@_,$p**(1/@_),$srt[$#_/2]); } sub Gmdn { print join(", ",@_=F(@_)),"\n" for 0..20; return @_; } print join(", ",Gmdn(1,1,2,3,5)),"\n";'
(With interim results) SCNR -- [[User:Xorg|Xorg]] ([[User talk:Xorg|talk]]) 03:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
:''I'' can read your version (and I see you do explicit {$a<=>$b}, which indeed ''may'' be necessary in mine for real use, along with additional sanity checks, I will check later) but I wanted to make mine neat, and ''slightly'' tricksy in implementation, but still not quite so entirely obfuscated to the more uninitiated. TIMTOWTDI, etc, so I like your (almost) bare-bones version too. ;)
:(Is 20 cycles enough to converge in sufficiently extreme cases? Won't give "Too deep" error, though, even if it takes at least that long. There's a definite risk that mine might, as written.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 03:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
::Given the lack of precision in Randall's example usage, I think 20 cycles ought to be enough for everyone ;-P. I'm trying to prove that the interval's size has to shrink by somewhat close to a factor of 1/2 every cycle, but it's tricky and it's late. If I can assume a factor of 1/2 in the long run, 64 iterations should pin down a 64-bit float.
::I actually didn't try to obfuscate, I was just too lazy to type more ;-). Otherwise I might have left out the "return"s and passing parameters at all. -- [[User:Xorg|Xorg]] ([[User talk:Xorg|talk]]) 04:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
:::I find the one-liner more readable: it's straightforward and pretty minimal. For what its worth, here's my version: <pre>perl -MList::Util=sum,product -E 'sub F { (sum @_)/@_, (product @_)**(1/@_), (sort { $a <=> $b } @_)[$#_/2] } $, = " "; say @v = @ARGV; say @v = F(@v) for 1..30' 1 1 2 3 5</pre> 30 iterations is enough for the numbers to display identically on this system (to 14 decimal places). I think it's even cleaner in Raku (formerly Perl 6): <pre>raku -e 'sub F(@d) { @d.sum/@d, [*](@d)**(1/@d), @d.sort[@d/2] }; my @v = +«@*ARGS; say @v = F(@v) for 1..33' 1 1 2 3 5</pre> On this system, Rakudo yields an additional decimal place, which takes another 3 iterations to converge. [[User:Smylers|Smylers]] ([[User talk:Smylers|talk]]) 06:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Side-thought: is GMDN (nowhere near as logical an ETLA contraction of the title term as, say, 'GMMD' or 'GTMD') actually an oblique reference to the GNDNs as popularised/coined by Trek canon? Worth a citation/Trivia? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.97|162.158.158.97]] 04:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

== Proof of convergence ==

Can any of you come up with a mathematical proof that repeated application of F on a set of (say) positive real numbers is guaranteed to converge toward a single real number, i.e. that the GMDN of a set of positive real numbers is well-defined?

One observation I've made is that if you consider that maximum and minimum numbers in the original set to be x1 and xn (without loss of generality), something we know for sure is that AM(x1, ..., xn), GM(x1, ..., xn) and Median(x1, ..., xn) are all at least x1 and at most xn that is to say...

x1 <= AM(x1, ..., xn), GM(x1, ..., xn), Median(x1, ..., xn) <= xn

So range(AM(x1, ..., xn), GM(x1, ..., xn), Median(x1, ..., xn)) is necessarily <= range(x1, ..., xn).

And given that we know that unless x1, ..., xn are all equal, that x1 < AM(x1, ..., xn) < xn, we have an even stricter result (unless x1, ..., xn are all equal) that is
range(AM(x1, ..., xn), GM(x1, ..., xn), Median(x1, ..., xn)) < range(x1, ..., xn).

So, it's clear that range(x1, ..., xn) > range(F(x1, ..., xn)) > range(F(F(x1, ..., xn))) > range(F(F(F(x1, ..., xn)))) > ... and it's also clear that all of these ranges are >= 0. There is a result in number theory that says that any infinite sequence of real numbers which monotonically decreases and is bounded from below converges.

So we know for sure that range(F(F(...F(x1, ..., xn)...))) converges but we still have to show that it converges to 0 to show that the GMDN converges to a single real number.

I'm not sure how to proceed. Does anyone have any ideas?

EDIT:
I just noticed that unless x1, ..., xn are all equal, AM(x1, ..., xn) is at least ((n-1)/n) * range(x1, ..., xn) away from both x1 and xn. So not only do we have that range(x1, ..., xn) > range(F(x1, ..., xn)) from before, but we also have that ((n-1)/n) * range(x1, ..., xn) >= range(F(x1, ..., xn)). This guarantees that that the range falls exponentially on repeated applications of F. So it's certain that the the range ultimately converges to 0, and hence that the GMDN is well-defined.

It might be a good idea for someone to concretely present this idea as a proof on Page.

[[Special:Contributions/172.69.135.44|172.69.135.44]] 05:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Anirudh Ajith

2003: Presidential Succession

2018-06-06T10:08:17Z

Smylers: Add link to LIne of Succession site

{{comic
| number = 2003
| date = June 6, 2018
| title = Presidential Succession
| image = presidential_succession.png
| titletext = Ties are broken by whoever was closest to the surface of Europa when they were born.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The {{w|United States presidential line of succession}} is the order of people who serve as president if the current incumbent President is incapacitated, dies, resigns, or is removed from office.

The {{w|Presidential_Succession_Act#Presidential_Succession_Act_of_1947|Presidential Succession Act of 1947}} was an act by the U.S. Congress that revised the presidential order of succession to its current order. This act, though never challenged in the courts, may not be constitutional for two reasons. First, it is unclear whether members of Congress can be designated in the line of succession. Secondly, the act allows for a cabinet officer to be "replaced" as acting President by a new Speaker of the House or a new President Pro Tempore of the Senate.

The full text of the Second Report of the Continuity of Government Commission can be found here: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_continuity_of_government.pdf

The first 6 members of Randall's list are included in the current line of succession. After the top 6, his list ranges from politicians, to actors who have played Presidents, to athletes.

Randall's list omits the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, as well as many other cabinet positions. Perhaps he does not find those people qualified to become President of the United States, or is concerned about the constitutionality of lawmakers becoming President.

This is another comic in the continuing line of comics about American politics, especially after the election of Donald Trump as President in 2016.

==Order of succession==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!#
!Randall's order
!Current order by the 1947 Act
!Notes
|-
|1
|President
|President
|Not generally considered part of the line of succession, as incumbents cannot "succeed" to their own post.
|-
|2
| Vice president
| Vice president
|
|-
|3
|Secretary of State
|Speaker of the House of Representatives
|
|-
|4
|Secretary of Defense
|President pro tempore of the Senate
|
|-
|5
|Secretary of Homeland Security
|Secretary of State
|
|-
|6
|Attorney General
|Secretary of the Treasury
|
|-
|7
|Five people who do not live in Washington DC, nominated at the start of the President's term and confirmed by the Senate
|Secretary of Defense
|{{w|Washington, D.C.}} is the capital of the United States, and is where the {{w|White House}}, the President's residence, is located. Presumably this provision covers the case where much of the government, including positions 1–6 here, are killed by a natural disaster or attack in Washington, D.C.

It is unclear if these 5 people have to have any qualifications whatsoever.
|-
|8
|{{w|Tom Hanks}}
|Attorney General
|Academy Award-winning American actor
|-
|9
|State Governors, in descending order of state population at last census
|Secretary of the Interior
|At the time of publishing, the last {{w|United States Census}} was the 2010 Census. {{w|2010_United_States_Census#State_rankings|Link}} to state populations.
|-
|10
|Anyone who won an Oscar for playing a governor
|Secretary of Agriculture
|Oscars, or {{w|Academy Awards}}, are annual film awards awarded by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
|-
|11
|Anyone who won a Governor's award for playing someone named Oscar
|Secretary of Commerce
|The {{w|Governors Awards}} are an annual award ceremony hosted by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to present lifetime achievement awards within the film industry. As this award is a lifetime achievement award, it does not seem possible that an actor could win this award for simply playing someone named Oscar.
|-
|12
|{{w|Kate McKinnon}}, if available
|Secretary of Labor
|Comedic actress famous for being a cast member on {{w|Saturday Night Live}}. She is known for her character work and celebrity impressions.
|-
|13
|Billboard Year-End Hot 100 Singles artists #1 through #10 (for groups, whoever is credited first in name, liner notes, etc)
|Secretary of Health and Human Services
|The {{w|Billboard Hot 100}} is the music industry standard record chart in the United States for singles, published weekly by Billboard magazine.
|-
|14
|The top 5 US astronauts in descending order of total spaceflight time
|Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
|
|-
|15
|{{w|Serena Williams}} (or, if she lost her most recent match, whoever beat her)
|Secretary of Transportation
|As of the time of publishing, Serena Williams was the top female tennis player (though not the world #1 ranking, because she took time off for pregnancy). She is arguably the greatest female tennis player of all-time, winning 39 {{w|Grand Slam (tennis)|Grand Slam}} titles, including 23 women's singles titles.

If her most recent defeat was to a non-US player, it is unclear whether that person would still qualify for President.
|-
|16
|The most recent season NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL MVPs
|Secretary of Energy
|MVP stands for {{w|Most Valuable Player}}. The 4 listed leagues are the major sports leagues in the United States, the {{w|National Basketball Association}} (NBA), the {{w|National Football League}} (NFL), {{w|Major League Baseball}} (MLB), and the {{w|National Hockey League}} (NHL).

As of the time of publishing, the most recent MVPs for the listed sports are {{w|Russell Westbrook}} (NBA), {{w|Tom Brady}} (NFL), {{w|José Altuve}} and {{w|Giancarlo Stanton}} (MLB has two, one for the American League and one for the National League), and {{w|Connor McDavid}} (NHL).
|-
|17
|{{w|Bill Pullman}} and his descendants by absolute primogeniture
|Secretary of Education
|American actor, known for playing President Thomas J. Whitmore in the 1996 film ''{{w|Independence Day (1996 film)|Independence Day}}''.

Absolute primogeniture is a form of succession where the oldest direct descendant receives the title. This is contrasted to {{w|Male-preference primogeniture}}, in which males come before females in the order of the throne, whether the males were born first or not. This may be a reference to the British law {{w|Succession to the Crown Act 2013}}, which changed the order of the throne from male-preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture. This act allows {{w|Princess Charlotte of Cambridge|Princess Charlotte}} to retain her place in line before {{w|Prince Louis of Cambridge|Prince Louis}}.
|-
|18
|The entire line of succession to the British throne
|Secretary of Veterans Affairs
|Unsure if this is constitutional, or what the Founding Fathers would have wanted (a Brit sitting as U.S. President!). The first 57 names on the list are {{w|Succession_to_the_British_throne#Current_line_of_succession|here}}, as of the time of publishing. [https://lineofsuccession.co.uk/?date=2018-06-06 British Line of Succession on 6 June 2018] shows the list as it was at the comic's publication. In theory this entry includes several thousand people.
|-
|19
|The current champion of the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating contest
|Secretary of Homeland Security
|The {{w|Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest}} is an annual American hot dog competitive eating competition sponsored by {{w|Nathan's Famous}} held on July 4th. As of the time of publishing, the most recent men's winner is {{w|Joey Chestnut}} and the women's winner is {{w|Miki Sudo}}.
|-
|20
|All other US citizens, chosen by a 29-round single-elimination Jousting tournament
|''None''
|Effective for a population up to 536,870,912 individuals (2^29), although additional rounds can be added should the population grow further.
|}

The title text mentions whoever was closest to the surface of Europa when they were born. {{w|Europa}} is a moon of Jupiter, so most people would be very far from its surface when they were born. Alternatively, Randall could be playing on how Europa sounds like Europe.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
: A proposal for a new presidential line of succession
: Current politics aside, most experts agree the existing process is flawed. The presidential succession act of 1947 is probably unconstitutional on several counts, and there are many practical issues with the system as well.
: (for more, see the surprisingly gripping [https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-continuity-of-the-presidency-the-second-report-of-the-continuity-of-government-commission/ ''Second Report of the Continuity of Government Commission'', June 2009]).
: Proposed line of succession:
:# President
:# Vice president
:# Secretary of State
:# Secretary of Defense
:# Secretary of Homeland Security
:# Attorney General
:# Five people who do not live in Washington DC, Nominated at the start of the president's term and confirmed by the Senate
:# Tom Hanks
:# State Governors, in descending order of state population at last census
:# Anyone who won an Oscar for playing a governor
:# Anyone who won a Governor's award for playing someone named Oscar
:# Kate McKinnon, if available
:# Billboard year-end hot 100 singles artists #1 through #10 (for groups, whoever is credited first in name, liner notes, etc)
:# The top 5 US astronauts in descending order of total spaceflight time
:# Serena Williams (or, if she lost her most recent match, whoever beat her)
:# The most recent season NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL MVPs
:# Bull Pullman and his descendants by absolute primogeniture
:# The entire line of succession to the British throne
:# The current champion of the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating contest
:# All other US citizens, chosen by a 29-round single-elimination Jousting tournament.

: Title text: Ties are broken by whoever was closest to the surface of Europa when they were born.

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1962: Generations

2018-03-05T09:50:20Z

Smylers: Italic f suggestion

Table guy! Maybe this could be a table with "Year", "Generation Name", "References" and "Speculation". Or something. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.172|198.41.230.172]] 17:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The highlighted generations are clearly the ones Pew Research named, but I can't figure out why Randall's numbers don't seem to match Pew's here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/11/millennials-surpass-gen-xers-as-the-largest-generation-in-u-s-labor-force/ft_15-05-11_millennialsdefined/ [[User:TheAnvil|TheAnvil]] ([[User talk:TheAnvil|talk]]) 17:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

—••— means X in Morse code [[User:Inexorably advancing wall of ice|Inexorably advancing wall of ice]] ([[User talk:Inexorably advancing wall of ice|talk]]) 18:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

But seriously, it was funny the first time. I'm sorry for the above incomplete tag in the comments{{Citation needed}},but it feels like most comics since maybe #1900 ([[1914: Twitter Verification]] comes to mind...) have this kind of thing for their incomplete tag. Maybe if it's spaced out more, instead of put into nearly every comic nowadays, it won't be so much of a problem. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.184|162.158.75.184]] 18:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
: If you can address this problem, please edit the user. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.26|162.158.155.26]] 23:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
::Removed the incomplete tag, changed the citation needed tag into the correct one. Dude, please don't do that again, it's not funny, just seriously annoying. The incomplete tag is not there for you to abuse. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 12:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
:::Oh, and now that I've finally caught up to you, 162.158.155.26, please check your talk page. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 12:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Can someone help me? [[User:Halo422|Halo422]] ([[User talk:Halo422|talk]]) 20:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

What's the emoji 2000-2017? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.141.214|172.68.141.214]] 21:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
:I think I found it: 💅 [https://emojipedia.org/nail-polish/ "nail-polish"] (Comes up very different on different systems) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.233|162.158.79.233]] 21:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
:Couldn't this emoji, and hence the title "Generation 💅", refer to the rise of nail care salons or manicure salons during the recent years? I don't know about other countries, but at least in certain parts of Europe, Germany in particular, there seems to be such a boom of this kind of establishments that I often wonder how they survive and open even more such businesses, even though it appears there's more nail salons than (manicured) nails in town. [[User:Passerby|Passerby]] ([[User talk:Passerby|talk]]) 20:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to believe the 1748 - 1765 generation is some form of "Long s" such as U+1E9C or U+1E9D [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.233|162.158.79.233]] 21:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

: It looks more like a forte ([https://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/1d191/index.htm U+1D191]). I'm not sure why that would be funny—maybe because of [[Wikipedia:fortepiano|fortepiano]]s? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.214|172.69.69.214]] 21:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
::My position comes from the fact that documents written by this generation (i.e. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s#/media/File:Long-s-US-Bill-of-Rights.jpg Declaration of Independance] and the US Constitution) are noted for having this letter form. The script form of the long s looks like what Randall has written, which, to your point, looks like a "forte" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.233|162.158.79.233]] 22:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
::: Actually, it quite clearly is '''not''' long s. Long s only has the tic on the left side of the main stroke, not on both sides as is the case here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.118|162.158.78.118]] 22:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
:::: I read it as an italic lower-case F, ''f'', as used to denote [https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Function_(mathematics) mathematical functions]. I think it looks more like one of those than a [https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Long_s long s], ſ, though I don't have an explanation for why that would be used to name a generation. [[User:Smylers|Smylers]] ([[User talk:Smylers|talk]]) 09:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hitler was born in 1889, about three years before the "Oops, one of us is Hitler" generation ... --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.240|141.101.105.240]] 21:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Can someone who's a big Trekkie than I am help explain the dates for ''Star Trek: The Next Generation''? If we're going off of the events of the show + movies, it seems to start well before the events of the show and end before the last of the movies. [[User:PvOberstein|PvOberstein]] ([[User talk:PvOberstein|talk]]) 21:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
:Year 2378 may be explained by last episode of Voyager happening that year, but no idea about year 2360. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
::Year 2360 is when the humans who became adults (18) in 2378 were born. This time-span is probably when the majority of human TNG characters would have been born (not necessarily notable ones). This is similar to how people born in 1982 became the first new adults in the new millenium. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.143|172.68.46.143]] 05:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Filled in most of the table with explanations (I'm pretty sure most of the latter generation names are references to potential transhumanist futures), but I'm not sure what "Second-Greatest" Generation refers to unless it's about the Civil War. Also, I'm not entirely certain whether the generation before the gilded one was cut a lot of slack. And I'll let someone more versed in standard sociological history fill in the common reasons for the core 20th century generations.[[User:WingedCat|WingedCat]] ([[User talk:WingedCat|talk]]) 22:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

;Paperclip machine
I think the paperclip machines refer to the browser game "Universal Paperclips", where paperclip machines take over the universe. [http://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/index2.html]. Best regards, [[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.10|172.68.110.10]] 11:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The incomplete explination tag seemed to be a useless joke, so I deleted it.

;Ω
Wow that’s a lot of speculation on the Ω generation! 177 words of it! Who knew people could imagine so much inspired by a single character (and no historical context to extrapolate from). Personally, I tend to think of it as the “resistance generation” given my electronic background 😜. [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 15:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is there an incomplete tag in the transcript? What's wrong with it? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.148|108.162.216.148]] 22:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)