explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1826: Birdwatching

2017-06-10T22:39:25Z

TheJonyMyster: eh

;Size error at release
This is a big one.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.41|108.162.246.41]] 04:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
:I wonder if the size is a technical error, or if I am missing some subtle joke. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.184|108.162.245.184]] 04:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
::I guess it's the latter. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.71|162.158.166.71]] 04:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the vacuum is a further joke about scale and distance playing on the absurdity of trying to vacuum from a range of one mile. I must say I don't really understand this comic very well.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.70|108.162.245.70]] 04:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure the size is an error, I've seen this happen briefly before. It's 1200 dpi, suitable for archival, printing, or just what comes off the scanner [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.107|108.162.246.107]] 09:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
:The size is intentional. it kinda freaked m out wen i saw it, though. i thought there was a problem with my phone! [[User:Will X|Will X]] ([[User talk:Will X|talk]]) 11:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
::I think the size is biting Randall in the rear. I'm getting all sorts of 503 gateway timeouts that appear to be from his Varnish web accelerator. The East coast is waking up and pounding his server... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.106|162.158.78.106]] 11:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks like they fixed the size. Maybe it wasn't intentional?
:I'm not sure, but maybe the size of the comic changes depending on the time? I mean, it does see like the size is smaller as of right now.(By the way, I'm not the guy on top that didn't sign his/her post.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.138.40|162.158.138.40]] 13:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
::It seems the error was fixed and it must be concluded that this was indeed an error. Or at least gave so much trouble that Randall regretted it... I have collected all comments on the size up here with a heading, to make it easier to read this and the rest of the comments. See the [[1826:_Birdwatching#Trivia|trivia section]]. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

----
If Cueball is using a camera to try and spot the bird, it seems like he is holding it far too close to his face. Binoculars are meant to be held up to one's eyes but the screen of a camera would seem blurry in one's vision if it were held that close to the eyes. Perhaps that contributes to Cueball's difficulty
in spotting the hawk.

I thought the vacuum was trying to drain the atmosphere to make it so that the birds can't fly as high.[[User:1I1III1|1I1III1]] ([[User talk:1I1III1|talk]]) 05:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
: That was my thought, too. (/edit: Honestly, to think of sucking the birds in I found being too absurd, while sucking the atmosphere seemed absolutely plausible - at least for an XKCD...) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
:: If only he had a vacuum the size of the one in Space Balls. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.162|173.245.50.162]] 15:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Are these the same birds from 1824? [[User:Codrus|Codrus]] ([[User talk:Codrus|talk]]) 06:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
:Probably not but these two comics are definitely related. Have mentioned it in the explanation. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey folks, am I the only one thinking that Cueball also holds the binoculars the wrong way around? Usually the small end is nearest to the eyes... That would for sure make birdwatching even MORE difficult. Regarding size, I think it is intentional.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.76|162.158.150.76]] 09:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
: Hey, that's a reflex camera, isn't it? Some camera geek can comment on birdwatching situation camera? That zoom seems much too small for the job, but I've got no real clue...--[[User:Blaisorblade|Blaisorblade]] ([[User talk:Blaisorblade|talk]]) 09:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
::The one from [[Superzoom]]! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
:: It looks more like a bridge camera. Reflex camera lenses are usually larger near the front glass element and narrower near the sensor. This one looks like it's designed to collapse back into the camera. I agree it could be a superzoom, or the one from [[Superzoom]]. Those give lots of magnification for cheap at the expense of image quality, so their popular among first time birdwatcher.

I would take issue with the use of the word "confused" in the transcript. perhaps "blankly" would be more descriptive. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.18|141.101.107.18]] 12:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
:Transcript is for as little explanation as possible. Have removed the word. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is Megan wearing a knit cap? Does Randall's wife have cancer again? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.89|162.158.79.89]] 16:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
:I don't think that's Megan. The transcript names that character as "Beanie-Man." [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.238|162.158.78.238]]
::The transcript is made by us users, and in most other comics with knit caps that is the name used and so this has been corrected in the explanation and transcript. There are no longer any official [[Transcript on xkcd]]. Here is where it [https://xkcd.com/1826/info.0.json should have been for this comic]. It looks like a guy to me, but there has been several characters with a knit cap, see the link in the explanation to the largest knit cap comic, where there is a collection of other knit cap comics. It is definitely not Megan. And I sure hope that there is not more cancer for Randall and his wife. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

My first thought is than a successful birdwatcher requires patience, which is something that Cueball does not appear to have. You also want to avoid to making noise, so Cueball talking will probably make the bird stay at a distance, and the ShopVac would be even more discouragement for the hawk. There are other issues. I would guess that the camera is a 200 to 300 millimeter lens. If you wanted to get a good picture of a bird with that type of camera, you would have to get closer to the nest and wait very patiently for the bird to get closer. (Patiently for several hours or even days. That doesn't seem like Cueball.) Many methods are available, but they are a lot of work. You also don't try to find the bird using the camera. You try to find the bird without using telescopes or binoculars and then only use the viewing aids once you find the general location of the bird. Megan is presumably satisfied with the fact that the bird probably only fills a portion of the viewport, while Cueball is expecting a picture of the bird where you can count the feathers. So Cueball has unreasonable expectations, is unwilling to wait, and is doing just about everything wrong. He then complains about his lack of success. Cueball's next attempt might be to use a camera mounted on a drone. A lot of people have tried though, although the last image captured is often a close up view of the beak filling the entire screen. [[User:BradleyRoss|BradleyRoss]] ([[User talk:BradleyRoss|talk]]) 18:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

:Seriously? I though drones are so noisy birds avoid them ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Am I the only one who is reminded of DR and Quinch at summer camp - "What kind of bird is that? (Boom) it's a dead bird uncle Waldo."

----

Okay, I think I have an interpretation that is not accounted for by anything currently in the article or the comments. A vacuum with a screen is what is used to catch little bugs that may be too small for you to spot in the grass. I think it's a weird play on perspective, like in [[1522: Astronomy]], such that cueball thinks that using the vacuum will help him catch and observe the hawks too. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.190|162.158.78.190]] 22:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
:People vacuum lawns? [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 00:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
:: Oh, no. I should have been clearer earlier. People who study and observe insects do this to catch them. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.161|162.158.79.161]] 23:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
:: I often vacuumed the lawn so to speak. To get rid of all the leaves. Of course I did use a device specifically made for that purpose and not a vacuum cleaner ;) We call them "Laubsauger" in Germany. Best (literal) translation would be "Leaves vacuum" or something like that. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
:Yes, I think you are definitely onto something here. The shopvac is an improvised version of the vacuum bugcatcher, and the joke is that instead of catching small insects very close at hand, Cueball thinks this is going to be an 'easy way' to collect birds from a mile up.

:Here are a few photos of the vacuum style insect collector in action. Most are based more on the leafblower model than a shop vac, but the general idea is clearly the same:

:* [http://biostor.org/reference/76824/page/3 An Inexpensive Vacuum Collector For Insect Sampling]
:* [https://ucanr.edu/repositoryfiles/ca1401p9-67123.pdf Vacuum cleaner principle applied in Sampling Insect Populations ]
:* [http://www.rinconvitova.com/d-vac.htm D-Vac Vacuum Insect Sampling Equipment]
:* [http://www.rinconvitova.com/history.htm An Improved Backpack Motor Fan for Suction Sampling of Insect Populations]
:* [http://media.nola.com/environment/photo/xuanchen1jpg-fca88349bf05fe83.jpg LSU doctoral entomology student Xuan Chen, right, and former student Max Adams use a vacuum collector to capture insects in a Louisiana marsh.]

: [[User:Flug|Flug]] ([[User talk:Flug|talk]]) 17:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
At first when I was looking at this, I thought he was holding a pair of binoculars like Megan (or whatever new character this is supposed to be), and that he was just looking at them through the wrong end. Then I saw all of this "superzoom" stuff and then I saw that he was holding a camera instead. Whoops. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|'''JayRules''XKCD''' ]]<sup>[[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|what's up?]]</sup> 19:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

; why is this page marked as incomplete

literally the joke is just cueball cant seem to get a picture of the birds because they are too far away so he decides hes going to use a vacuum to try and pull the birds closer. what more is there to explain [[User:TheJonyMyster|TheJonyMyster]] ([[User talk:TheJonyMyster|talk]]) 22:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1090: Formal Languages

2017-06-10T21:46:33Z

TheJonyMyster: eh

;Where to dicuss (moved from article body)
Maybe the word "Grammar" is just supposed to sound like "Ta-Da" (as in the fanfare sound made in circuses). Which - as odd as this is going to sound - is somewhat similar to how grammar is used in formal languages.

Is it possible that the word crash is some sort of play on the computer term 'crash'? I know that formal linguistics is important to computer science... Just throwing that out there.

You know, either:

a) I'm REALLY dumb (98% probability) and I simply can't find the comments on this comic (or any other for that matter now "it's come to this" (the Wiki). Or...

b) (2% probablity) nobody else has managed to work out how to comment yet either. Is this the way to do it? (seems logical) or is option a) corect? In which case, can someone give me a Noddy's Guide to how to find the comments and add them, please?
(Obviously kindly delete this if option a) is indeed correct!) Steve B. -- ''The explaination is up now. Basically it's a big play on the words 'context free grammar' ''

If only there were some sort of Discussion page where comics could be discussed. There could be a convenient link at the top of the page right next to a link back to the comic page itself. Maybe it could be colored red to stand out from the rest of the page. ''-- It's a blue button next to "Prev"''

;Formal Language
Because the conference heading implies it is about formal programming languages.
Grammar is about the correct for of language and it's formality and rules (which I break all the time).
It's a pun.

[[Special:Contributions/202.167.15.165|202.167.15.165]] 06:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)beany
:Formal language is a much broader concept than just programming languages. [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 15:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

;Formal Language
I'm thinking the page needs a brief description of what a "formal language" is. I linked to the wikipedia article on formal languages, but we should probably add a summary relevant to the comic here. --[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 10:39, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

^
|
'''"Formal languages"''' in a formal language, is '''"Formal languages"'''.

;Norvig vs. Chomsky
It may be related to this news: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/06/norvig-vs-chomsky-and-the-fight-for-the-future-of-ai

;Grammar vs Language
The pun seems clearly to be related to the difference between a formal language and a formal grammar. A language X is the set of all it's valid statements. On the other hand, a grammar for a language X is a description that can be used produce every single valid statement in the language X, even if it's a language with infinite valid statements. So him shouting "''GRAMMAR''" in a formal ''languages'' forum is most likely meant to be as if he said in a shorthand way everything there was to be said about (the) language. {{unsigned ip|108.162.212.51}}

Someone please fix the explanation, I cant because A) I know nothing about this and B) As my age is every time I try to learn this I fall asleep.[[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 04:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

;Why do we need to define context-free grammar?

cant you just say that its a thing that exists and be done with it? it certainly doesnt add to the joke to know the definition
[[User:TheJonyMyster|TheJonyMyster]] ([[User talk:TheJonyMyster|talk]]) 21:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1520: Degree-Off

2015-05-05T00:25:58Z

TheJonyMyster: said "moved the most important comment to the top" and then moved the most important comment to the top.

Isn't this the debut of the dark hair-bun girl? Is this trivia section worthy? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.88|173.245.50.88]] 22:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)BK201

I assume "''Your'' field gathered in the desert to create a new one." refers to the Manhattan Project? {{unsigned ip|173.245.50.74}}
:Yes [[User:Jachra|Jachra]] ([[User talk:Jachra|talk]]) 06:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Chem wants absolutely no part of this conversation. [[User:Jachra|Jachra]] ([[User talk:Jachra|talk]]) 06:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are: Conquest, War, Famine, and Death. Is she claiming that her heros have conquered death? [[User:Capncanuck|Capncanuck]] ([[User talk:Capncanuck|talk]]) 06:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
: Yeah I didn't get that either. The description as it stands now seems to be implying one of the four horsemen is pestilence, but that's not what my Google search turned up… --[[User:Zagorath|Zagorath]] ([[User talk:Zagorath|talk]]) 15:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::Pestilence [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.176|173.245.56.176]] 07:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:::In Terry Pratchett's book the fourth horsemen is Pestilence. See also {{w|Four_Horsemen_of_the_Apocalypse#As_infectious_disease|Pestilence}}. It was new to me that it was originally Conquest instead of Pestilence which can be read on wiki: {{w|Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse}}. Since Randall is a big fan of Terry Pratchett it is very likely that he refers to "his" version of the four Horsemen. (It is not Terry's invention, but he made it popular amongst people like Randall). As I disagree with the Death version of the title text, I'm not sure that Terry is directly refereed to in this comic, but I'm sure the Bilologist refers to them killing of pestilence (or plauge). --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::There are no humanities on stage, so I think bio can get away with this one.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.23|108.162.218.23]] 17:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
::::Maybe it referred to famine. Though that'd be a bit odd. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 19:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

also a possible reference to: https://xkcd.com/435/ ? {{unsigned ip|141.101.75.101}}

The stamp collecting quote is from Ernest Rutherford, not Richard Feynman. {{unsigned ip|141.101.70.43}}

1052 also compares degrees --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.12|141.101.104.12]] 08:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

My assumption was that Cueball was giving a long and possibly rambling talk about physics starting with an anecdote about Feynman and ending with one about Rutherford. I didn't consider the quote to be wrongly attributed therefore. {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.71}}

Please be aware that the proper way to link to wikipedia is to use [[Template:w]].--{{User:17jiangz1/signature|10:01, 04 May 2015}}

This may be Randall's indirect way of saying what he thinks of the anti-vaxxers. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 10:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Does the "killing Pestilence" thing also refer to ''Good Omens'' (co-authored by Pratchett), where Pestilence retired in 1936 "mumbling something about penicillin"? Homusubi

Isn't the comment about vaccines kinda reaching? I don't really see any evidence, even implied, that this comic is referencing the anti-vaccine movement in any way. --[[User:Zagorath|Zagorath]] ([[User talk:Zagorath|talk]]) 13:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:I agree that the anti-vaxer comments are out of place. I don't think they should be included as part of the explanation. [[User:Bmmarti3|Bmmarti3]] ([[User talk:Bmmarti3|talk]])

Isn't the biologist talking in the title text? And isn't biology considered a squishy science? I think the title is directed at the physicist, telling him to get harder skin because he's so easily hurt emotionally. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|Yourlifeisalie]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 14:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I rather doubt that the CAPS in the title text are referring to Pratchett's figure DEATH. In my opinion, the talking-in-CAPS is just meant to infer (further) SHOUTING on the part of the biologist, since she is shouting in the last panel as well. There is no indication whatsoever that the title text should be spoken by anyone other than the biologist herself.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.180|141.101.104.180]] 14:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)thd

Do chemistry and physics represent a helium atom with biology as the nucleus? It would also explain her hair. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 15:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
:I don't see any reason for it to make any sense. It is quite a long shot to think so. However, what explains her hair? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.88|173.245.50.88]] 17:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)BK201

Might there also be a reference to https://xkcd.com/520/, praising biology just in case. [[User:Tzwenn|Tzwenn]] ([[User talk:Tzwenn|talk]]) 15:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the giant bump in infectious diseases around 1925? It seems like it must have been a mayor effect, but I don't know how to google for it.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.99|141.101.104.99]] 17:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

:The planet-wide superflu of 1919, which happened because millions decided to go to Europe, camp in filthy trenches for months and then decided to all go back home simultaneously for some reason.

::Actually, it happened for other reasons, and it was mostly in 1918. Many people arrived at that camp bringing the superflu with them, actually, and the drop-off happened around when the bulk of them went home. Most of the fatalities may actually have been due to cytokine storms, AKA your immune system deciding that you ought to die horribly and now. What you ''actually'' got at the camp is the discovery that, if your feet are continuously wet for sufficiently long periods of time, they'll rot. That said, infectious diseases are on their way back, because antibiotic resistance is going up. There's already a confirmed case of TB resistant to all current antibiotics, and truly new ones becoming less and less frequent. (Most of the obvious routes we've exploited and adaptation is destroying, and many of the remaining obvious routes are insufficiently easy to distinguish from chemical warfare.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.182|108.162.237.182]] 22:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

moved the most important comment to the top. [[User:TheJonyMyster|TheJonyMyster]] ([[User talk:TheJonyMyster|talk]]) 00:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1489: Fundamental Forces

2015-02-26T03:57:08Z

TheJonyMyster: a comment, again

«The off-panel audience, probably a student or class, is interested, but quickly begins to realize Cueball's lack of understanding. Instead of acknowledging the problem directly, Cueball simply blusters onwards.»

My interpretation is rather different. It looks like Cueball is a physicist who knows that the distinction of "four fundamental forces" is basically wrong/obsolete (the term "force" is not even used anymore in theoretical physics), but since his audience are high school students, he can't go into the many complex details underlying the fundamental interactions, and therefore is forced to gloss over it. This is confirmed by the title text (if Cueball didn't understand the theory of fundamental interactions, he wouldn't give that answer). --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.101.78|188.114.101.78]] 10:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

To me it appeared as a typical exam situation for Cueball with '''him''' being the pupil. And ironically that situation looks similar to the real scientific understanding of the topic. [[User:Renormalist|Renormalist]] ([[User talk:Renormalist|talk]]) 11:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
: I could see that, to an extent - it doesn't jive with the title text IMO, and it's less funny that a student would be glossing over this stuff than a someone in an instructive role, but I could see it -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 11:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Irony like this is not uncommon in physics. What was the first encounter with electric phenomena? Triboelectricity. What don't we understand at all? Right. Or take Zenos paradoxon. Or the divisibility paradoxon. The oldest nuts tend to be the toughest. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.230.221|108.162.230.221]] 12:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

:Those paradoxes are perfectly explained through calculus. Zeno's requires only algebra. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.100|108.162.219.100]] 06:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

:I'm not sure about ''the'' first one, but one of first electromagnetic phenomenons we encountered was light. We first observed it about 200000 years ago. :P [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.77|141.101.104.77]] 13:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I knew from the title, "Fundamental Horses", that this was going to be a great one. {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.200}}

I prefer Chromatic Horse and Flavor Horse. Why use weak names when we have new strong ones? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.98|108.162.254.98]] 11:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In high school Physics, my class was taught that physicists had recently combined the Electromagnetic and Weak Nuclear forces into the Electro-Weak Force, so there were only three and if we were to find the Higgs Boson, there might be just two or one. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.11|108.162.241.11]] 21:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
:Actually, it is the Higgs Boson, that combines the electromagnetic and the weak nuclear interaction into the electroweak interaction, so it's still 3. But actually, even if electromagnetism and the weak interaction can be described in one theory, they are still viewed as two different phenomena, so it actually will always be 4. (Unless we discover other interactions). --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.192|141.101.105.192]] 22:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
:: Old timer physicists say the same thing about magnetism and electricity. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.64.35|141.101.64.35]] 16:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it just possible that Randall posted this forum to see how we here actually try to explain strong and weak forces? [[Special:Contributions/188.114.111.224|188.114.111.224]] 22:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

In the first panel, Cueball forgot to mention Einstein's field equations. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.77|108.162.254.77]] 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This comic and the ensuing discussion is more intriguing when the Chrome xkcd substitutions extension is turned on. Weak Horse, Strong Horse, Flavor Horse, Chromatic Horse... [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.194|199.27.128.194]] 01:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

couldnt the title text joke just be joking about how the professor doesnt know anything? like if hes just saying that from a quantum point of view that gravity is the hardest, then its not really a joke. the joke is its the only one he can describe easily, but then he says its the most difficult one. i think thats irony, but maybe not. but yeah thats just my tide whats yours.[[User:TheJonyMyster|TheJonyMyster]] ([[User talk:TheJonyMyster|talk]]) 03:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1491: Stories of the Past and Future

2015-02-25T22:55:58Z

TheJonyMyster: comment asking about the title text

http://xkcd.com/1491/large/ will take you to the large version, which the comic currently doesn't have a link to. I expect that will be fixed shortly. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.177|108.162.210.177]] 05:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:I just realized he has a text link for it in the top banner. I'd delete my comment, but that's rude on a wiki. Whatever. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.177|108.162.210.177]] 05:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The bottom diagonal seems to be mislabelled? Shouldn't it be "Stories written X years and set X years ago" instead of "set 2X years ago"?
--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.175|108.162.250.175]] 05:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:It is correct, if you see both relative from now. The middle line is written X years ago and set X years ago and thus contemporary. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 06:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
::Correct, but could be clearer. I thought it was a bug at first. 'Stories written X years ago and set X years before publication' [[User:Jbalcorn|Jbalcorn]] ([[User talk:Jbalcorn|talk]]) 16:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to open bug tickets, but Lest Darkness Fall actually takes place ~1500 years ago, not ~500. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.121|141.101.80.121]] 06:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
: I'll second that -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Kind of reminds of a Minkowski diagram. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 06:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

More and more science fiction works wander into the category obsolete science fiction, and more and more historical works are not recognisable as such by the average viewer as the movies have been filmed such a long time ago anyway. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 06:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a mistake with the large diagonal line. It says "Stories written X years ago and set 2X years ago." It should say, "... and set X years ago." Am I missing something here? [[User:Effy|Effy]] ([[User talk:Effy|talk]]) 09:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:Nevermind, I see now that the y-axis is date relative to publication, not absolute dates relative to today. My bad. [[User:Effy|Effy]] ([[User talk:Effy|talk]]) 09:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I may have missed it, but can't see {{w|Paris in the Twentieth Century}}, written in 1863, about 1960, but only published in 1994. Which would have been an interesting addition. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 10:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:In fact, I'm thinking it could have been represented as a (dotted?) ''diagonal'' arrowed line between "1960 in 1863"/future-trending and "1960 in 1994"/past-trending points. But never mind. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 10:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

... this is why experienced sci-fi writers don't date their stories. On the other hand, many sci-fi became obviously obsolete even without the date. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:I have experience with this. Back in 1995 I advised a prospective author-friend (prospective author; already and still a friend, surprisingly) on the latest computing matters to help a plot device in a "five minutes into the future" story. Even two years later, it sounded so dated and... naff. ('Luckily', it didn't sell too well anyway (bad choice of publishers), so my failure-as-futurologist - uncredited as it also fortunately was - wasn't so wildly known.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 13:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been trying and trying to figure out what the heck his point might be, as IMO there usually seems to be some point he's trying to make or way he's trying to be clever, beyond the interesting nature of the observation - and I think I might have seen one (though there is probably something else) - anyone notice that the area under the "Stories set in 2015" line is awfully bare? at least compared to the areas on either side of the 'x / 2x' line. that could simply be his particular selection of works(?) anyone have some ideas of things that might deserve to go in there that were not included? -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

:I think the point here is that there are a lot of books one hasn't read yet. I, for one, sought out ''Memoirs of the Twentieth Century'' and ''The Pillow Book'' after reading this strip. --[[User:Koveras|Koveras]] ([[User talk:Koveras|talk]]) 13:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

::He has done stuff like that before, right? Putting the age of some books and movies into perspective, to make the reader feel old. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.151|173.245.53.151]] 15:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As for writing a transcript or explanation, concerning order, I would think it would make some sense to flatten it on one axis (probably the y-axis, starting from Star Wars?) or if it is practical enough, the best might be some sort of "radial"(?) axis (is that a thing?), where the axis would be anchored at "this chart", and swing like a radar beam around from the bottom (Downton Abbey, Mad Men, and Star Wars, up through the 'x / 2x' line, through the 'contemporary' line and then the 'set in 2015' line, to finish with '3001', possibly making a small attempt to keep related works (like Star Wars) together in the listing. Any comments? -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:Whatever the fixation, I started work on something, but other people will get there before me. So here's my ideas. Five columns: "Story (and format description/author?)", "First Published/Premiered", "Date offset(s)", "Featured date(s)" and "Notes", with sorting on each potentially numerical one (although ranges/freetext/vagueness may play havoc with such sorting, by past experience).
:I already have a complete list of listed titles (in case anyone needs it), though maybe not error-free and not yet been ordered other than by "input order".
...excised by original author...
:(Do cut that out of this Talk Page when no longer necessary!)
:What I've so far put together (but not yet checked my link formats or WikiTabled) is...
...excised by original author...
:...but I'm probably duplicating someone else's efforts so by the time I get back to it you'll have a complete and better version online. FYI if you're determined to build on this while I'm absent, however. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 14:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a log-log graph, but with abrupt changes in scale along one axis yielding cusps in the "still possible / obsolete" line. Is there a name for that? -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.169|108.162.210.169]] 14:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:Hello, me again. I'd also played with a 'transcript description' part. Use (or don't, or ''correct'' and then use) what I was writing, if you want. I'm taking the liberty of deleting my prior inserts while I'm here, to avoid the clutter.
X-axis represents "date of publication" of a work and is irregularly split into 1000s (3000BCE to 1000CE) and then decreasing periods of time until 1955, at which point it becomes every five years up to the present day (2015) and one devision of possibly five years into the future (the upcoming "third Star Wars Trilogy" is indicated by an arrow as lying on-or-beyond 'now', with Episode 7 itself due out not long after the comic date).
Y-axis represents "years ahead/behind publication date in which a story is set" with the 'zero axis' being "set at the time of publication. "Years in the future" spreads above, by decades until "30 years" then in a metalogarithmic manner through various orders of ten to top-out at 1 billion years. The "Years in the past" scale, below this, extends by five years down to 60 years and then similarly quickly speeds through to 1 billion years in the past, and the time of the Big Bang as lowest limit.
Above the 'here and now', a region is shaded within a line to represent the border between future settings that should have happened by this date, and below we find a similar shading/line that represents set twice as long ago as was written. Both lines continue into "2015+" territory in a manner similar to a "light cone".
:...ok? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 15:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I created a basic table using 141.101.98.192's data - bits corrected. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm in the process of writing a transcript myself. Mine is not formatted as a table; I am under the impression that this is the preferred approach to transcripts on this site. However, the existing table would be ''perfect'' in another section, where we can give more detail than a true transcript can/should provide (e.g. "this is a book written by X, here's the wikilink", "this is an error, it should be X", etc.) -- [[User:Peregrine|Peregrine]] ([[User talk:Peregrine|talk]]) 14:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:Meh, I created the table as a starting point. If people want to use it and add to it, great. If something better is created, that's fine too. :) [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 15:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
::I've moved the table to its own section and put in my more minimalistic, list-style transcript (based on what I found in other "large drawing" articles. I have only included dates in the transcript as an indication of the coordinates at which each item is located (and I found several that seem misplaced vertically, perhaps to accommodate other labels, e.g. ''Next Generation''). Also, it isn't finished; everything's listed, in (more or less) the right order, but the last bunch don't have their dates/coordinates. I got as far as ''Les Mis'' before stopping. -- [[User:Peregrine|Peregrine]] ([[User talk:Peregrine|talk]]) 15:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Looks good Peregrine! I like it. =8o) [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 17:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure of the protocol here, but the trivia section currently states that "Rip Van Winkel" is a misspelling of "Rip Van Winkle." The use of Winkel in the comic can be correct. (http://i.imgur.com/Z0adeEJ.jpg) The transcription also lists "Rip Can Winkel [sic]" but the comic actually uses "Rip Van Winkel." {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.181}}

This Comic seems to follow the tradition of [[647: Scary]], [[891: Movie Ages]], [[973: MTV Generation]], [[1393: Timeghost]], and [[1477: Star Wars]]. Making people feel old. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.151|173.245.53.151]] 16:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems like it might have been useful to include some kind of indication of related subject matter from the upper left to the lower right in the "Stories set in the past" section. Mostly looking at the WW II related works. (Bridge/Kwai, Catch-22, Patton, Schindler, Ryan, Pearl Harbor) all seem to make a pretty straight line. Similarly, seeing that relationship between Apocalypse Now and Platoon. Finally, calling the earlier WW II era works 'former period pieces' seems odd. I think I'd still understand which parts were supposed to sound old in those (or maybe it's just that I am old). [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.215|199.27.128.215]] 18:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

did nobody see 2001 or was the title text forgotten about? i didnt see 2001 so i cant explain the joke. im pretty sure its just a joke about how it sounds similar, but i dont want to add that explanation if its wrong.[[User:TheJonyMyster|TheJonyMyster]] ([[User talk:TheJonyMyster|talk]]) 22:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

User talk:TheJonyMyster

2015-02-20T03:11:17Z

TheJonyMyster: ~~~~

u now hav 200 viroses on your computotron..!!!
hee hee.
i have desotoryed youre comnputre with virons alone,.. there is no espacing the madnets[[User:TheJonyMyster|TheJonyMyster]] ([[User talk:TheJonyMyster|talk]]) 03:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:TheJonyMyster

2015-02-20T03:10:10Z

TheJonyMyster:

hi click [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/User:TheJonyMyster here] for more information

User:TheJonyMyster

2015-02-20T03:09:11Z

TheJonyMyster: Created page with "hi"

Talk:903: Extended Mind

2015-02-20T03:07:51Z

TheJonyMyster: its a comment

Title text is true - unless you happen to stumble upon any one of: {{w|Fact}}, {{w|Proof (truth)}}, {{w|Evidence}}, or {{w|Truth}}. Then you'll be stranded in an eternal loop.
:What do you mean? {{w|Fact}} works fine, you get there in 7 steps. Proof gets you there in 6 - you go to {{w|Necessity and Sufficiency}} not {{w|Evidence}}. Same for {{w|Evidence}}. {{w|Truth}} leads you to {{w|Fact}}. So all of your examples actually work.
--[[User:T0IVI|T0IVI]] ([[User talk:T0IVI|talk]]) 09:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:Also, I add another rule to my wikiwalks: No purple links. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.101|108.162.218.101]] 21:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
:'''Logic''' leads you to '''reason''', which leads you to '''consciousness''', which leads you to '''quality''', which leads you to '''propery''', which takes you back to logic.
[[User:Mulan15262|Mulan15262]] ([[User talk:Mulan15262|talk]]) 23:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[[User:Mulan15262|Mulan15262]]

Yeah, I hit a loop on the page Community. Went right from National community to Community again. {{unsigned|69.91.105.111}}

These infinite loops seem to be 'fixed', I went through fact and other stuff right to philosophy.{{unsigned|141.35.48.11}}

Another loop is "England". It goes right to "Countries of the United Kingdom" which returns immediately to England.

Finally we all end up in {{w|Reality}}. [[Special:Contributions/85.178.28.173|85.178.28.173]] 21:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I do have to say that the best loop that doesn't feed to Philosophy is {{w|Sand Fence}} and {{w|Snow Fence}}. The first sentence of each article is identical except for switching the instances of sand and snow. --[[Special:Contributions/68.97.21.122|68.97.21.122]] 05:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

:actually sand fence leads to fence, which leads eventually to fortification, military, lethal force, human being, and that obviously that leads up to philosophy. what made you think that a fence would let you escape this trap that is philosophy.[[User:TheJonyMyster|TheJonyMyster]] ([[User talk:TheJonyMyster|talk]]) 03:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Saying that everything ends up in "philosophy" is simply choosing from a long list of possible entries to suit an argument. I found it much more interesting, having gotten to philosophy, to keep going through the loop, then to see where certain pages drop you into said loop. The loop currenty is reality, existence, world, human, hominini, tribe, biology, natural science, sciences, knowledge, fact, proof, necessity and sufficiency, logic, reason, consciousness, quality (philosophy), property (philosophy), modern philosophy, then finally philosophy. It's as if we've stumbled upon a new classification of knowledge. If only we could look recursively at ALL the things that lead into a certain topic in the loop. For example, goat drops you into the loop at biology, which makes perfect sense, but Volvo drops you in at natural sciences from a very convoluted path which includes physics, time, dimension, list of time periods, and scandinavia. In other words, it's the journey not the destination that I find interesting. - naginalf [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.40|108.162.216.40]] 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Randall is either mistaken or intentionally misinformative (or rather, politically correct) in his IQ estimates. What's a car hyperbole aside, the cluelessness, sentence length, and spelling of the outage-messages remind of a person in their low 90s-high 80s, if not lower, and Randall is clearly more than 120, (conservative) average for physics majors as it might be. [[Special:Contributions/178.42.101.38|178.42.101.38]] 20:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

;What can we learn?
I've learned that memorizing facts is so yesteryear. Over next few years facts will be even easier to find, understand, use, reference and forget. When in school we should concentrate not on memorizing facts we can look up later, but rather new methods to think outside the box full of facts others placed inside it. (Thank you Mr. XKCD) - [[User:E-inspired|E-inspired]] ([[User talk:E-inspired|talk]]) 13:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
: That is true, but the overhead for looking something up versus remembering it is usually great enough that memorizing some things (multiplication tables come to mind) can increase the speed we can arrive at conclusions, or can give us other options (correlation between spark plug gapping and engine performance) that might not have come to mind otherwise. Outside of that, even though we forget much of it, having a vague sense of things (dates, locations/countries, etc) allow us to start out knowing at least something (order of things that occurred, Egypt being in Africa, Pythagorean theorem). This is just my opinion, and I may be biased, since I like facts. [[User:Tryc|Tryc]] ([[User talk:Tryc|talk]]) 13:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You can't teach everyone to think outside the box, that would spoil my advantage over the common man. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 03:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikiloop: (noun) A loop that results in wikipedia articles from clicking the first link not in brackets or italics over and over again.
Here is the most commonly encountered wikiloop. (Reality is also the first link in Philosophy) --[[User:ParadoX|ParadoX]] ([[User talk:ParadoX|talk]]) 09:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Reality
Existence
World
Human
Primate
Mammal
Clade
Tree of life (biology)
Metaphor
Figure of speech
Word
Linguistics
Science
Knowledge
Fact
Reality
...
:I just tried and today the article ''Humans'' have been changed so the first word is no longer primate but Hominini. And from there you can get back to Philosophy. So you still enter a loop (of 24 steps) from when you start from Philosophy, but you end up back at Philosophy, so the rule now also applies to Philosophy. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
:The route is:
:Starting point:
:''Philosophy''
#Reality
#Existence
#World
#Human
#'''Hominini'''
#Tribe (biology)
#Biology
#Natural science
#Science
#Knowledge
#Fact
#Experience
#Experiment
#Hypothesis
#Explanation
#Set (mathematics)
#Mathematics
#Quantity
#Property (philosophy)
#Logic
#Reason
#Consciousness
#Quality (philosophy)
#''Philosophy''

:Just tried the philosophy test from {{w|The Lion King}} movie, (20 years anniversary - [[891: Movie Ages |it makes you feel old]]) and it of course also worked from there ;-) [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

;wikipedia outages

There was a major outage in 2005 when a power failure hit their database servers http://cyberbrahma.com/power-corrupts-power-failure-corrupts-absolutely/. I also remember countless minor outages over the years (though not recently). -- plugwash
:And just after I wrote the above wikipedia went down....... -- plugwash {{unsigned}}

::Yeah, a link like {{w|Sand Fence}} should be work like {{w|Sand fence}}, but it doesn't right now. So some outages for the "Extended Mind"... --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 00:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)