https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=108.162.212.173&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T11:56:02ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2269:_Phylogenetic_Tree&diff=187382Talk:2269: Phylogenetic Tree2020-02-17T14:02:00Z<p>108.162.212.173: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Because of timezones this comic was released on Sunday in some areas [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.228|172.69.34.228]] 07:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)<br />
:Well, it's always either that or Tuesday in some areas, right? However, yes, this again was up quite early. But the exact upload times seem to fluctuate heavily all the time. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 07:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't know much about basketball (only heard about march Madness here/xkcd and on HIMYM before), but where is Gonzaga coming from? shouldn't it be either UVA, Kansas or FSU? or is it a different name for one of those 3 teams? Also: Do we need a march madness category? maybe as a subcategory of bracket tournaments? It seems to be quite reocurring. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 07:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Could someone explain what a "March Madness Bracket" is? It appears to be something to do with American college basketball, but why does it have the same structure as a phylogenetic tree? What does the word 'Bracket' mean here? {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.148|07:48, 17 February 2020}}<br />
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracket_(tournament) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.82|162.158.214.82]] 07:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)<br />
:Seconded. The explanation as it stands assumes that the reader is from the USA and understands American sports. Neither of these is true for me. Can we please have concise one-line explanations of:<br />
* what sport?<br />
* what teams?<br />
* what a bracket is?<br />
* what tournament this refers to?<br />
I was a biologist; the science part is clear to me. It needs an explanation akin to that about phylogeny, for non-sports-followers and non-US-sports followers. [[User:Lproven|Lproven]] ([[User talk:Lproven|talk]]) 09:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)<br />
:: Getting better! Terms now undefined: "NCAA", "ABA", "NBA", "Division 1", "single elimination", "bracket pool", "college basketball". [[User:Lproven|Lproven]] ([[User talk:Lproven|talk]]) 11:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)<br />
::: NCAA = National Collegiate Athletic Association, but it doesn't cover all colleges -- just the bigger ones. NBA national Basketball Association, the (main?) pro basketball grouping of mens' teams (as opposed to the WNBA). ABA is _probably_ the American Basketball Association, of which I know nothing (but guessing by analogy with NBC/ABC television networks; National/American Broadcasting Company. And college basketball is, well, basketball played by college teams. For the rest of it, I'm out of my league.<br />
:::: From what I understand, the NCAA categorize teams into divisions, with Division 1 being the highest. "Single elimination" is a type of tournament bracket where once you lose a match, you're done. A bracket pool is where people get together and each makes a prediction of the bracket. Whoever is closest to what actually happened wins. The ABA is the American Basketball Association.<br />
<br />
The three prominent "Duke"s in the center of the chart, made me look for the logical continuation "of Earl." I didn't see it... :(<br />
<br />
* Likewise. Also, duck fuke.</div>108.162.212.173https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2249:_I_Love_the_20s&diff=1853352249: I Love the 20s2020-01-02T01:16:16Z<p>108.162.212.173: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2249<br />
| date = January 1, 2020<br />
| title = I Love the 20s<br />
| image = i love the 20s.png<br />
| titletext = Billboard's "Best of the 80s" chart includes Blondie's 1980 hit "Call Me." QED.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a PEDANT. Explain title text.}}<br />
This comic was released on the first day of {{w|2020}}. [[Megan]], [[Cueball]], and [[Ponytail]] are all happy for the beginning of the new {{w|decade}}, for a variety of reasons. However, [[White Hat]] disagrees, claiming that the "20s" don't start until 2021, citing that {{w|Century|centuries}} are "off-by-one" (for instance, the {{w|20th century}} lasted from 1901 through 2000) and attempting to draw something, presumably a number line that starts with "Year 1" as the Anno Domini / Common Era years do. Ponytail's argument is that, while centuries are numbered ordinally (see trivia), decades are more commonly delimited by the tens digit. For example, the {{w|Roaring Twenties}} are the years whose three most significant digits are 192, running from 1920 through 1929 (sometimes said to end slightly before the end of 1929, with the onset of the {{w|Great Depression}} in October 1929). Nobody{{Citation needed}} refers to this time as "the 193rd decade", which would run from 1921 through 1930.<br />
<br />
Megan breaks up their heated argument by stating that {{w|MC Hammer}}'s song ''{{w|U Can't Touch This}}'', released in 1990, was featured in a 1990s-themed television show instead of its 1980s-themed counterpart.<br />
<br />
{{w|VH1}} is the parent company of MTV, a cable TV channel known for grouping music by decades.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
Traditionally, the First Century starts in year 1 and ends in the year 100, the Second Century starts in the year 101 and runs through the year 200, and so on, because {{w|Zero-based numbering|zero indexing}}, like the number zero itself, was not in wide use at the time; however, due to an error by {{w|Dionysius Exiguus}}, the year 1 was after the death of {{w|Herod the Great}}, so Jesus could not have been born in that year, and was probably born either in 4 B.C. or 6 B.C., so the first, second, etc., century after his birth would actually end in the mid '90's<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript}}<br />
<br />
:[Megan, Cueball, White Hat, and Ponytail stand in frame.]<br />
:Megan: Happy new decade!<br />
:Ponytail: Welcome to the '20s!<br />
:White Hat: ''Actually—''<br />
:Ponytail: I'm excited we can name decades again. <br />
:Ponytail: "Aughts" and "teens" never caught on.<br />
<br />
:White Hat [raising a finger]: Actually, the new decade doesn't start--<br />
:Ponytail: Mostly, I'm just glad we can go back to attributing cultural trends to decades instead of generations.<br />
<br />
:Cueball: Yeah.<br />
:Cueball: Decades were silly, but making everything about "millennials" turned out to be even worse.<br />
:Ponytail: Seriously.<br />
<br />
:[The panel zomms in, displaying only White Hat and Ponytail.]<br />
:White Hat: It's technically not a new decade until 2021.<br />
:Ponytail: OK, listen.<br />
:Ponytail: If you're going to be pedantic, you should at least be right.<br />
:White Hat: I ''am'' right!<br />
:Ponytail: You're ''not''.<br />
<br />
:[White Hat and Ponytail gesture towards each other.]<br />
:White Hat: See, the 20th century didn't start until--<br />
:Ponytail: But decades aren't centuries. They're not cardinally numbered.<br />
:White Hat: You don't get it. Let me draw a--<br />
:Ponytail: No, ''you'' don't--<br />
:Megan (off-panel): Stop!<br />
<br />
:[All four characters are displayed again. Megan has raised a finger.]<br />
:Megan: I can resolve this.<br />
:Megan: *ahem*<br />
:Megan: MC Hammer's ''U Can't Touch This'' (1990) was featured in ''I Love the '90s'', not '''80s''.<br />
:Ponytail: ...That settles that.<br />
:White Hat: Yeah, I accept VH1's authority.<br />
:White Hat: You win.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<!-- Include any categories below this line. --><br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]</div>108.162.212.173https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:603:_Idiocracy&diff=184552Talk:603: Idiocracy2019-12-12T18:39:19Z<p>108.162.212.173: </p>
<hr />
<div>This explanation seems to be incorrect. The key point was that White Hat actually was wrong! The average education has gone up, and the average IQ ''cannot'' sink! By allowing Cueball to agree with clearly false laments, he baits him into revealing his stupidity. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 19:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
:The title text pretty much spells out that, in Randall's mind, White Hat is correct. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.66|199.27.128.66]] 06:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I propose that the hatted figure is not in fact [[White_Hat|White Hat]], as neither the hat shape nor the personality are consistent with other appearances. ([[:Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]) The real White Hat, when he speaks, is generally a bit of a wet blanket or well-meaning buffoon. This one, whom I'll dub [[White_Derby|White Derby]], is speaking counter-buffoonery, what we may reasonably guess to be the actual thoughts of the author. Usually Cueball fills this role (eg [[258:_Conspiracy_Theories]]), and in fact if the roles here were reversed I'd tend to ignore the misshapen hat. But two and two, together, well... --[[Special:Contributions/66.114.70.139|66.114.70.139]] 18:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Eh. He hasn't appeared in any other strips, and it's not too harmful to put him under the umbrella of the real White Hat. I see your point; White Hat is no longer a generic character like [[Hairy]], but an actual recurring one.<br />
:Also, have Black Hat and White Hat ever appeared in the same comic? (Click and Drag doesn't count.) [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 09:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
::White Hat is not this Safari Hat guy and this has been corrected recently. Also recently in [[1708: Dehydration]] White and Black Hat appears together and Black Hat actually reacts in a discussion White Hat has begun. See more under the explanation for [[:Category:Characters with Hats|Characters with Hats]]. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So, does this page qualify for Complete now? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.66|199.27.128.66]] 05:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sorry Randall. You're wrong here. IQ can change. Just because there is a mean for the IQ of the current population, doesn't mean that average can't shift over time. And if we used to be cavemen then either the IQ did shift, or we've always been this smart, which means we couldn't have evolved.<br />
<br />
In this case, IQ is exactly the same as morality. Both shift ever so slightly over time, such that the mean is always the acceptable "norm". You can't feel this shift unless you study it. The difference is that morality exhibits locality, so morality shifts slower or faster depending on the subsection of society. Thus you have people who believe they are more right than others, but no one believes they are outright wrong (as a culture). Proof in the pudding is doing a poll on the population as to how smart they think they are. They always rate themselves such that the mean is shifted 1 or 2 deviations up. Same thing with morality. People all espouse a morality that they think is 1 or 2 deviations greater than the standard, whether they are a religious sect or secularists.<br />
<br />
But the short of it, a population mean doesn't imply the mean never changes.[[User:Cflare|Cflare]] ([[User talk:Cflare|talk]]) 21:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:While IQ can change, the way you're explaining it is not the way the Cueball or "White Hat" is explaining it. In fact, "White Hat" never explicitly states that IQ doesn't evolve at all; just not to the depressing trend Cueball here thinks it does. Anonymous 23:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In fact average IQ cannot change. The average IQ of humanity is always 100, because that is the definition of the IQ scale.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.129|108.162.216.129]] 01:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"IQ" per se is simply what IQ tests measure. There's no law that says any specific test that purports to be the best measure of IQ is the gold standard. In the US and many (perhaps most) other English-speaking countries, the Wechsler and Stanford-Binet scales are the most popular. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale is the IQ test most commonly used (for adults) by neuropsychologists. It's re-normed every few years (e.g., WAIS-III becomes WAIS-IV, then WAIS-V, etc.). In "re-norming" each question is studied and perhaps refined, some are dropped, and new questions--sometimes entirely new subtests--are added. The method of calculating the IQ is often tweaked as well. Re-norming involves administering versions of the test to thousands of people and using statistics to determine the one to keep. Obviously the same pool of test-takers is not used every time in a process that goes on decade after decade. It's not unusual for test questions to become more difficult and what's considered to be an average score to be a bit higher in the new edition than in the old. This has been interpreted to mean that people are getting more intelligent, but that's not the only possible explanation. (Also, the test is not normed on "humanity" but on a tiny subset of earth's humans.) Oh, and your IQ is not a number carved in stone, so to speak, but a best-guess that falls within the range of scores you'd be expected to earn if (theoretically) you took the same test multiple times.[[User:Npsych|Npsych]] ([[User talk:Npsych|talk]]) 10:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If there is reason for climate change it is almost certainly due to the destruction of trees. Any ridiculous assertions about carbon dioxide can not be confirmed or denied and the political machinations about carbon dioxide stem from Margaret Thatcher's war on the coal miners in Britain.<br />
<br />
It would be a simple matter to replant forests. All we would have to do is pay for that in higher latitudes and send in drones to deal with illegal loggers in lower latitudes. 20 years or so should sort out most of the problems.<br />
<br />
[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 17:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I see what you did there... This is the bit where you go "Everything I just said was wrong" --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 17:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Elitism is an eminently more desirable trait than stupidity to breed into one's offspring. An elitist might be hated, but he will be *competent*; he will *accomplish things*, while a stupid person will harm themselves and others through their stupidity, often remaining well-liked in spite of being cancerous and toxic to everything nearby. Elitism is the bitter taste of medicine which will make you better; stupidity is the delicious candy to which you will become hopelessly addicted at a formative age, leading to a miserable lifetime of diabetes and an early death by heart failure. I only wish I intended to reproduce, so that I could practice what I preach on this regard. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.52|173.245.54.52]] 19:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Changed the text in the first paragraph because the movie never implied that people with lower IQ were more fertile, it clearly stated that they were more likely to reproduce due to lack of education, absence of planning, and general negligence with regards to the consequences of their actions. If you disagree with me on this, go watch the movie again. Or just the first few minutes which explains this in detail. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 05:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
So... what else does this explanation need to be considered complete? [[User:Edo|Edo]] ([[User talk:Edo|talk]]) 23:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The explanation of the Dunning-Kruger effect is incorrect, insofar as it tries to apply the effect to intelligence, and mention here may be off topic entirely. The Dunning-Kruger effect is refers to bias in self assessment relative to the norm of low-skilled people in a given field to high skilled people in the same field. Proficiency in a field is not intelligence, nor does the theory allow generalization to intelligent people generally versus those less intelligent generally, irrespective of field, and while there is probably evidence of a correlation between IQ and and proficiency within some collection of fields, the Dunning-Kruger effect would require much stronger evidence to generalize to intelligence for specific proficiency, specifically it would require evidence of a causal, not correlative, (from skill to IQ, and not the reverse) link, and evidence that such link exists not just in general or at average, but that such link occurs in any hypothetical, non-specified area if proficiency. The wiki article that is linked is technically correct but somewhat misleading in use of the term 'cognitive ability,' which is in some contexts used to refer to intelligence, but in context refers to the specific, non-IQ domained, mental practice of effective megacognition and self-assessment, as well as a type of social awareness regarding group standards of passable performance. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.100|162.158.142.100]] 22:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
https://www.newsweek.com/iq-scores-are-declining-and-researchers-point-school-media-973040[[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.28|172.69.69.28]] 15:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)<br />
:What's your point? I can link thousands articles as well. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)<br />
::The point, from the "Flynn effect" wikipedia article : "Research suggests that there is an ongoing reversed Flynn effect, i.e. a decline in IQ scores, in Norway, Denmark, Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, France and German-speaking countries,[4] a development which appears to have started in the 1990s". This kind of nullifies the comic's point.<br />
:::One, sign your writing, two, format correctly, three, one study proves nothing, especially on Newsweek of all things. Seriously, Newsweek. Four, average IQ can’t decrease, or increase for that matter, five, IQ isn’t the best measure of intelligence anyways.<br />
<br />
This is not a new form of elitism. Until WWII, there were many elitists who formed a theory based on their perception of Darwin's theories. (Notice that I am not suggesting that Darwin agreed with them.) They were commonly known as Social Darwinists and Eugenicists. Their philosophy fell into disrepute because of Hitler's views on racial superiority and the atrocities which he produced as a result of his form of elitism. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.173|108.162.212.173]] 18:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)</div>108.162.212.173https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2235:_Group_Chat_Rules&diff=183949Talk:2235: Group Chat Rules2019-11-30T15:54:17Z<p>108.162.212.173: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
== 5884 × 9286 pixel image?? ==<br />
<br />
When I open this page (https://xkcd.com/2235, in case there's any confusion), I get an enormous image that bleeds far past the right and bottom of the page. Turns out that the image is 5884 × 9286 pixels. Has this been seen before? -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 19:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
: Looks like Randall must have uploaded the wrong image size. I assume he'll fix the comic shortly. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.52|172.68.211.52]] 19:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
11) I don't care if any generalised 'group chat' software does newest-first or oldest-first as default (and if you can resort to the other order, most-upticked, or whatever) but if it allows inclusion of prior comments, please ''DO NOT ENCOURAGE TOP-POSTING'', particularly when reply-pyramids can carelessly form with recless abandon, and often beyond the "this post is too long, click here to expand" point you often get. - Honestly, I just think a dose of more widespread peer-directed Usenet Netiquette (pre-Eternal September, definitely pre-Outlook Express) could do a lot of people good as well. Randomly split people up into 1990-ish sized cohorts for a 'training period' of socialisation until they can safely 'graduate' to the globally undelineated cohort. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.110|162.158.155.110]] 20:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Ok boomer, I'll be off your lawn in a moment. In the mean time I think there's a cloud up there which can't hear you. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.122|172.69.22.122]] 20:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Anyone got any ideas about (4)? The only group chat I know of which constantly changes their group names to different random nonsense is the Chapo Trap House Discord. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.122|172.69.22.122]] 20:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
: This might just be something that he has experienced personally. All of the large group chats of which I've been a member have exhibited this behavior. In fact, I thought it was pretty weird that no one on here had heard of this before. I related to it immediately. [[User:Moosenonny10|Moosenonny10]] ([[User talk:Moosenonny10|talk]]) 23:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
::If there is a public example please add it. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.155|172.68.132.155]] 23:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
In my experience, constantly changing irrelevant chat names is a behaviour of chats with large numbers of messages and nothing ever being important or relevant - the kind where noone needs a bot because the posters are already spamming enough irrelevant stuff. So for me, it fits well with the rest of the list.<br />
<br />
Does anyone think that (10) means that all of the rules were sent as separate messages and the last one's just an apology for doing that? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.83|172.69.63.83]] 22:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Good call. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.244|162.158.255.244]] 22:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The initial explanation for 8 doesn’t seem right - the given examples of email notifications and source code commits are by definition not “junk that nobody asked for” (since such integrations require intentional setup) and are “algorithmically generated” only in a strictly literal sense. To me this is clearly a reference to social media platforms. [[Special:Contributions/188.114.111.151|188.114.111.151]] 08:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Occasionally I can see that my typing indicator has triggered without me actually typing anything, which is disconcerting, as I then feel obliged to type something... --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.93|162.158.158.93]] 10:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Community reference? ==<br />
<br />
I think number 5 may refer to the TV show commmunity, since in the series, the main characters participated in a "study group", same generic name. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.173|108.162.212.173]] 15:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)</div>108.162.212.173https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2235:_Group_Chat_Rules&diff=183948Talk:2235: Group Chat Rules2019-11-30T15:53:13Z<p>108.162.212.173: /* Community reference? */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
== 5884 × 9286 pixel image?? ==<br />
<br />
When I open this page (https://xkcd.com/2235, in case there's any confusion), I get an enormous image that bleeds far past the right and bottom of the page. Turns out that the image is 5884 × 9286 pixels. Has this been seen before? -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 19:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
: Looks like Randall must have uploaded the wrong image size. I assume he'll fix the comic shortly. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.52|172.68.211.52]] 19:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
11) I don't care if any generalised 'group chat' software does newest-first or oldest-first as default (and if you can resort to the other order, most-upticked, or whatever) but if it allows inclusion of prior comments, please ''DO NOT ENCOURAGE TOP-POSTING'', particularly when reply-pyramids can carelessly form with recless abandon, and often beyond the "this post is too long, click here to expand" point you often get. - Honestly, I just think a dose of more widespread peer-directed Usenet Netiquette (pre-Eternal September, definitely pre-Outlook Express) could do a lot of people good as well. Randomly split people up into 1990-ish sized cohorts for a 'training period' of socialisation until they can safely 'graduate' to the globally undelineated cohort. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.110|162.158.155.110]] 20:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Ok boomer, I'll be off your lawn in a moment. In the mean time I think there's a cloud up there which can't hear you. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.122|172.69.22.122]] 20:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Anyone got any ideas about (4)? The only group chat I know of which constantly changes their group names to different random nonsense is the Chapo Trap House Discord. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.122|172.69.22.122]] 20:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
: This might just be something that he has experienced personally. All of the large group chats of which I've been a member have exhibited this behavior. In fact, I thought it was pretty weird that no one on here had heard of this before. I related to it immediately. [[User:Moosenonny10|Moosenonny10]] ([[User talk:Moosenonny10|talk]]) 23:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
::If there is a public example please add it. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.155|172.68.132.155]] 23:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
In my experience, constantly changing irrelevant chat names is a behaviour of chats with large numbers of messages and nothing ever being important or relevant - the kind where noone needs a bot because the posters are already spamming enough irrelevant stuff. So for me, it fits well with the rest of the list.<br />
<br />
Does anyone think that (10) means that all of the rules were sent as separate messages and the last one's just an apology for doing that? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.83|172.69.63.83]] 22:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Good call. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.244|162.158.255.244]] 22:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The initial explanation for 8 doesn’t seem right - the given examples of email notifications and source code commits are by definition not “junk that nobody asked for” (since such integrations require intentional setup) and are “algorithmically generated” only in a strictly literal sense. To me this is clearly a reference to social media platforms. [[Special:Contributions/188.114.111.151|188.114.111.151]] 08:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Occasionally I can see that my typing indicator has triggered without me actually typing anything, which is disconcerting, as I then feel obliged to type something... --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.93|162.158.158.93]] 10:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Community reference? ==<br />
<br />
I think number 5 may refer to the TV show commmunity, since in the series, the main characters participated in a "study group", same generic name.</div>108.162.212.173https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2228:_Machine_Learning_Captcha&diff=1829142228: Machine Learning Captcha2019-11-14T03:46:11Z<p>108.162.212.173: /* Transcript */ changing "window" to "bunker"</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2228<br />
| date = November 13, 2019<br />
| title = Machine Learning Captcha<br />
| image = machine_learning_captcha.png<br />
| titletext = More likely: Click on all the pictures of people who appear disloyal to [name of company or government]<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a HUMAN CAPTCHA. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
Many websites have difficulties with spambots, which are automated entities created in order to log onto a website and spam or otherwise wreak havoc upon it. To guard against this eventuality, websites have implemented CAPTCHAs, a challenge used to prove the user is a human and not an automated program. A typical CAPTCHA might distort a random sequence of letters and numbers and put it in a strange font and ask a user to type it, or it might show a set of pictures and ask the user which ones contain fire hydrants; these tasks are meant to be easy for humans but obscenely difficult for computers. CAPTCHAs are a recurring theme on xkcd.<br />
<br />
This comic jokes about a trained AI which wants to dominate the world. In order to prevent people from taking shelter, the AI asks humans to tell places they would hide in a CAPTCHA. Then this AI will get ready in case someone hid there.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
:[Cueball, seated before a desk, is staring at a computer; one hand is on his lap while the other is poised over his keyboard. A line is drawn from the computer screen, showing what is displayed on it.]<br />
:Computer: To prove you're a human, click on all the photos that show places you would run for shelter during a robot uprising.<br />
<br />
:[The computer then gives nine images arranged in a 3 by 3 square; from left to right and top to bottom, they are a house, some trees, a bunker{{Dubious}}, a car, a skyline, a sidewalk{{Dubious}}, a log and board{{Dubious}}, a mailbox, and a hole.]<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]<br />
[[Category:Programming]]<br />
[[Category:Robots]]<br />
[[Category:CAPTCHA]]</div>108.162.212.173https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2228:_Machine_Learning_Captcha&diff=182913Talk:2228: Machine Learning Captcha2019-11-14T03:44:19Z<p>108.162.212.173: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Seems remarkably similar to [https://xkcd.com/1897/ this comic]. Is he running out of ideas? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.166|162.158.146.166]] 00:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
: I don't see much connection, other than them both being about CAPTCHAs.--[[User:GoldNinja|GoldNinja]] ([[User talk:GoldNinja|talk]]) 00:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A note: [[2227]] isn't connecting to [[2228]] via the Next button; has this happened before? --[[User:Account|Account]] ([[User talk:Account|talk]]) 01:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Fixed now.--[[User:Account|Account]] ([[User talk:Account|talk]]) 02:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Why is this comic listed as a Thursday comic? Isn't it Wednesday in Boston?--[[User:Account|Account]] ([[User talk:Account|talk]]) 02:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Yes. I don't know what time the comic was uploaded, but right now it is 10:34 PM Wednesday in Boston. I changed the date of the comic to today instead of tomorrow. [[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 03:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the upper right picture looks like a cave, but maybe too angular to be natural; maybe a bomb shelter or something like that where those pesky humans might actually try to hide? [[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 03:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
I was thinking a bomb shelter or bunker as well [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.173|108.162.212.173]] 03:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)</div>108.162.212.173https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1132:_Frequentists_vs._Bayesians&diff=1578971132: Frequentists vs. Bayesians2018-05-30T01:06:59Z<p>108.162.212.173: Modification of the Trivia page to define the term “nova”, and state that the sun will not meet the conditions to explode as a nova</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1132<br />
| date = November 9, 2012<br />
| title = Frequentists vs. Bayesians<br />
| image = frequentists_vs_bayesians.png<br />
| titletext = 'Detector! What would the Bayesian statistician say if I asked him whether the--' [roll] 'I AM A NEUTRINO DETECTOR, NOT A LABYRINTH GUARD. SERIOUSLY, DID YOUR BRAIN FALL OUT?' [roll] '... yes.'}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic is a joke about jumping to conclusions based on a simplistic understanding of probability. The "{{w|base rate fallacy}}" is a mistake where an unlikely explanation is dismissed, even though the alternative is even less likely. In the comic, a device tests for the (highly unlikely) event that the sun has exploded. A degree of random error is introduced, by rolling two {{w|dice}} and lying if the result is double sixes. Double sixes are unlikely (1 in 36, or about 3% likely), so the statistician on the left dismisses it. The statistician on the right has (we assume) correctly reasoned that the sun exploding is ''far more'' unlikely, and so is willing to stake money on his interpretation.<br />
<br />
The labels given to the two statisticians, in their panels and in the comic's title, are not particularly fair or accurate, a fact which [[Randall]] has acknowledged:<ref name="munroe-on-gelman">[http://web.archive.org/web/20130117080920/http://andrewgelman.com/2012/11/16808/#comment-109366 Comment by Randall Munroe] to "I don’t like this cartoon", blog post by Andrew Gelman in ''Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science''. Archived Jan 17 2013 by the Wayback Machine.</ref><br />
<blockquote>I seem to have stepped on a hornet’s nest, though, by adding “Frequentist” and “Bayesian” titles to the panels. This came as a surprise to me, in part because I actually added them as an afterthought, along with the final punchline. … The truth is, I genuinely didn’t realize Frequentists and Bayesians were actual camps of people—all of whom are now emailing me. I thought they were loosely-applied labels—perhaps just labels appropriated by the books I had happened to read recently—for the standard textbook approach we learned in science class versus an approach which more carefully incorporates the ideas of prior probabilities.</blockquote><br />
<br />
The "frequentist" statistician is (mis)applying the common standard of "{{w|P-value|p}}<0.05". In a scientific study, a result is presumed to provide strong evidence if, given that the {{w|null hypothesis}}, a default position that the observations are unrelated (in this case, that the sun has ''not'' gone nova), there is less than a 5% chance that the result was merely random. (The null hypothesis was also referenced in [[892: Null Hypothesis]].)<br />
<br />
Since the likelihood of rolling double sixes is below this 5% threshold, the "frequentist" decides (by this rule of thumb) to accept the detector's output as correct. The "Bayesian" statistician has, instead, applied at least a small measure of probabilistic reasoning ({{w|Bayesian inference}}) to determine that the unlikeliness of the detector lying is greatly outweighed by the unlikeliness of the sun exploding. Therefore, he concludes that the sun has ''not'' exploded and the detector is lying.<br />
<br />
The line, "Bet you $50 it hasn't", is a reference to the approach of a leading Bayesian scholar, {{w|Bruno de Finetti}}, who made extensive use of bets in his examples and thought experiments. See {{w|Coherence (philosophical gambling strategy)}} for more information on his work. In this case, however, the bet is also a joke because we would all be dead if the sun exploded. If the Bayesian wins the bet, he gets money, and if he loses, they'll both be dead before money can be paid. This underlines the absurdity of the premise and emphasizes the need to consider context when examining probability.<br />
<br />
The title text refers to a classic series of logic puzzles known as {{w|Knights and Knaves#Fork in the road|Knights and Knaves}}, where there are two guards in front of two exit doors, one of which is real and the other leads to death. One guard is a liar and the other tells the truth. The visitor doesn't know which is which, and is allowed to ask one question to one guard. The solution is to ask either guard what the other one would say is the real exit, then choose the opposite. Two such guards were featured in the 1986 Jim Henson movie ''{{w|Labyrinth (film)|Labyrinth}}'', hence the mention of "A LABYRINTH GUARD" here. A labyrinth was also mentioned in [[246: Labyrinth Puzzle]].<br />
<br />
===Mathematical and scientific details===<br />
As mentioned, this is an instance of the {{w|base rate fallacy}}. If we treat the "truth or lie" setup as simply modelling an inaccurate test, then it is also specifically an illustration of the {{w|false positive paradox}}: A test that is rarely wrong, but which tests for an event that is even rarer, will be more often wrong than right when it says that the event has occurred.<br />
<br />
The test in this case is a neutrino detector. It relies on the fact that neutrinos can pass through the earth, so a neutrino detector would detect neutrinos from the sun at all times, day and night. The detector is stated to give false results ("lie") 1/36th of the time.<br />
<br />
There is no record of any star ever spontaneously exploding—they always show signs of deterioration long before their explosion—so the probability is near zero. For the sake of a number, though, consider that the sun's estimated lifespan is 10 billion years. Let's say the test is run every hour, twelve hours a day (at night time). This gives us a probability of the Sun exploding at one in 4.38×10<sup>13</sup>. Assuming this detector is otherwise reliable, when the detector reports a solar explosion, there are two possibilities:<br />
# The sun '''has''' exploded (one in 4.38×10<sup>13</sup>) and the detector '''is''' telling the truth (35 in 36). This event has a total probability of about 1/(4.38×10<sup>13</sup>) × 35/36 or about one in 4.50×10<sup>13</sup>.<br />
# The sun '''hasn't''' exploded (4.38×10<sup>13</sup> − 1 in 4.38×10<sup>13</sup>) and the detector '''is not''' telling the truth (1 in 36). This event has a total probability of about (4.38×10<sup>13</sup> − 1) / 4.38×10<sup>13</sup> × 1/36 or about one in 36.<br />
<br />
Clearly the sun exploding is not the most likely option.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:Did the sun just explode? (It's night, so we're not sure)<br />
<br />
:[Two statisticians stand alongside an adorable little computer that is suspiciously similar to K-9 that speaks in Westminster typeface.]<br />
:Frequentist Statistician: This neutrino detector measures whether the sun has gone nova.<br />
:Bayesian Statistician: Then, it rolls two dice. If they both come up as six, it lies to us. Otherwise, it tells the truth.<br />
:Frequentist Statistician: Let's try. [to the detector] Detector! Has the sun gone nova?<br />
:Detector: ''roll'' YES.<br />
<br />
:Frequentist Statistician:<br />
:Frequentist Statistician: The probability of this result happening by chance is 1/36=0.027. Since p<0.05, I conclude that the sun has exploded.<br />
<br />
:Bayesian Statistician:<br />
:Bayesian Statistician: Bet you $50 it hasn't.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
* The Sun will never explode as a supernova, because it does not have enough mass. In addition the sun can’t explode as a nova, because novae only happen in binary systems.<br />
*In the same blog comment as cited above<ref name="munroe-on-gelman"/>, Randall explains that he chose the "sun exploding" scenario as a more clearly absurd example than those usually used:<br />
<blockquote>…I realized that in the common examples used to illustrate this sort of error, like the cancer screening/drug test false positive ones, the correct result is surprising or unintuitive. So I came up with the sun-explosion example, to illustrate a case where naïve application of that significance test can give a result that’s obviously nonsense.</blockquote><br />
*"Bayesian" statistics is named for Thomas Bayes, who studied conditional probability — the likelihood that one event is true when given information about some other related event. From {{w|Bayes Theorem|Wikipedia}}: "Bayesian interpretation expresses how a subjective degree of belief should rationally change to account for evidence".<br />
* The "frequentist" says that 1/36 = 0.027. It's actually 0.02777…, which should round to 0.028.<br />
* Using neutrino detectors to get an advance warning of a supernova is possible, and the {{w|Supernova Early Warning System}} does just this. The neutrinos arrive ahead of the photons, because they can escape from the core of the star before the supernova explosion reaches the mantle.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]<br />
[[Category:Math]]<br />
[[Category:Statistics]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]</div>108.162.212.173