https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=108.162.246.11&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T14:02:50ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2070:_Trig_Identities&diff=165867Talk:2070: Trig Identities2018-11-12T21:53:16Z<p>108.162.246.11: Maybe possibly Kingdom of Loathing reference?</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
I am confused by the insect line. This seems to be true only if s=t.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.209|141.101.96.209]] 19:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:I added a note regarding how similar it sounds to 'sinsec'. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.154|172.68.51.154]] 01:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:That one and the `cas` aren't making any sense to me. [[User:GreatBigDot|GreatBigDot]] ([[User talk:GreatBigDot|talk]]) 20:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
::Oh, the casinus is much important to... What was it? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
::cas is realtively easy... it is cos(theta)=a/c -> cs(theta)=ao/c -> cas(theta)=o/c; when you realise that the top one isn't zero but o it clicks [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.209|141.101.96.209]] 23:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::You made the same error Randall did: you divided by 'o' on the left and multiplied on the right. I think the theme of the page is expanding significantly upon common math errors that were already humorous, like the common proof of 5=3 by dividing and multiplying by zero. The error here is in line with the theme of casual beginner errors. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.154|172.68.51.154]]<br />
:: You can see cin is derived from sin by swapping the positions of c and s. Likewise, Switching the a and o in cos(theta) = a/c gives cas(theta) = o/c i.e. no need for multiplicative consistency. The rule of treating things as a product of terms is implemented fully in the following lines. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.83|162.158.91.83]] 11:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
::: <math> sin \theta = b/c</math> leading to <math>cin \theta = b/s</math> is algebraically valid if you interpret sin as the product of s, i, n by multiplying both sides by c/s. It is not valid to just "swap" two letters in one equation that is part of a system of equations. You could do the same trick and get <math>cas \theta = a^2/oc</math> from <math>cos \theta = a/c</math> or start with <math>sec \theta = c/a</math> and get <math>cas \theta = c/e</math>. Note for all equations except <math>cas \theta = o/c</math> and switching an <math>s</math> to a <math>t</math> to find <math>tan \theta = insect \theta^2</math>, the equations can be correctly derived by treating trig functions as product of single letter variables and algebraically manipulating them. [[User:Jimbob|Jimbob]] ([[User talk:Jimbob|talk]]) 16:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I think insect is.. a bug.. ;) [[User:Smerriman|Smerriman]] ([[User talk:Smerriman|talk]]) 20:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is Enchant at target a magic:the gathering reference? [[User:AncientSwordRage|AncientSwordRage]] ([[User talk:AncientSwordRage|talk]]) 20:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:I think it is a Magic: The Gathering reference. Although it is phrased oddly. You'd think it would be "at target enchantment", rather than "target at enchantment". --[[User:Dryhamm|Dryhamm]] ([[User talk:Dryhamm|talk]]) 21:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:: Likely, it refers to the bigbox retailer, Target. {{unsigned ip|172.68.58.233}}<br />
::: To me it sounds more like a reference to a [https://www.kingdomofloathing.com/ nerdy video game], where a [http://kol.coldfront.net/thekolwiki/index.php/Wand_of_Nagamar certain object] worked like this, turning e.g. '''BEAM OF DARK ENERGY''' into a '''BAKED FERRY GNOME''' [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.11|108.162.246.11]] 21:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Voila - s=t. {{unsigned|Elliott}}<br />
::That was incredible! (assuming previous poster discovered the extrapolated proof in the description) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.154|172.68.51.154]] 01:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
::Combining <math>\cos\theta=\frac{a}{c}</math> and <math>\mathrm{cas}\ \theta=\frac{o}{c}</math> allows you to conclude <math>a^2 = o^2</math>, not <math>a=o</math>. {{unsigned ip|162.158.146.10}}<br />
<br />
Somebody added a comment on puns, e.g. that "cin sucks". More explanation is needed. It looks like some kind of a meta-joke. If you ask why, and start interpreting, you see that "b/c" == "because". It might be the answer to why the puns line should be removed, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.154|172.68.51.154]]<br />
<br />
For the Bot->Boat->Stoat line, this comes from the word game where you add/change letters to make a new word. Start with bot=a/c, multiply by a on both sides gets boat=a^2/c. Multiply by st on both sides and divide b on both sides gets Stoat=a^2/c*St/b. {{unsigned ip|162.158.78.166}}<br />
<br />
Uh... people... THE NAME GAME? Hello? <br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_Game {{unsigned ip|162.158.79.107}}<br />
<br />
Checking through the math, just working from the real trig identities, without considering Randall's at-first-glance questionable identities like cas theta = o/c, basically everything that does not have a factor of d or 2 in it is equal to 1, and d is equal to 1/2, which then establishes the more questionable identities as tautological, 1=1. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.100|162.158.142.100]] 04:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<math>\sec\theta = sect \eta</math> [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.71|141.101.104.71]] 13:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC) AndreasH<br />
<br />
Am I the only one who saw t²n²a⁴ as "tuna"? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.233|172.68.58.233]] 14:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Yes. {{unsigned ip|162.158.75.190}}<br />
<br />
<math>\frac{d}{dx}\sec x=\sec x\tan x=</math> sex tanks. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 21:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2071:_Indirect_Detection&diff=1658042071: Indirect Detection2018-11-12T07:31:01Z<p>108.162.246.11: /* Transcript */ formatting edits</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2071<br />
| date = November 12, 2018<br />
| title = Indirect Detection<br />
| image = indirect_detection.png<br />
| titletext = I'm like a prisoner in Plato's Cave, seeing only the shade you throw on the wall.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
: [Social media post]<br />
<br />
: Everyone on here needs to stop laughing about how "adopting pets from a shelter is for losers" and "those animals should all be hunted for sport instead." It's reprehensible on so many levels! First of all...<br />
<br />
: [Caption under the panel]<br />
<br />
: Sometimes, one of my friends posts an angry response to some terrible opinion I've never heard before, and it's a weird indirect way to learn how awful their other friends must be.<br />
<br />
: [Title text]<br />
<br />
: I'm like a prisoner in Plato's Cave, seeing only the shade you throw on the wall.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2062:_Barnard%27s_Star&diff=1647342062: Barnard's Star2018-10-25T14:13:33Z<p>108.162.246.11: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2062<br />
| date = October 22, 2018<br />
| title = Barnard's Star<br />
| image = barnards_star.png<br />
| titletext = "Ok, team. We have a little under 10,000 years before closest approach to figure out how to destroy Barnard's Star." "Why, does it pose a threat to the Solar System?" "No. It's just an asshole."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Too much detail from Wikipedia about Barnard's star, hardly any explanation of the comic itself. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
[[File:Near-stars-past-future-en.svg|thumb|300px|Distances to the nearest stars from 20,000 years ago until 80,000 years in the future]]<br />
{{w|Barnard's Star}} is a very-low-mass red dwarf about 6 light-years away from Earth in the constellation of {{w|Ophiuchus}}. It is the fourth-nearest known individual star to the {{w|Sun}} (after the three components of the Alpha Centauri system) and the closest star in the Northern Celestial Hemisphere. It is a {{w|Red dwarf}} with a mass of 0.144 Solar masses and it is 7–12 billion years old. Because of this low mass the gravitational pressure in the core is much lower and thus the fusion rate is far smaller than in the core of the Sun. In fact this star is so dim, even though it's one of the nearest, it can't be seen by the naked eye. The low fusion rate also means that the lifespan of small stars is much longer. While huge stars might last a few hundred million years, and the Sun about 10 billion years, a small Red dwarf has a lifespan of about a trillion years.<br />
<br />
Barnard's Star is the star with the greatest proper motion in the sky. Proper motion is motion in the sky other than that caused by Earth's rotation or orbit. Barnard's star is both very close to the sun (as these things go) and moving at a speed of more than 140 km/s toward the Sun. It will make its closest approach to the Sun in approximately 10,000 years, at a distance of about 3.75 light-years.<br />
<br />
In the comic, it shows that Barnard's star is flying by the Sun screaming it's cocky statement(Due to the fact that it will live a lot longer than the sun and most other stars) before flying away. However, the distances shown in the comic are a lot closer than they would actually be(Looking more like Barnard's star is only 500-600 Million kilometers(Between Jupiter and Saturn) rather than 3.75 light years), if they were this close, then it would cause a massive chain reaction that would make the solar system a lot less stable and would most likely cause the death of life on Earth(From Jupiter either flying away from the solar system and causing comets from the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud, or launching Jupiter into the inner solar system and dragging earth and other planets closer to the sun/getting ripped apart from being in the Roche limit of Jupiter).<br />
<br />
In regards to "20,000-YEAR-LONG HIGH-SPEED FLYBY", the joke here is suggesting Barnard's Star would need to scream out the maleficent, trolling statement in the comic as quickly as possible due to 20,000 years being such a small segment of time relative to the lifespan of the star (and our Sun, for that matter).<br />
<br />
The image on the right shows different stars near the Sun over 100,000 years and it can be seen that none of them are getting closer than 3 light-years. This is a safe distance to our Solar System and the stars will not influence the orbits of the planets or smaller bodies. It's also obvious that much closer approaches never have happened since the Solar System formed 4.5 billion years ago because otherwise the nearly circular orbits of the planets in the same plane wouldn't be possible.<br />
<br />
The title text emphasizes that this close approach will not be any hazard to the Solar System, but someone is envious of the long lifetime of Barnard's Star or annoyed by its unpleasant behavior(Yelling at the sun for 20,000 years would be a minuscule amount of time for the stars,but for humans it would be a vast length of time, and would get annoying very quickly).<br />
<br />
=Transcript=<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
:[A black sky is shown with a yellow spot near the bottom, left of the center. Three smaller red spots at the diagonal from top left to bottom right indicate a moving star over time. Above these red spots lines are connected to a text that starts and ends with many ''A''s, first growing, and at the end getting smaller:]<br />
:...AAAAHHi Sun! I was here billions of years before you formed and will shine for trillions of years after you dieEEEEEAAA...<br />
<br />
:[Caption below the frame:]<br />
:Sometimes, I wonder what Barnard's Star is saying to the Sun as it performs its 20,000-year-long high-speed flyby.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Astronomy]]</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2048:_Curve-Fitting&diff=1639962048: Curve-Fitting2018-10-11T01:42:13Z<p>108.162.246.11: /* Piecewise */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2048<br />
| date = September 19, 2018<br />
| title = Curve-Fitting<br />
| image = curve_fitting.png<br />
| titletext = Cauchy-Lorentz: "Something alarmingly mathematical is happening, and you should probably pause to Google my name and check what field I originally worked in."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
An illustration of several plots of the same data with {{w|Curve fitting|curves fitted}} to the points, paired with conclusions that you might draw about the person who made them. These data, when plotted on an X/Y graph, appear to have a general upward trend, but the data is far too noisy, with too few data points, to clearly suggest any specific growth pattern. In such a case, many different mathematical and statistical models ''could'' be presented as roughly fitting the data, but none of them fits well enough to compellingly represent the data. <br />
<br />
When modeling such a problem statistically, much of the work of a data scientist or statistician is knowing which fitting method is most appropriate for the data in question. Here we see various hypothetical scientists or statisticians each applying their own interpretations to the exact same data, and the comic mocks each of them for their various personal biases or other assorted excuses. In general, the researcher will specify the form of an equation for the line to be drawn, and an algorithm will produce the actual line.<br />
<br />
Nonetheless scientists work much more seriously on the reliability of their assumptions by giving a value for the {{w|Standard deviation|standard deviation}} represented by the Greek letter sigma σ or the Latin letter s as a measure to quantify the amount of variation of the data points against the presented ''best fit''. If the σ-value isn't good enough an interpretation based on a specific fit wouldn't be accepted by the science community.<br />
<br />
Since [[Randall]] gives no hint about the nature of the used data set - same in each graph - any fitting presented doesn't make any sense. The graphs could represent a star map, the votes for the latest elected presidents, or your recent invoices on power consumption. This comic just exaggerates various methods on interpreting data, but without the knowledge of the matter in the background nothing makes any sense.<br />
<br />
===Linear===<br />
[[File:Anscombe's quartet 3.svg|thumb|200px|Different data sets result in the same regression.]]<br />
<math>f(x) = mx + b</math><br />
<br />
{{w|Linear regression}} is the most basic form of regression; it tries to find the straight line that best approximates the data. As it's the simplest, most widely taught form of regression, and in general derivable function are locally well approximated by a straight line, it's usually the first and most trivial attempt of fit.<br />
<br />
The picture to the right shows how totally different data sets can result into the same line. It's obvious that some more basics about the nature of the data must be used to understand if this simple line really does make sense.<br />
<br />
The comment below the graph ''"Hey, I did a regression."'' refers to the fact that this is just the easiest way of fitting data into a curve.<br />
<br />
===Quadratic===<br />
<math>f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c</math><br />
<br />
{{w|Polynomial regression|Quadratic fit}} (i.e. fitting a parabola through the data) is the lowest grade polynomial that can be used to fit data through a curved line; if the data exhibits clearly "curved" behavior (or if the experimenter feels that its growth should be more than linear), a parabola is often the first, easiest, stab at fitting the data.<br />
<br />
The comment below the graph ''"I wanted a curved line, so I made one with math."'' suggests that a quadratic regression is used when straight lines no longer satisfy the researcher, but he still wants to use simple math expression. Quadratic correlations like this are mathematically valid and one of the simplest kind of curve in math, but this curve doesn't appear to satisfy the data any better than does simple, linear regression.<br />
<br />
===Logarithmic===<br />
[[File:Logarithm_plots.png|thumb|200px|Common logarithm functions.]]<br />
<math>f(x) = a\log_b(x) + c</math><br />
<br />
A {{w|Logarithm|logarithmic}} curve growths slower on higher values, but still grows without bound to infinity rather than approaching a horizontal {{w|asymptote}}. The small ''b'' in the formula represents the base which is in most cases ''{{w|e (mathematical constant)|e}}'', 10, or 2. If the data presumably does approach a horizontal asymptote then this fit isn't an effective method to explain the nature of the data.<br />
<br />
The comment below the graph ''"Look, it's tapering off!"'' builds up the impression that the data diminishes while under this fit it's still growing to infinity, only much slower than a linear regression does.<br />
<br />
===Exponential===<br />
[[File:Exponential.svg|thumb|200px|Exponential growth (green) compared to other functions.]]<br />
<math>f(x) = a\cdot b^x + c</math><br />
<br />
An {{w|Exponential growth|exponential curve}}, on the contrary, is typical of a phenomenon whose growth gets rapidly faster and faster - a common case is a process that generates stuff that contributes to the process itself, think bacteria growth or compound interest.<br />
<br />
The logarithmic and exponential interpretations could very easily be fudged or engineered by a researcher with an agenda (such as by taking a misleading subset or even outright lying about the regression), which the comic mocks by juxtaposing them side-by-side on the same set of data.<br />
<br />
The comment below the graph ''"Look, it's growing uncontrollably!"'' gives an other frivolous statement suggesting something like chaos. Also this even faster growth is well defined and has no asymptote at both axes.<br />
<br />
===LOESS===<br />
A {{w|Local regression|LOESS fit}} doesn't use a single formula to fit all the data, but approximates data points locally using different polynomials for each "zone" (weighting differently data points as they get further from it) and patching them together. As it has much more degrees of freedom compared to a single polynomial, it generally "fits better" to any data set, although it is generally impossible to derive any strong, "clean" mathematical correlation from it - it is just a nice smooth line that approximates well the data points, with a good degree of rejection from outliers.<br />
<br />
The comment below the graph ''"I'm sophisticated, not like those bumbling polynomial people."'' emphasis this more complicated interpretation but without a simple mathematical description it's not very helpful to find academic descriptions on the underlying matter.<br />
<br />
===Linear, No Slope===<br />
<math>f(x) = c</math><br />
<br />
Apparently, the person making this line figured out pretty early on that their data analysis was turning into a scatter plot, and wanted to escape their personal stigma of scatter plots by drawing an obviously false regression line on top of it. Alternatively, they were hoping the data would be flat, and are trying to pretend that there's no real trend to the data by drawing a horizontal trend line.<br />
<br />
The comment below the graph ''"I'm making a scatter plot but I don't want to."'' is probably done by a student who isn't happy with their choice of field of study.<br />
<br />
===Logistic===<br />
[[File:Logistic-curve.svg|thumb|200px|A standard logistic function between the values ''0'' and ''1''.]]<br />
The {{w|Logistic regression|logistic regression}} is taken when a variable can take binary results such as "0" and "1" or "old" and "young".<br />
<br />
The curve provides a smooth, S-shaped transition curve between two flat intervals (like "0" and "1").<br />
<br />
The comment below the graph ''"I need to connect these two lines, but my first idea didn't have enough math."'' implies the experimenter just wants to find a mathematically-respectable way to link two flat lines.<br />
<br />
===Confidence Interval===<br />
Not a type of curve fitting, but a method of depicting the predictive power of a curve.<br />
<br />
Providing a confidence interval over the graph shows the uncertainty of the acquired data, thus acknowledging the uncertain results of the experiment, and showing the will not to "cheat" with "easy" regression curves.<br />
<br />
The comment below the graph ''"Listen, science is hard. But I'm a serious person doing my best."'' is just an honest statement about this uncertainty.<br />
<br />
===Piecewise===<br />
Mapping different curves to different segments of the data. This is a legitimate strategy, but the different segments should be meaningful, such as if they were pulled from different populations.<br />
<br />
This kind of fit would arise naturally in a study based on a regression discontinuity design. For instance, if students who score below a certain cutoff must take remedial classes, the line for outcomes of those below the cutoff would reasonably be separate from the one for outcomes above the cutoff; the distance between the end of the two lines could be considered the effect of the treatment, under certain assumptions. This kind of study design is used to investigate causal theories, where mere correlation in observational data is not enough to prove anything. Thus, the associated text would be appropriate; there is a theory, and data that might prove the theory is hard to find.<br />
<br />
One notable time this is used is when a researcher studying housing economics is trying to identify housing submarkets. The assumption is that if two proposed markets are truly different, they will be better described using two different regression functions than if one were to be used.<br />
<br />
The additional curved lines visible in the graph are the kind of confidence intervals you'd get from a simple OLS regression if the standard assumptions were valid. In the case of two separate regressions, it would be surprising if all those assumptions (that is, i.i.d. Normal residuals around an underlying perfectly-linear function) were in fact valid for each part, especially if the slopes are not equal.<br />
<br />
A classical example in physics are the different theories to explain the black body radiation at the end of the 19th century. The {{w|Wien approximation}} was good for small wavelengths while the {{w|Rayleigh–Jeans law}} worked for the larger scales (large wavelength means low frequency and thus low energy.) But there was a gap in the middle which was filled by the {{w|Planck's law}} in 1900.<br />
<br />
The comment below the graph ''"I have a theory, and this is the only data I could find."'' is a bit ambiguous because there are many data points ignored. Without an explanation why only a subset of the data is used this isn't a useful interpretation at all. As a matter of fact, with the extra degrees of freedom offered by the piecewise regression, it could indicate that the researcher is trying to fit the data to confirm their theory, rather than building their theory off of the data.<br />
<br />
===Connecting lines===<br />
This is often used to smooth gaps in measurements. A simple example is the weather temperature which is often measured in distinct intervals. When the intervals are high enough it's safe to assume that the temperature didn't change that much between them and connecting the data points by lines doesn't distort the real situation in many cases.<br />
<br />
The comment below the graph ''"I clicked 'Smooth Lines' in {{w|Microsoft Excel|Excel}}."'' refers to the well known spreadsheet application from {{w|Microsoft Office}}. Like other spreadsheet applications it has the feature to visualize data from a table into a graph by many ways. "Smooth Lines" is a setting meant for use on a {{w|line graph}}, a graph in which one axis represents time; as it simply joins up every point rather than finding a sensible line, it is not suitable for regression.<br />
<br />
===Ad-Hoc Filter===<br />
Drawing a bunch of different lines by hand, keeping in only the data points perceived as "good". Not really useful except for marketing purposes.<br />
<br />
The comment below the graph ''"I had an idea for how to clean up the data. What do you think?"'' admits that in fact the data is whitewashed and tightly focused to a result the presenter wants to show.<br />
<br />
===House of Cards===<br />
Not a real method, but a common consequence of misapplication of statistical methods: a curve can be generated that fits the data extremely well, but immediately becomes absurd as soon as one glances outside the training data sample range, and your analysis comes crashing down "like a house of cards". This is a type of ''overfitting''. In other words, the model may do quite well for (approximately) {{w|Interpolation|interpolating}} between values in the sample range, but not extend at all well to {{w|Extrapolation|extrapolating}} values outside that range.<br />
<br />
''Note:'' Exact polynomial fitting, a fit which gives the unique <math>(n-1)</math>th degree polynomial through <math>n</math> points, often display this kind of behaviour.<br />
<br />
The comment below the graph ''"As you can see, this model smoothly fits the- wait no no don't extend it AAAAAA!!"'' refers to a curve which fits the data points relatively well within the graph's boundaries, but beyond those bounds fails to match at all.<br />
<br />
The name is also a reference to the TV show ''{{w|House of Cards (U.S. TV series)|House of Cards}}'' ("WAIT NO, NO, DON'T EXTEND IT!").<br />
<br />
===Cauchy-Lorentz (title text)===<br />
{{w|Cauchy_distribution|Cauchy-Lorentz}} is a continuous probability distribution which does not have an expected value or a defined variance. This means that the law of large numbers does not hold and that estimating e.g. the sample mean will diverge (be all over the place) the more data points you have. Hence very troublesome (mathematically alarming). <br />
<br />
Since so many different models can fit this data set at first glance, Randall may be making a point about how if a data set is sufficiently messy, you can read any trend you want into it, and the trend that is chosen may say more about the researcher than about the data. This is a similar sentiment to [[1725: Linear Regression]], which also pokes fun at dubious trend lines on scatterplots.<br />
<br />
A brief Google search reveals that Augustin-Louis Cauchy originally worked as a junior engineer in a managerial position. Upon his acceptance to the Académie des Sciences in March 1816, many of his peers expressed outrage. Despite his early work in "mere" engineering, Cauchy is widely regarded as one of the founding influences in the rigorous study of calculus & accompanying proofs.<br />
<br />
Alternately, the title-text could be implying that the person who applied the Cauchy-Lorentz curve-fitting method may not be well qualified to the task assigned.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:'''Curve-Fitting Methods'''<br />
:and the messages they send<br />
<br />
:[In a single frame twelve scatter plots with unlabeled x- and y-axes are shown. Each plot consists of the same data-set of approximately thirty points located all over the plot but slightly more distributed around the diagonal. Every plot shows in red a different fitting method which is labeled on top in gray.]<br />
<br />
:[The first plot shows a line starting at the left bottom above the x-axis rising towards the points to the right.]<br />
:Linear<br />
:"Hey, I did a regression."<br />
<br />
:[The second plot shows a curve falling slightly down and then rising up to the right.]<br />
:Quadratic<br />
:"I wanted a curved line, so I made one with math."<br />
<br />
:[At the third plot the curve starts near the left bottom and increases more and more less to the right.]<br />
:Logarithmic<br />
:"Look, it's tapering off!"<br />
<br />
:[The fourth plot shows a curve starting near the left bottom and increases more and more steeper towards the right.]<br />
:Exponential<br />
:"Look, it's growing uncontrollably!"<br />
<br />
:[The fifth plot uses a fitting to match many points. It starts at the left bottom, increases, then decreases, then rapidly increasing again, and finally reaching a plateau.]<br />
:LOESS<br />
:"I'm sophisticated, not like those bumbling polynomial people."<br />
<br />
:[The sixth plot simply shows a line above but parallel to the x-axis.]<br />
:Linear, no slope<br />
:"I'm making a scatter plot but I don't want to."<br />
<br />
:[At plot #7 starts at a plateau above the x-axis, then increases, and finally reaches a higher plateau.]<br />
:Logistic<br />
:"I need to connect these two lines, but my first idea didn't have enough Math."<br />
<br />
:[Plot #8 shows two red lines embedding most points and the area between is painted as a red shadow.]<br />
:Confidence interval<br />
:"Listen, science is hard. But I'm a serious person doing my best."<br />
<br />
:[Plot #9 shows two not connected lines, one at the lower left half, and one higher at the right. Both have smaller curved lines in light red above and below.]<br />
:Piecewise<br />
:"I have a theory, and this is the only data I could find."<br />
<br />
:[The plot at the left bottom shows a line connecting all points from left to right, resulting in a curve going many times up and down.]<br />
:Connecting lines<br />
:"I clicked 'Smooth Lines' in Excel."<br />
<br />
:[The next to last plot shows a echelon form, connecting a few real and some imaginary points.]<br />
:Ad-Hoc filter<br />
:"I had an idea for how to clean up the data. What do you think?"<br />
<br />
:[The last plot shows a wave with increasing peak values. Finally the plot of the wave is continued beyond the x- and y-axis borders.]<br />
:House of Cards<br />
:"As you can see, this model smoothly fits the- ''wait no no don't extend it AAAAAA!!''"<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*This is the comic 2048, or 2<sup>11</sup>. In addition to being the name of a popular app referenced in [[1344: Digits]], this is an extremely round number in binary (100,000,000,000<sub>2</sub>). [[1000: 1000 Comics]] pointed out that comic 1024 would be a round number, but there were not any comics noting 2048.<br />
<br />
*This comic is similar to [[977: Map Projections]] which also uses a scientific method not commonly thought about by the general public to determine specific characteristics of one's personality and approach to science.<br />
<br />
*Regressions have been the subject of several previous comics. [[1725: Linear Regression]] was about linear regressions on uncorrelated or poorly correlated data. [[1007: Sustainable]], [[1204: Detail]] and [[1281: Minifigs]] depict linear regressions on data that was actually logistic, leading to bizarre extrapolations. [[605: Extrapolating]] shows a line extrapolating from just two data points.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Scatter plots]]<br />
[[Category:Line graphs]]<br />
[[Category:Math]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=720:_Recipes&diff=163790720: Recipes2018-10-07T04:45:51Z<p>108.162.246.11: /* Explanation */ Fixing spelling error.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 720<br />
| date = March 29, 2010<br />
| title = Recipes<br />
| image = recipes.png<br />
| titletext = To be fair, the braised and confused newt on a bed of crushed Doritos turned out to be delicious.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
A {{w|genetic algorithm}} starts with a set of candidates and evaluates them. The best candidates are combined and randomly mutated to form the candidates for the next generation. After being allowed to proceed for an extended period, a genetic algorithm can often produce remarkable results. If the initial candidates are randomly-generated (as appears to be the case here), the initial generations are usually horrible.<br />
<br />
In the comic, the computer science (CS) department is the host of a dinner party. They choose to create a genetic algorithm to generate their recipes. Based on the remarks of the second diner, this is probably not the first generation, and the results are still horrible. Vermouth is a type of fortified wine, usually served alone or in cocktails. It seems unlikely that cheerios would compliment the flavor of it. Quail eggs are a delicacy in many countries, as opposed to whipped cream, which is usually served on desserts. It was topped off with MSG, or Monosodium Glutamate, which is a non-essential amino acid sometimes purported to cause headaches, known as "Chinese restaurant syndrome". The last person has skittles, a brand of candy with a hard outer shell and a inside composed of corn syrup and hydrogenated palm kernel oil. Deep-frying is usually done to savory starches and meats, not sweet confectionaries. The host of the party is so enamored of the promise of the genetic algorithm that he fails to take into account that it will be several years before the recipes become remotely good.<br />
<br />
The title text could make reference to the fact that genetic algorithms will sometimes return results which are highly abnormal and vastly deviate from what we would think to be "selected for," but nonetheless can be quite successful, albeit unorthodox. It also showcases that the algorithm has stumbled upon a recipe that engages in wordplay with the movie and common phrase "Dazed and Confused".<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Three people sit along a table with dishes and drinks in front of them. Cueball is walking in, a plate with food on it in one hand, a laptop in the other.]<br />
<br />
:[Person 1 looks down at their bowl. They have a cup with what appears to be a lump of coal in it.]<br />
:Person 1: I've got... Cheerios with a shot of vermouth.<br />
:[Person 2 has a plate with some kind of cubic food on it. They have a cup of what appears to be two lovebirds in it.]<br />
:Person 2: At least it's better than the quail eggs in whipped cream and MSG from last time.<br />
:[Person 3 has a plate with a several lumps of some form of white stuff on it. They have a cup of what appears to be some kind of superfluid flowing out of it.]<br />
:Person 3: Are these Skittles ''deep-fried''?<br />
<br />
:Cueball: C'mon, guys, be patient. In a few hundred more meals, the genetic algorithm should catch up to existing recipes and start to optimize.<br />
:We've decided to drop the CS department from our weekly dinner party hosting rotation.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2050:_6/6_Time&diff=1631882050: 6/6 Time2018-09-24T16:06:26Z<p>108.162.246.11: /* Transcript */ Added</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2050<br />
| date = September 24, 2018<br />
| title = 6/6 Time<br />
| image = 6_6_time.png<br />
| titletext = You know how einstein figured out that the speed of light was constant, and everything else had to change for consistency? My theory is like his, except not smart or good.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Please edit the explanation below and only mention here why it isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
Cueball: Under my time system, the sun rises at 6 am and it sets at 6 pm, as it SHOULD.<br />
<br />
Cueball: The length of the second is different each day and night, and the current time shifts with your latitude and longitude.<br />
<br />
Cueball: Today is one of the two days each year when my clocks run at the same speed as everyone else's.<br />
<br />
Caption: Time standards are so unfixably messy and complicated that at this point my impulse is just to try to make them worse.<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2048:_Curve-Fitting&diff=163012Talk:2048: Curve-Fitting2018-09-21T08:08:44Z<p>108.162.246.11: Cartoon 2048 clearly is an oblique reference to a major fisheries controversy over the prediction, based on a power fit, that all fish will be collapsed by 2048</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
House of Cards: Not a real method, but a common consequence of mis-application of statistical methods: a curve can be generated that fits the data extremely well, but immediately becomes absurd as soon as one glances outside the training data sample range, and your analysis comes crashing down "like a house of cards". This is a type of _overfitting_<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure it refers to the TV show house of cards, the dots representing the quality of the series increasing until Netflix renewed it a bit too much {{unsigned ip|172.68.26.65}}<br />
:This was my initial interpretation as well, since you can hypothetically extend a literal house of cards indefinitely.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.83|172.68.58.83]] 14:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm a little mystified by the alt-text. Cauchy and Lorentz both seem like mathematically capable people. What am I missing? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.226|172.69.62.226]] 17:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Google-Fu reveals that it's a continuous probability distribution. This isn't bad per se, but it is quite visually distinctive and also can be quite...concerning if the data set isn't one where probability should be an issue. [[User:Werhdnt|Werhdnt]] ([[User talk:Werhdnt|talk]]) 18:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: This is not the issue, but the fact that the moments (such as mean and variance) of the distribution don't exist = converge. See edited explanation. So if you wanted to estimate the parameters of the distribution, taking the sample mean for example will not converge with the number of data points, and is therefore bad to attempt. It is more mathematically alarming than alarmingly mathematical. [[User:GamesAndMath|GamesAndMath]] <br />
<br />
:: My own Google-Fu brought me to a page with this information: “The distribution is important in physics as it is the solution to the differential equation describing forced resonance, while in spectroscopy it is the description of the line shape of spectral lines.” (from here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_53_0/libs/math/doc/sf_and_dist/html/math_toolkit/dist/dist_ref/dists/cauchy_dist.html) [[User:Justinjustin7|Justinjustin7]] ([[User talk:Justinjustin7|talk]]) 18:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: True, but the "check what field I originally worked in" indicates that there might be something else going on with the meaning. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.238|108.162.237.238]] 12:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I believe the point of "check what field I originally worked in" is that if somebody wasn't trained in statistics using an exotic distribution is highly suspect and suggest that either they are torturing the data to get desired results or have no idea what they are doing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.11|108.162.246.11]] 05:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed. I kinda expected a special comic with such a nice round number.. Been counting down since comic #2000... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.184|162.158.92.184]] 18:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Different anon here, I think this is very special and if Randall makes a poster available I will be buying several to give away. Of course, part of my business is experimental data analysis and modeling...and this is a fantastic summary of common errors. {{unsigned ip|162.158.75.22}}<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is a very special comic, and a highly subtle title text. Direct any of your friends who do data analysis here. Sort of the next stage from the classic "correlation is not causation" comic https://xkcd.com/552/ . {{unsigned|GamesAndMath}}<br />
<br />
'''Curve-Fitting'''<br />
<br />
How fitting works needs to be explained. f(x)=mx+b works fine for single values, but how do we get that red line from the data set? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Generally, you decide for some error function and then search for parameters where the sum of errors for all data points is minimal. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:A typical error function is the square of the difference between the fit and the actual data point, hence "sum of squares" method. There are well-known standard formulas for finding m and b in the case of linear regression. In a linear algebra class, I saw a general method that would work for several of these (any where the fit is y = af(x)+bg(x)+...+ch(x), which includes log, exponential, quadratic, cubic, etc). I wish I could remember it. [[User:Blaisepascal|Blaisepascal]] ([[User talk:Blaisepascal|talk]]) 22:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
::I'm still looking for an easy example. Let's say five points (x/y) and then calculating the straight line (without and maybe with the zero-point because this is often the assumed start). Just be simple, everything else derives from that. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I wish we could include the graphics at the top of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression#Introduction] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression#Interpretation] in the explanation. A lot of people are going to look at this one. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.168|172.68.133.168]] 17:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
::I've included one picture with a small explanation to the linear regression section. I think that explains it well. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The data points do not have error bars, which makes the choice of fit even more ludicrous, in my opinion. If the data are that good, then I don't believe there is a correlation, it's random with some distribution. I might hang this up at work...[[User:Arppix|Arppix]] ([[User talk:Arppix|talk]]) 02:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
:And of course in serious science data points have error bars. This makes the fitting even more complicated and should be mentioned at the explanation. Because Randall doesn't use error bars I'm sure he refers to presentations not based on real science. Also this should be mentioned here. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I hate to be negative here, as obviously some users have put a lot of effort into explaining the details behind each of the curve-fitting methods, but there's absolutely no explanation for Randall's comments on each method. While someone might learn something about the various methods by reading the explanation, they would not gain any insight on what Randall is saying about each method. In addition, the Connecting Lines explanation totally missed the fact that this isn't really even a curve-fitting method - it's just a feature of graphing software (in this case, Excel) where a smooth line is drawn through each data point from left to right rather than an example of overfitting to the data set. I think we could do better. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 02:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Everyone is missing the deeper trolling here of the fisheries community at large, which shall become blindingly clear here. First, this is cartoon number 2048 (2^11), a highly interesting number. Notably, this is the year all fisheries were projected to be collapsed by Worm et al. (2006) Science 314:787-790, a prediction which gained huge attention in the media and took on a life of its own. The prediction was based on fitting a power curve to some data on collapses in catch trends. Numerous rebuttals followed, one of which pointed out that a linear fit to the data is a better fit, and predicts all fisheries collapsed in 2114 (Jaenike et al. 2007, Science 316:1285a). A list of rebuttals is found here: https://sites.google.com/a/uw.edu/most-cited-fisheries/controversies/2048-projection. Later work by the same author and critics found a different prediction and showed rebuilding of fisheries is likely (Worm et al. 2009 Science 325:578-585). Second, lest you think this is a conspiracy theory, I note that in xkcd cartoon 887, Munroe specifically notes this prediction "The future according to google search results... 2048: "Salt-water fish extinct from overfishing" https://xkcd.com/887/. Third, this kind of model-fitting exercise has long plagued fisheries researchers attempting to predict recruitment from spawning biomass.</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2048:_Curve-Fitting&diff=163010Talk:2048: Curve-Fitting2018-09-21T05:19:49Z<p>108.162.246.11: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
House of Cards: Not a real method, but a common consequence of mis-application of statistical methods: a curve can be generated that fits the data extremely well, but immediately becomes absurd as soon as one glances outside the training data sample range, and your analysis comes crashing down "like a house of cards". This is a type of _overfitting_<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure it refers to the TV show house of cards, the dots representing the quality of the series increasing until Netflix renewed it a bit too much {{unsigned ip|172.68.26.65}}<br />
:This was my initial interpretation as well, since you can hypothetically extend a literal house of cards indefinitely.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.83|172.68.58.83]] 14:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm a little mystified by the alt-text. Cauchy and Lorentz both seem like mathematically capable people. What am I missing? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.226|172.69.62.226]] 17:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Google-Fu reveals that it's a continuous probability distribution. This isn't bad per se, but it is quite visually distinctive and also can be quite...concerning if the data set isn't one where probability should be an issue. [[User:Werhdnt|Werhdnt]] ([[User talk:Werhdnt|talk]]) 18:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: This is not the issue, but the fact that the moments (such as mean and variance) of the distribution don't exist = converge. See edited explanation. So if you wanted to estimate the parameters of the distribution, taking the sample mean for example will not converge with the number of data points, and is therefore bad to attempt. It is more mathematically alarming than alarmingly mathematical. [[User:GamesAndMath|GamesAndMath]] <br />
<br />
:: My own Google-Fu brought me to a page with this information: “The distribution is important in physics as it is the solution to the differential equation describing forced resonance, while in spectroscopy it is the description of the line shape of spectral lines.” (from here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_53_0/libs/math/doc/sf_and_dist/html/math_toolkit/dist/dist_ref/dists/cauchy_dist.html) [[User:Justinjustin7|Justinjustin7]] ([[User talk:Justinjustin7|talk]]) 18:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: True, but the "check what field I originally worked in" indicates that there might be something else going on with the meaning. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.238|108.162.237.238]] 12:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I believe the point of "check what field I originally worked in" is that if somebody wasn't trained in statistics using an exotic distribution is highly suspect and suggest that either they are torturing the data to get desired results or have no idea what they are doing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.11|108.162.246.11]] 05:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed. I kinda expected a special comic with such a nice round number.. Been counting down since comic #2000... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.184|162.158.92.184]] 18:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Different anon here, I think this is very special and if Randall makes a poster available I will be buying several to give away. Of course, part of my business is experimental data analysis and modeling...and this is a fantastic summary of common errors. {{unsigned ip|162.158.75.22}}<br />
<br />
: Agreed. This is a very special comic, and a highly subtle title text. Direct any of your friends who do data analysis here. Sort of the next stage from the classic "correlation is not causation" comic https://xkcd.com/552/ . {{unsigned|GamesAndMath}}<br />
<br />
'''Curve-Fitting'''<br />
<br />
How fitting works needs to be explained. f(x)=mx+b works fine for single values, but how do we get that red line from the data set? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Generally, you decide for some error function and then search for parameters where the sum of errors for all data points is minimal. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:A typical error function is the square of the difference between the fit and the actual data point, hence "sum of squares" method. There are well-known standard formulas for finding m and b in the case of linear regression. In a linear algebra class, I saw a general method that would work for several of these (any where the fit is y = af(x)+bg(x)+...+ch(x), which includes log, exponential, quadratic, cubic, etc). I wish I could remember it. [[User:Blaisepascal|Blaisepascal]] ([[User talk:Blaisepascal|talk]]) 22:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
::I'm still looking for an easy example. Let's say five points (x/y) and then calculating the straight line (without and maybe with the zero-point because this is often the assumed start). Just be simple, everything else derives from that. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I wish we could include the graphics at the top of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression#Introduction] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression#Interpretation] in the explanation. A lot of people are going to look at this one. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.168|172.68.133.168]] 17:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
::I've included one picture with a small explanation to the linear regression section. I think that explains it well. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The data points do not have error bars, which makes the choice of fit even more ludicrous, in my opinion. If the data are that good, then I don't believe there is a correlation, it's random with some distribution. I might hang this up at work...[[User:Arppix|Arppix]] ([[User talk:Arppix|talk]]) 02:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
:And of course in serious science data points have error bars. This makes the fitting even more complicated and should be mentioned at the explanation. Because Randall doesn't use error bars I'm sure he refers to presentations not based on real science. Also this should be mentioned here. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I hate to be negative here, as obviously some users have put a lot of effort into explaining the details behind each of the curve-fitting methods, but there's absolutely no explanation for Randall's comments on each method. While someone might learn something about the various methods by reading the explanation, they would not gain any insight on what Randall is saying about each method. In addition, the Connecting Lines explanation totally missed the fact that this isn't really even a curve-fitting method - it's just a feature of graphing software (in this case, Excel) where a smooth line is drawn through each data point from left to right rather than an example of overfitting to the data set. I think we could do better. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 02:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1958:_Self-Driving_Issues&diff=152882Talk:1958: Self-Driving Issues2018-02-21T09:04:40Z<p>108.162.246.11: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
I assume the ''off-panel speaker'' is [[Megan]], based on their positioning, but not sure what the ruling on the ambiguity is. [[User:PvOberstein|PvOberstein]] ([[User talk:PvOberstein|talk]]) 05:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I made a note about the typo in the title text. Also, weird question, does the "created by a BOT" tag mean that the explanation was written by an AI? Or is it a joke I'm missing for some reason? Sorry, kind of a dumb question I guess. 09:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1958:_Self-Driving_Issues&diff=1528811958: Self-Driving Issues2018-02-21T09:02:19Z<p>108.162.246.11: /* Explanation */ added a thing on the title text typo</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1958<br />
| date = February 21, 2018<br />
| title = Self-Driving Issues<br />
| image = self_driving_issues.png<br />
| titletext = If most people turn into muderers all of a sudden, we'll need to push out a firmware update or something.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
[[Cueball]] explains being worried about {{w|autonomous car|autonomous cars}}, noting that it may be possible to fool the sensory systems of the vehicles. He then realizes that human drivers are equally vulnerable to being deceived.<br />
<br />
[[White Hat]] and [[Megan]] point out that most {{w|Road traffic safety|road safety systems}} benefit from humans not actively trying to maliciously sabotage it.<br />
<br />
The [[title text]] notes that a radical change in {{w|human behavior}} would likely require a major update to the software that governs how autonomous vehicles behave. Presumably because it would now have to account for humans actively attempting to kill drivers on a routine basis.<br />
<br />
Fun Fact: The [[title text]] was published with a typo, "murderers" was misspelled as "muderers."<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
'''Cueball''': I worry about self-driving car safety features. What's to stop someone from painting fake lines on the road, or dropping a cutout of a pedestrian onto a highway, to make cars swerve and crash? Except... those things would also work on human drivers. What's stopping people '''now'''?<br />
<br />
''off-panel speaker (probably '''Megan''')'': Yeah, causing car crashes isn't hard.<br />
<br />
'''White Hat''': I guess it's just that most people aren't murderers?<br />
<br />
'''Cueball''': Oh, right. I always forget.<br />
<br />
'''Megan''': An underappreciated component of our road safety system.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1878:_Earth_Orbital_Diagram&diff=1442461878: Earth Orbital Diagram2017-08-18T17:01:17Z<p>108.162.246.11: /* Transcript */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1878<br />
| date = August 18, 2017<br />
| title = Earth Orbital Diagram<br />
| image = earth_orbital_diagram.png<br />
| titletext = You shouldn't look directly at a partial eclipse because of the damage that can be caused by improperly aligning the solar-lunar orbital plane with the orbital bones around your eye.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
This comic is the third consecutive comic published in the week before the {{w|solar eclipse}} occurring on Monday, {{w|Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017|August 21, 2017}} which is a total solar eclipse and visible in totality within a band across the {{w|contiguous United States}} from west to east. The other comics are [[1876: Eclipse Searches]] and [[1877: Eclipse Science]].<br />
<br />
The comic claims that the reason that eclipses don't happen every month is simple to understand by looking at an orbital diagram. Ironically, the cartoon has so many parts and labels which make it far more difficult to understand than is implied. While the graph itself is based {{w|Orbital elements|astronomical definitions}} all the labels are nonsense in this context.<br />
<br />
All these labels are complicated words, some are somewhat related to orbital mechanics ("equinox", "perihelion") while some are just latin sounding nouns. Moreover, many of the labels provided are kludged, obfuscated, or simply made up. Compare/contrast with the standard {{w|Kepler orbit|Kepler Orbit}} diagram. Most easily recognizable are the "Dimples of Venus," referring to axis-intersection points in the diagram on Earth. <br />
<br />
The title text refers to 'orbit' being also the anatomical term for the eyesocket.<br />
<br />
<br />
{| class=wikitable<br />
! Word used in the comics<br />
! Meaning of word used<br />
! Actual astronomical term<br />
! Meaning of actual term<br />
<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Arctangent}}<br />
| The inverse function of the tangent function of trigonometry. You can determine a non-right angle of a right triangle by taking the arctangent of the length of the opposite side divided by the length of the adjacent side.<br />
| <br />
| <br />
<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Astral plane}}<br />
| A plane of existence in various esoteric theories. Also used in fictional fantasy context.<br />
| {{w|Orbit_of_the_Moon|Lunar orbital plane}}<br />
| The plane in which the Moon orbits the Earth that is tilted about 5.1 degrees from the Earth<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Declension}}<br />
| Inflection of nouns in a language.<br />
| {{w|Inclination}}<br />
| The "tilt" of an orbit<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Dimples of Venus}}<br />
| Indentations sometimes visible on the human lower back<br />
| {{w|Belt of Venus}}<br />
| Shadow cast by the Earth visible in its atmosphere<br />
<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Enceliopsis}}<br />
| Small genus of flowering plants in the daisy family, appropriately known as "sunrays"<br />
| Ecliptic<br />
| The plane in which the Sun appears to orbit around the Earth - and, accordingly, the plane in which the Earth orbits around the Sun<br />
<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Equinox}}<br />
| Equinox is the point in the year where the length of day and night are roughly equal that is the first day of spring and the first day of autumn. This is due to the rotation axis of the Earth (tilted at 23.5 degrees) is midway between pointing towards or away from the Sun.<br />
|<br />
|<br />
<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Hypothecate}}<br />
| A legal verb that means something similar to "make a mortgage"<br />
|<br />
|<br />
<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Obsequity}}<br />
| The state of being obsequious (showing a willingness to obey or serve)<br />
| {{w|Obliquity}}<br />
| Axial Tilt<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| Perihelix<br />
| Portmanteau of helix and perihelion<br />
| {{w|Perihelion}}<br />
| Point in a solar orbit where the body is closest to the Sun<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Prolapse}}<br />
| A medical condition where an internal organ to move out of place<br />
|<br />
|<br />
<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Sagittal plane}}<br />
| Anatomical plane, dividing the body in left and right; also similar to Sagittarius, a constellation in the Zodiac.<br />
| {{w|Ecliptic plane}}<br />
| The plane in of the Earth's orbit about the Sun<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Solar plexus}}<br />
| Network of nerves located in the abdomen.<br />
| {{w|Sun}}<br />
| Star in our solar system.<br />
<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Solstice}}<br />
| Solstice is the point in the year where the length of day or night is longest (depending on which hemisphere), due to the 23.5 degree axial tilt of the Earth's rotation pointing directly towards/away from the Sun. This marks the first day of summer and winter.<br />
|<br />
|<br />
<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Tropopause}}<br />
| The boundary in our atmosphere between the troposphere and stratosphere. It is defined as the boundary where air ceases to cool with increasing elevation.<br />
|<br />
| <br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Explanation for "Why isn't there a (solar) eclipse every month?"==<br />
<br />
If the plane of where the Earth orbits the Sun and where the Moon orbits the Earth were completely aligned, then there would be a solar eclipse at every New Moon (once every [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#Lunar_periods 29.5 days]) and a lunar eclipse at every full moon (half a lunar period about 14.7 days after a New Moon). However, the plane in which the Moon orbits the Earth is tilted with an inclination of 5 degrees relative to that of the ecliptic plane (the plane defined by the Earth's orbit around the Sun). Eclipses are only possible during two eclipse seasons each year (half a year apart) where for a period of 31 to 37 days the Sun is nearly aligned with the two points in the tilted Earth-Moon plane where the Moon crosses the ecliptic plane. During an eclipse season at the time of a new moon there will be solar eclipses visible from certain locations and during full moons there will be lunar eclipses.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Eclipse_Diagram.jpg]]<br />
<br />
The real explanation of eclipses is evident from this xkcd comic, but is labeled with a fictional character similar to a Greek Phi but with two vertical lines; the remaining labels also do not contribute to this explanation and exist only to distract or misinform the reader.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
:[An orbital map of the Earth is shown. The Sun is in the center, the Earth is at the right bottom, and the Moon is left below the Earth.]<br />
:'''Why isn't there an eclipse every month?'''<br />
:This is a common question! The answer is made clear by a quick look at the Earth's orbital diagram:<br />
<br />
:[Label Sun:]<br />
:Solar plexus<br />
<br />
:[Label on the Earth's plane:]<br />
:Sagittal plane<br />
<br />
:[Labels on Earth's orbit (beginning at the Earth counterclockwise):]<br />
:Perihelix, Declension, Obsequity, Hypothecate, Enceliopsis, Equinox (''Solstice'' in British English)<br />
<br />
:[Two angles in the plane are labeled as:]<br />
:Determinant of the date of Easter, Arctangent<br />
<br />
:[The plane of the Moon is pictured in a small angle to the Earth's plane and named Astral Plane. The angle is presented between two lines (Greek Nu or Gamma and a double Greek Chi) and identified by a character that looks similar to a Greek Phi but with two vertical lines.]<br />
:[The labels at the Moon's path are:]<br />
:Tropopause, Prolapse, Errata.<br />
<br />
:[An arrow points to the Earth at the zero meridian on the equator. The label reads:]<br />
:Dimples of Venus<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Astronomy]]</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1872:_Backup_Batteries&diff=143621Talk:1872: Backup Batteries2017-08-04T18:58:00Z<p>108.162.246.11: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and not delete this comment.--><br />
This actually sounds like the classic provisioning situation. How many spares do you require, and when do you require additional spares. One of the things that he doesn't mention is whether he carries a USB cord for his phone and USB power supplies for auto and wall outlet use. ( For iPhones, you need one cord for charging the phone and a different cord for charging the power pack.) I have three power packs in my bag normally. When one of the power packs is low on power, I plug it into an electrical outlet while using the phone. I also plug the phone into an electrical outlet when available to prevent the battery from running down. If at home or a hotel room, I can also have one or two power packs charging while I travel with the phone and the third power pack. I also charge the phone overnight. Having multiple power packs doesn't do any good without a means of maintaining them in a charged state. I typically start the day carrying a charged phone and three charged power packs, which is enough to let me use the phone all day. At night, I plug all of the devices into electric power. If I really wanted 24 hour usage or a lot of gaming (games use up the batter faster), I could use six power packs but only carry three with me at a time. The other three would be charging at a base location.<br />
<br />
Having too many redundant backup devices can actually reduce the up time of the system. This was seen at the Superbowl in New Orleans. http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/9082144/relay-device-malfunction-caused-super-bowl-xlvii-power-outage-according-expert It is also very dangerous to assume that your backups are adequate and that you don't have to watch the log files. If somebody had been reading the logs, they would have seen the message that essentially said: "I have reported two power surges and you haven't told me what to do. Although these are not individually dangerous, one more power surge before somebody talks to me and I shut down the entire stadium."<br />
<br />
An optimist states that the water glass is half full, while a pessimist states that the water glass is half empty. What an engineer really does is find out where the water faucet is so that he can refill the glass as needed. (The original joke says that the engineer states that the glass is twice as large as needed. This is ridiculous unless he knows how much water is needed and how much is available at the faucet. The size of this glass is irrelevant unless it is too large to be handled easily or too small to transport water at the required rate.)<br />
<br />
[[User:BradleyRoss|BradleyRoss]] ([[User talk:BradleyRoss|talk]]) 17:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Assuming he charges the batteries in series (i.e. the second backup charges the first backup which charges the phone, etc.) I wonder how many batteries he'd be able to go through, before the charging/discharging inefficiency (heat generation etc.) meant none of the original power would get to the phone?<br />
Also I can relate to this comic, when traveling I may bring 2-3 batteries, even though in practice I rarely need more than one 😝😂. 18:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1844:_Voting_Systems&diff=1406981844: Voting Systems2017-06-04T00:22:32Z<p>108.162.246.11: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1844<br />
| date = May 31, 2017<br />
| title = Voting Systems<br />
| image = voting_systems.png<br />
| titletext = Kenneth Arrow hated me because the ordering of my preferences changes based on which voting systems have what level of support. But it tells me a lot about the people I'm going to be voting with!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Here we have basically two explanations which have to be merged.}}<br />
<br />
This comic references three types of voting systems:<br />
<br />
1) '''{{w|Approval voting}}''': Approval voting is a single-winner electoral system. Each voter may "approve" of (i.e., select) any number of candidates. The winner is the most-approved candidate.<br />
<br />
2) '''{{w|Instant-runoff voting}}''': In Instant-Runoff Voting (also known as Ranked Choice or Preferential Voting) voters in elections can rank the candidates in order of preference. Ballots are initially counted for each elector's top choice. If a candidate secures more than half of these votes, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the candidate in last place is eliminated and removed from consideration. Ballots that had this candidate as the top choice now have the second preference as the top choice (this is the "instant runoff"). The top remaining choices on all the ballots are then counted again. This process repeats until one candidate is the top remaining choice of a majority of the voters or all but one candidate have been eliminated.<br />
<br />
3) '''{{w|Condorcet method}}''': A '''Condorcet method''' is any single-winner electoral system that elects the candidate that would win a majority of the vote in all of the head-to-head elections against each of the other candidates, whenever there is such a candidate. A candidate with this property is called the Condorcet winner. Due to the {{w|Condorcet paradox}}, there may not be a Condorcet winner in an election with 3 or more candidates.<br />
<br />
'''{{w|Arrow's impossibility theorem}}''' gives a list of criteria for ranked voting electoral systems and states that no system can satisfy all of them at once, despite that for each of them it may seem "obvious" that an electoral system ought to satisfy it.<br />
<br />
The primary joke in the comic is the premise that people who are pedantic or knowledgeable enough to find Arrow's theorem to be relevant will self-fulfill the theorem by being inclined to disagree on any effort to change the voting system. They agree that the currently-used method of first past the post (FPTP, aka plurality voting) is clearly the wrong way to implement democracy, but they strongly disagree on what should replace it. This is illustrated by Cueball's voting system preference that is contingent on essentially disagreeing with the preferences of other people, which defeats any effort to produce a community-wide ranking.<br />
<br />
A secondary joke in the comic is that often voters don't pick their favorite choice in a vote. Instead, they vote for a less favorable, but more likely electable, person as a way to prevent their least favorite choice from being elected. (For example, in 2016 many who would have preferred to see Sanders elected voted instead for their less-favored choice, Clinton. The idea being that splitting the vote between Sanders and Clinton could end up with their least-favored choice, Trump, being elected.) This is the kind of situation these voting systems are designed to eliminate, as a traditional FPTP voting system creates situations where people do not vote for their first-choice candidate.<br />
<br />
A third joke is the recursive self-referencing inherent in having to vote for a voting system creates.<br />
<br />
The title text stipulates that Cueball has no fixed ranking of preference for human candidates, but makes this choice dependent on which voting system is favoured by the group. This exceeds strategic voting considerations as the ranking should have full information, whom Cueball prefers in each situation. Therefore Arrow's impossibility theorem and the analysis behind it assume the ranked preferences of an individual voter as a fixed given. To make them dependent on the voting system makes assessing the efficacy of the voting systems absurd or at least much more complicated to do as a general assessment. That is given as the reason, why Arrow would wholeheartedly hate him.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[White Hat and Ponytail are standing on either side of Cueball who is talking while lifting one hand.] <br />
:Cueball: I prefer approval voting, but if we're seriously considering instant runoff, then I'll argue for a Condorcet method instead.<br />
<br />
:[Caption beneath the panel:] <br />
:Strong Arrow's theorem: The people who find Arrow's theorem significant will never agree on anything anyway.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1844:_Voting_Systems&diff=1406971844: Voting Systems2017-06-04T00:20:55Z<p>108.162.246.11: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1844<br />
| date = May 31, 2017<br />
| title = Voting Systems<br />
| image = voting_systems.png<br />
| titletext = Kenneth Arrow hated me because the ordering of my preferences changes based on which voting systems have what level of support. But it tells me a lot about the people I'm going to be voting with!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Here we have basically two explanations which have to be merged.}}<br />
<br />
This comic references three types of voting systems:<br />
<br />
1) '''{{w|Approval voting}}''': Approval voting is a single-winner electoral system. Each voter may "approve" of (i.e., select) any number of candidates. The winner is the most-approved candidate.<br />
<br />
2) '''{{w|Instant-runoff voting}}''': In Instant-Runoff Voting (also known as Ranked Choice or Preferential Voting) voters in elections can rank the candidates in order of preference. Ballots are initially counted for each elector's top choice. If a candidate secures more than half of these votes, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the candidate in last place is eliminated and removed from consideration. Ballots that had this candidate as the top choice now have the second preference as the top choice (this is the "instant runoff"). The top remaining choices on all the ballots are then counted again. This process repeats until one candidate is the top remaining choice of a majority of the voters or all but one candidate have been eliminated.<br />
<br />
3) '''{{w|Condorcet method}}''': A '''Condorcet method''' is any single-winner electoral system that elects the candidate that would win a majority of the vote in all of the head-to-head elections against each of the other candidates, whenever there is such a candidate. A candidate with this property is called the Condorcet winner. Due to the {{w|Condorcet paradox}}, there may not be a Condorcet winner in an election with 3 or more candidates.<br />
<br />
'''{{w|Arrow's impossibility theorem}}''' gives a list of criteria for ranked voting electoral systems and states that no system can satisfy all of them at once, despite that for each of them it may seem "obvious" that an electoral system ought to satisfy it.<br />
<br />
The primary joke in the comic is the premise that people who are pedantic or knowledgeable enough to find Arrow's theorem to be relevant will self-fulfill the theorem by being inclined to disagree on any effort to change the voting system. They agree that the currently-used method of first past the post (FPTP, aka plurality voting) is clearly the wrong way to implement democracy, but they strongly disagree on what should replace it. This is illustrated by Cueball's voting system preference that is contingent on essentially disagreeing with the preferences of other people, which defeats any effort to produce a community-wide ranking.<br />
<br />
A secondary joke in the comic is that often voters don't pick their favorite choice in a vote. Instead, they vote for a less favorable, but more likely electable, person as a way to prevent their least favorite choice from being elected. (For example, in 2016 many who would have preferred to see Sanders elected voted instead for there less-favored choice, Clinton. The idea being that splitting the vote between Sanders and Clinton could end up with Trump being elected.) This is the kind of situation these voting systems are designed to eliminate, as a traditional FPTP voting system creates situations where people do not vote for their first-choice candidate.<br />
<br />
A third joke is the recursive self-referencing inherent in having to vote for a voting system creates.<br />
<br />
The title text stipulates that Cueball has no fixed ranking of preference for human candidates, but makes this choice dependent on which voting system is favoured by the group. This exceeds strategic voting considerations as the ranking should have full information, whom Cueball prefers in each situation. Therefore Arrow's impossibility theorem and the analysis behind it assume the ranked preferences of an individual voter as a fixed given. To make them dependent on the voting system makes assessing the efficacy of the voting systems absurd or at least much more complicated to do as a general assessment. That is given as the reason, why Arrow would wholeheartedly hate him.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[White Hat and Ponytail are standing on either side of Cueball who is talking while lifting one hand.] <br />
:Cueball: I prefer approval voting, but if we're seriously considering instant runoff, then I'll argue for a Condorcet method instead.<br />
<br />
:[Caption beneath the panel:] <br />
:Strong Arrow's theorem: The people who find Arrow's theorem significant will never agree on anything anyway.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1180:_Virus_Venn_Diagram&diff=1361971180: Virus Venn Diagram2017-03-01T02:49:42Z<p>108.162.246.11: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1180<br />
| date = March 1, 2013<br />
| title = Virus Venn Diagram<br />
| image = virus venn diagram.png<br />
| titletext = Within five minutes of the Singularity appearing, somebody will suggest defragging it.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
Randall uses an {{w|Euler diagram}} (technically not a {{w|Venn diagram}}) to make fun of clueless computer users. The circles in the diagram don't overlap, meaning problems that people suspect are caused by viruses are never really caused by viruses, and problems that are actually caused by viruses are never suspected by people to be caused by a virus.<br />
<br />
When computers don't function as expected, a common response from ordinary users is "Maybe it has a {{w|Computer virus|virus}}?". However, most of these situations can be explained by faulty hardware (freezing, blue screen, etc.) or software (crashes, errors, apparent lack of response to input, etc.), a general lack of maintenance (too slow to start up, too much clutter on screen, etc.), or user error. A virus can potentially cause those symptoms, but it's much more common for them either to cause immediate and massive damage (rendering the computer completely unusable, wipe the disk, display obvious propaganda, etc.), or to remain stealthy with no obvious symptoms (logging keystrokes, exfiltrating sensitive information, receiving commands in the background, etc.). Of course there is no clear separation and there is always some overlap between the two scenarios, so the diagram is not meant to be taken literally.<br />
<br />
The title text refers to the {{w|technological singularity}}, a hypothetical point in the future when {{w|superintelligence}} emerges in computers, so that they can build new computers with ever increasing intelligence. It is seen as impossible to predict what would happen beyond this point; hence the term "singularity". [[1084: Server Problem]] makes a joke on this.<br />
<br />
"Defragging" is short for {{w|disk defragmentation}}, an easy, user-friendly action that PC users can undertake to supposedly make their computers run faster. It is therefore a common all-round recommendation to do this, regardless of the problem. [[Randall]] suggests the same clueless users would encounter the singularity and attempt defragging. It probably won't help much.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Euler diagram with two circles that don't intersect.]<br />
:Green circle: Computer problems that make people say, "Maybe it has a virus?"<br />
:Blue circle: Computer problems caused by viruses<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Venn diagrams]]<br />
[[Category:Computers]]</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=550:_Density&diff=136196550: Density2017-03-01T02:28:21Z<p>108.162.246.11: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 550<br />
| date = March 2, 2009<br />
| title = Density<br />
| image = density.png<br />
| titletext = If only I had asked 4chan for ideas for what I should do to prevent this!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic depicts a sex scene with [[Cueball]] in bed together with [[Megan]], and a sentence being spoken by Cueball. The sentence's overt meaning suggests Megan doesn't wish to become pregnant, but Cueball has prematurely or unintentionally {{w|ejaculated}} inside her. The sentence contains five popular (at the time) {{w|Internet meme|memes}}:<br />
*'''[http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/xzibit-yo-dawg Yo Dawg]''': With the full meme having the form "Yo Dawg, I herd you like (noun X), so I put an (noun X) in your (noun Y) so you can (verb Z) while you (verb Z)", this is the largest meme used in the sentence, and lays out the overall structure of the sentence. The greeting at the beginning can be changed to "Sup Dawg" as in this comic.<br />
*'''[http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-herd-u-like-mudkips I herd u liek Mudkips]''': The misspelling of words "herd" (heard) and "liek" (like) come from this meme. While this meme is usually used with {{w|Mudkip}} (a {{w|Pokémon}}), in this case the noun has been replaced by something she didn't like.<br />
*'''[http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/how-is-babby-formed How is babby formed?]''': The expression "forming babby" (with the misspelling of "baby") comes from this meme. This meme comes from a question that was originally asked on Yahoo! Answers. The full question was "how is babby formed / how girl get pragnent". This meme was also referenced in the title text of [[481: Listen to Yourself]] and in [[522: Google Trends]].<br />
*'''[http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-accidentally I Accidentally]''': This meme carries the pattern of omitting an important verb, leaving the reader wondering what had happened accidentally. In this case the omitted verb is presumably "came" or "ejaculated". This meme was referenced again in [[997: Wait Wait]].<br />
*'''[http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/in-ur-base In your base]''': This meme might be used for its relation to {{w|baseball metaphors for sex}}, which was also referenced in [[540: Base System]]).<br />
<br />
In plain English, the sentence roughly means:<br />
: ''Hey girl, I heard that you don't want to have a baby but I accidentally came inside you.''<br />
<br />
The comic then goes to describe the pros and cons of the situation. "Ruined life" is listed as a major downside, as he may have caused a girl to become pregnant against her wishes, and may have to father a child with her. The usage of memes in response to the situation also conveys an uncaring attitude that is likely to put a damper on their relationship even if she did not get pregnant. On the other hand, it is noted that the sentence could set a new record for the density of memes (most memes packed into the fewest number of words) which can be considered a positive. This explains the title of the comic, though it will be a very superficial and meaningless record, especially when weighed against the downsides.<br />
<br />
The reason Cueball chose to construct the sentence with so many memes is not clear. Since the comic lists "ruined life" as one of the cons of this scene, it would seem that the accident, as well as the subsequent use of memes, were not planned. It's possible that Cueball had too many memes in his head and couldn't think of anything else to say amid the nervous tension. If this were another character, say Black Hat, then it would be easier to believe that the entire night could have been staged just to give him an opportunity to use the sentence and set a record.<br />
<br />
The title text references {{w|4chan}}, a site known for its memes, {{w|Troll (Internet)|trolls}} and other assorted internet clutter, and sarcastically implies that any advice they might give would in any way be at all helpful. Due to its population of trolls and other unhelpful sorts, advice given by 4chan would normally be useless at best and actively detrimental at worst; however, the title text implies that Cueball regrets that he did not ask 4chan for advice, and maybe have used them for this earlier.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Cueball is in a bed with Megan.]<br />
:Cueball: Sup dawg, I herd you didn't liek forming babby, but I accidentally in your base.<br />
:[Below the frame:]<br />
:Cons: Ruined life.<br />
:Pros: Sentence set the new meme density record.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Sex]]</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1784:_Bad_Map_Projection:_Liquid_Resize&diff=133577Talk:1784: Bad Map Projection: Liquid Resize2017-01-11T06:14:25Z<p>108.162.246.11: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--><br />
I'm not too experienced with PhotoShop, but I think that the tool is a selective delete that he used on water bodies, so removing most of the water while maintaining relative shapes and sizes?<br />
Mostly just from the fact that India looks desiccated. <br />
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.197|162.158.166.197]] 05:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Girish<br />
Australia is pretty mutilated, so I think the tool was used on land too [[Special:Contributions/162.158.178.111|162.158.178.111]] 05:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Where are Laos and Cambodia missing? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.11|108.162.246.11]] 06:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1774:_Adjective_Foods&diff=1332041774: Adjective Foods2017-01-03T20:14:56Z<p>108.162.246.11: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1774<br />
| date = December 19, 2016<br />
| title = Adjective Foods<br />
| image = adjective_foods.png<br />
| titletext = Contains 100% of your recommended daily allowance!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
{{incomplete| Need to fill in descriptions for the rest of adjectives}}<br />
<br />
In this comic, [[Randall]] imagines creating food items whose labels contain only adjectives, and putting them on display in supermarkets. This is likely a jab at food market buzzwords, which usually rely on adjectives that bring up certain feelings based on how the food is "supposed to be", rather than a factual description of what the food actually is. By removing all nouns from product labels, Randall takes this trend to its extreme. The items depicted in this comic are filled with popular descriptions that make them sound appealing, but give no useful information about their contents. It is implied that some consumers who are susceptible to buzzword marketing will nevertheless purchase these products.<br />
<br />
The adjectives seen in the comic are:<br />
* '''Premium''': A generic term that indicates high quality, which can be used to describe any food. There is no objective standard for what can be labeled "premium".<br />
* '''Stone-ground''': A term typically used to describe milled grain products such as flour, corn meal, or mustard. This term evokes a sense of tradition (as opposed to industrial processing), and by association, heartiness or healthiness. In reality, contents are rarely distinguishable no matter what grinding surface was used.<br />
* '''Bespoke''': A word meaning "custom made to individual order", in contrast to factory mass-produced items typically found in supermarkets. It is supposed to imply higher quality due to the producer giving it more attention. However, mass-produced items are usually ones that pass more strict quality controls, have more consistent results, and appeal more to popular tastes.<br />
* '''Cage-free''': A term typically used to describe chicken. Chickens are usually farmed in tight cages and not allowed to move freely. Ethical concerns for the chickens' welfare led to preference for better handling methods such as "cage-free" and "{{w|Free-range_eggs|free range}}". These terms however are still often abused by farmers looking to maximize their profits, as "cage-free" can simply mean crowded in a filthy barn, and "free range" might be a tiny patch of grass which chickens are allowed to, but rarely actually, visit.<br />
* '''Gourmet''': Another generic term that indicates sophisticated, fancy, or exotic properties. Any food can be labeled "gourmet" without any objective standard.<br />
* '''Fire-roasted''': A method of preparation by heating food over an open flame. This process typically gives the food a distinct flavor through {{w|caramelization}} and by absorbing the smoky flavor from the fire itself.<br />
* '''{{w|Glaze_(cooking_technique)|Glazed}}''': A description indicating that the food has been coated with a thin layer of glossy liquid. This is usually done to improve the flavor and texture.<br />
* '''{{w|Flamb%C3%A9|Flamb&eacute;}}''': A method of preparation by adding alcohol to the food and setting it on fire. This is mainly done for dramatic presentation in a restaurant setting. The alcohol content, and the flames to a lesser extent, can give food additional flavors.<br />
* '''{{w|Organic_food|Organic}}''': In the context of food, this term describes methods of production which meet certain standards for sustainability and lack of synthetic chemicals. These standards vary by country and region. While one can support organic farming for ecological reasons, many also incorrectly associate "organic" to mean better tasting, more nutritious, or otherwise healthier. Experiments to date have found no difference in safety, nutrition, and taste between organically and conventionally produced foods.<br />
* '''{{w|Natural_foods|All-natural}}''': A term that generally implies that all the food's ingredients were directly sourced from domestication and farming, with no additives or alterations through modern technologies like chemical synthesis or genetic engineering. Similar to "organic", definition and enforcement of this term varies by country and region. While it is true that food processing technologies have led to an explosion of {{w|Junk_food|junk food}}, it is not true that "natural" is necessarily always better. Many natural products can be harmful if used carelessly, and some processing methods do in fact improve the safety and nutrition of food.<br />
* '''Locally-sourced''':<br />
* '''Artisanal''':<br />
* '''Kosher''':<br />
* '''Grade A''':<br />
* '''Craft''':<br />
* '''Barrel-aged''':<br />
* '''Smoked''':<br />
* '''Authentic''':<br />
* '''Homemade''':<br />
* '''Sun-dried''':<br />
* '''Whole''':<br />
* '''Extra sharp''':<br />
* '''Low-calorie''':<br />
* '''Lite''':<br />
* '''Original flavor''':<br />
* '''{{w|Reference_Daily_Intake|Recommended daily allowance}}''' (title text): Information often found in the nutritional information on food labels which compare the amount of {{w|macronutrients}}, vitamins and minerals to a prescribed standard amount an average person is deemed to require in their daily diet.<br />
<br />
The title text may be a continuation of the main joke, in that Randall has removed the noun (nutrient type) which the recommended daily allowance is supposed to measure. This leaves "100%" which gives an impression of good value, but it is useless without knowing what it describes. Alternatively, it may be suggesting facetiously that the foods contain 100% of the recommended daily allowance of adjectives, given the high quantity of them in the product names. Obviously, adjectives are not a nutrient the human body needs that would normally be subject of a nutritional chart.<br />
<br />
This joke is very similar to [[1060|comic 1060, Crowdsourcing]], in that Randall is doing nothing, and trying to make it look like he is doing something. It expresses the opposite idea from [[993|comic 993, Brand Identity]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
<br />
:[An arrangement of labeled foodstuffs, from left to right and top to bottom:]<br />
:Premium Stone-ground Bespoke, Cage-free<br />
:Gourmet Fire-roasted Glazed flambé<br />
:Organic All-natural Locally-sourced Artisanal, Kosher, Grade A<br />
:Craft Barrel-aged Smoked Authentic Homemade Sun-dried Whole Extra Sharp<br />
:Low-calorie Lite Original Flavor<br />
:[Caption:] I'm trying to trick supermarkets into carrying my new line of adjective-only foods.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
<br />
* The word “artisanal” was originally misspelled as “artisenal”.<br />
** The wrong spelling is found [https://web.archive.org/web/20161219163201/http://xkcd.com/1774/ here].<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Food]]</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1774:_Adjective_Foods&diff=1332011774: Adjective Foods2017-01-03T19:47:41Z<p>108.162.246.11: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1774<br />
| date = December 19, 2016<br />
| title = Adjective Foods<br />
| image = adjective_foods.png<br />
| titletext = Contains 100% of your recommended daily allowance!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
{{incomplete| Need to fill in descriptions for the rest of adjectives}}<br />
<br />
In this comic, [[Randall]] imagines creating food items whose labels contain only adjectives, and putting them on display in supermarkets. This is likely a jab at food market buzzwords, which usually rely on adjectives that bring up certain feelings based on how the food is "supposed to be", rather than a factual description of what the food actually is. By removing all nouns from product labels, Randall takes this trend to its extreme. The items depicted in this comic are filled with popular descriptions that make them sound appealing, but give no useful information about their contents. It is implied that some consumers who are susceptible to buzzword marketing will nevertheless purchase these products.<br />
<br />
The adjectives seen in the comic are:<br />
* '''Premium''': A generic term that indicates high quality, which can be used to describe any food. There is no objective standard for what can be labeled "premium".<br />
* '''Stone-ground''': A term typically used to describe milled grain products such as flour, corn meal, or mustard. This term evokes a sense of tradition (as opposed to industrial processing), and by association, heartiness or healthiness. In reality, contents are rarely distinguishable no matter what grinding surface was used.<br />
* '''Bespoke''': A word meaning "custom made to individual order", in contrast to factory mass-produced items typically found in supermarkets. It is supposed to imply higher quality due to the producer giving it more attention. However, mass-produced items are usually ones that pass more strict quality controls, have more consistent results, and appeal more to popular tastes.<br />
* '''Cage-free''': A term typically used to describe chicken. Chickens are usually farmed in tight cages and not allowed to move freely. Ethical concerns for the chickens' welfare led to preference for better handling methods such as "cage-free" and "{{w|Free-range_eggs|free range}}". These terms however are still often abused by farmers looking to maximize their profits, as "cage-free" can simply mean crowded in a filthy barn, and "free range" might be a tiny patch of grass which chickens are allowed to, but rarely actually, visit.<br />
* '''Gourmet''': Another generic term that indicates sophisticated, fancy, or exotic properties. Any food can be labeled "gourmet" without any objective standard.<br />
* '''Fire-roasted''': A method of preparation by heating food over an open flame. This process typically gives the food a distinct flavor through {{w|caramelization}} and by absorbing the smoky flavor from the fire itself.<br />
* '''{{w|Glaze_(cooking_technique)|Glazed}}''': A description indicating that the food has been coated with a thin layer of glossy liquid. This is usually done to improve the flavor and texture.<br />
* '''{{w|Flamb%C3%A9|Flamb&eacute;}}''': A method of preparation by adding alcohol to the food and setting it on fire. This is mainly done for dramatic presentation in a restaurant setting. The alcohol content, and the flames to a lesser extent, can give food additional flavors.<br />
* '''{{w|Organic_food|Organic}}''': In the context of food, this term describes methods of production which meet certain standards for sustainability and lack of synthetic chemicals. These standards vary by country and region. While one can support organic farming for ecological reasons, experiments have found no difference in safety, nutrition, and taste between organically and conventionally produced foods.<br />
* '''All-natural''':<br />
* '''Locally-sourced''':<br />
* '''Artisanal''':<br />
* '''Kosher''':<br />
* '''Grade A''':<br />
* '''Craft''':<br />
* '''Barrel-aged''':<br />
* '''Smoked''':<br />
* '''Authentic''':<br />
* '''Homemade''':<br />
* '''Sun-dried''':<br />
* '''Whole''':<br />
* '''Extra sharp''':<br />
* '''Low-calorie''':<br />
* '''Lite''':<br />
* '''Original flavor''':<br />
* '''{{w|Reference_Daily_Intake|Recommended daily allowance}}''' (title text): Information often found in the nutritional information on food labels which compare the amount of {{w|macronutrients}}, vitamins and minerals to a prescribed standard amount an average person is deemed to require in their daily diet.<br />
<br />
The title text may be a continuation of the main joke, in that Randall has removed the noun (nutrient type) which the recommended daily allowance is supposed to measure. This leaves "100%" which gives an impression of good value, but it is useless without knowing what it describes. Alternatively, it may be suggesting facetiously that the foods contain 100% of the recommended daily allowance of adjectives, given the high quantity of them in the product names. Obviously, adjectives are not a nutrient the human body needs that would normally be subject of a nutritional chart.<br />
<br />
This joke is very similar to [[1060|comic 1060, Crowdsourcing]], in that Randall is doing nothing, and trying to make it look like he is doing something. It expresses the opposite idea from [[993|comic 993, Brand Identity]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
<br />
:[An arrangement of labeled foodstuffs, from left to right and top to bottom:]<br />
:Premium Stone-ground Bespoke, Cage-free<br />
:Gourmet Fire-roasted Glazed flambé<br />
:Organic All-natural Locally-sourced Artisanal, Kosher, Grade A<br />
:Craft Barrel-aged Smoked Authentic Homemade Sun-dried Whole Extra Sharp<br />
:Low-calorie Lite Original Flavor<br />
:[Caption:] I'm trying to trick supermarkets into carrying my new line of adjective-only foods.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
<br />
* The word “artisanal” was originally misspelled as “artisenal”.<br />
** The wrong spelling is found [https://web.archive.org/web/20161219163201/http://xkcd.com/1774/ here].<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Food]]</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1774:_Adjective_Foods&diff=1332001774: Adjective Foods2017-01-03T19:46:35Z<p>108.162.246.11: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1774<br />
| date = December 19, 2016<br />
| title = Adjective Foods<br />
| image = adjective_foods.png<br />
| titletext = Contains 100% of your recommended daily allowance!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
{{incomplete| Need to fill in descriptions for the rest of adjectives}}<br />
<br />
In this comic, [[Randall]] imagines creating food items whose labels contain only adjectives, and putting them on display in supermarkets. This is likely a jab at food market buzzwords, which usually rely on adjectives that bring up certain feelings based on how the food is "supposed to be", rather than a factual description of what the food actually is. By removing all nouns from product labels, Randall takes this trend to its extreme. The items depicted in this comic are filled with popular descriptions that make them sound appealing, but give no useful information about their contents. It is implied that some consumers who are susceptible to buzzword marketing will nevertheless purchase these products.<br />
<br />
The adjectives seen in the comic are:<br />
* '''Premium''': A generic term that indicates high quality, which can be used to describe any food. There is no objective standard for what can be labeled "premium".<br />
* '''Stone-ground''': A term typically used to describe milled grain products such as flour, corn meal, or mustard. This term evokes a sense of tradition (as opposed to industrial processing), and by association, heartiness or healthiness. In reality, contents are rarely distinguishable no matter what grinding surface was used.<br />
* '''Bespoke''': A word meaning "custom made to individual order", in contrast to factory mass-produced items typically found in supermarkets. It is supposed to imply higher quality due to the producer giving it more attention. However, mass-produced items are usually ones that pass more strict quality controls, have more consistent results, and appeal more to popular tastes.<br />
* '''Cage-free''': A term typically used to describe chicken. Chickens are usually farmed in tight cages and not allowed to move freely. Ethical concerns for the chickens' welfare led to preference for better handling methods such as "cage-free" and "{w|Free-range_eggs}free range}". These terms however are still often abused by farmers looking to maximize their profits, as "cage-free" can simply mean crowded in a filthy barn, and "free range" might be a tiny patch of grass which chickens are allowed to, but rarely actually, visit.<br />
* '''Gourmet''': Another generic term that indicates sophisticated, fancy, or exotic properties. Any food can be labeled "gourmet" without any objective standard.<br />
* '''Fire-roasted''': A method of preparation by heating food over an open flame. This process typically gives the food a distinct flavor through {w|caramelization} and by absorbing the smoky flavor from the fire itself.<br />
* '''{w|Glaze_(cooking_technique)|Glazed}''': A description indicating that the food has been coated with a thin layer of glossy liquid. This is usually done to improve the flavor and texture.<br />
* '''{w|Flamb%C3%A9|Flamb&eacute;}''': A method of preparation by adding alcohol to the food and setting it on fire. This is mainly done for dramatic presentation in a restaurant setting. The alcohol content, and the flames to a lesser extent, can give food additional flavors.<br />
* '''{w|Organic_food|Organic}''': In the context of food, this term describes methods of production which meet certain standards for sustainability and lack of synthetic chemicals. These standards vary by country and region. While one can support organic farming for ecological reasons, experiments have found no difference in safety, nutrition, and taste between organically and conventionally produced foods.<br />
* '''All-natural''':<br />
* '''Locally-sourced''':<br />
* '''Artisanal''':<br />
* '''Kosher''':<br />
* '''Grade A''':<br />
* '''Craft''':<br />
* '''Barrel-aged''':<br />
* '''Smoked''':<br />
* '''Authentic''':<br />
* '''Homemade''':<br />
* '''Sun-dried''':<br />
* '''Whole''':<br />
* '''Extra sharp''':<br />
* '''Low-calorie''':<br />
* '''Lite''':<br />
* '''Original flavor''':<br />
* '''{{w|Reference_Daily_Intake|Recommended daily allowance}}''' (title text): Information often found in the nutritional information on food labels which compare the amount of {{w|macronutrients}}, vitamins and minerals to a prescribed standard amount an average person is deemed to require in their daily diet.<br />
<br />
The title text may be a continuation of the main joke, in that Randall has removed the noun (nutrient type) which the recommended daily allowance is supposed to measure. This leaves "100%" which gives an impression of good value, but it is useless without knowing what it describes. Alternatively, it may be suggesting facetiously that the foods contain 100% of the recommended daily allowance of adjectives, given the high quantity of them in the product names. Obviously, adjectives are not a nutrient the human body needs that would normally be subject of a nutritional chart.<br />
<br />
This joke is very similar to [[1060|comic 1060, Crowdsourcing]], in that Randall is doing nothing, and trying to make it look like he is doing something. It expresses the opposite idea from [[993|comic 993, Brand Identity]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
<br />
:[An arrangement of labeled foodstuffs, from left to right and top to bottom:]<br />
:Premium Stone-ground Bespoke, Cage-free<br />
:Gourmet Fire-roasted Glazed flambé<br />
:Organic All-natural Locally-sourced Artisanal, Kosher, Grade A<br />
:Craft Barrel-aged Smoked Authentic Homemade Sun-dried Whole Extra Sharp<br />
:Low-calorie Lite Original Flavor<br />
:[Caption:] I'm trying to trick supermarkets into carrying my new line of adjective-only foods.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
<br />
* The word “artisanal” was originally misspelled as “artisenal”.<br />
** The wrong spelling is found [https://web.archive.org/web/20161219163201/http://xkcd.com/1774/ here].<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Food]]</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1774:_Adjective_Foods&diff=1331971774: Adjective Foods2017-01-03T19:09:47Z<p>108.162.246.11: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1774<br />
| date = December 19, 2016<br />
| title = Adjective Foods<br />
| image = adjective_foods.png<br />
| titletext = Contains 100% of your recommended daily allowance!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
{{incomplete| Need to fill in descriptions for the rest of adjectives}}<br />
<br />
In this comic, [[Randall]] imagines creating food items whose labels contain only adjectives, and putting them on display in supermarkets. This is likely a jab at food market buzzwords, which usually rely on adjectives that bring up certain feelings based on how the food is "supposed to be", rather than a factual description of what the food actually is. By removing all nouns from product labels, Randall takes this trend to its extreme. The items depicted in this comic are filled with popular descriptions that make them sound appealing, but give no useful information about their contents. It is implied that some consumers who are susceptible to buzzword marketing will nevertheless purchase these products.<br />
<br />
The adjectives seen in the comic are:<br />
* '''Premium''': A generic term that indicates high quality, which can be used to describe any food. There is no objective standard for what can be labeled "premium".<br />
* '''Stone-ground''': A term typically used to describe milled grain products such as flour, corn meal, or mustard. This term evokes a sense of tradition (as opposed to industrial processing), and by association, heartiness or healthiness. In reality, contents are rarely distinguishable no matter what grinding surface was used.<br />
* '''Bespoke''': A word meaning "custom made to individual order", in contrast to factory mass-produced items typically found in supermarkets. It is supposed to imply higher quality due to the producer giving it more attention. However, it is usually mass-produced items that pass more strict quality controls, have more consistent results, and appeal more to popular tastes.<br />
* '''Cage-free''': A term typically used to describe chicken. Chickens are usually farmed in tight cages and not allowed to move freely. Ethical concerns for the chickens' welfare led to preference for better handling methods such as "cage-free" and "free range". These terms however are still often abused by farmers looking to maximize their profits, as "cage-free" can simply mean crowded in a filthy barn, and "free range" might be a tiny patch of grass which chickens are allowed to, but rarely actually, visit.<br />
* '''Gourmet''': Another generic term that indicates sophisticated, fancy, or exotic properties. Any food can be labeled "gourmet" without any objective standard.<br />
* '''Fire-roasted''':<br />
* '''Glazed''':<br />
* '''Flamb&eacute;''':<br />
* '''Organic''':<br />
* '''All-natural''':<br />
* '''Locally-sourced''':<br />
* '''Artisanal''':<br />
* '''Kosher''':<br />
* '''Grade A''':<br />
* '''Craft''':<br />
* '''Barrel-aged''':<br />
* '''Smoked''':<br />
* '''Authentic''':<br />
* '''Homemade''':<br />
* '''Sun-dried''':<br />
* '''Whole''':<br />
* '''Extra sharp''':<br />
* '''Low-calorie''':<br />
* '''Lite''':<br />
* '''Original flavor''':<br />
* '''{{w|Reference_Daily_Intake|Recommended daily allowance}}''' (title text): Information often found in the nutritional information on food labels which compare the amount of {{w|macronutrients}}, vitamins and minerals to a prescribed standard amount an average person is deemed to require in their daily diet.<br />
<br />
The title text may be a continuation of the main joke, in that Randall has removed the noun (nutrient type) which the recommended daily allowance is supposed to measure. This leaves "100%" which gives an impression of good value, but it is useless without knowing what it describes. Alternatively, it may be suggesting facetiously that the foods contain 100% of the recommended daily allowance of adjectives, given the high quantity of them in the product names. Obviously, adjectives are not a nutrient the human body needs that would normally be subject of a nutritional chart.<br />
<br />
This joke is very similar to [[1060|comic 1060, Crowdsourcing]], in that Randall is doing nothing, and trying to make it look like he is doing something. It expresses the opposite idea from [[993|comic 993, Brand Identity]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
<br />
:[An arrangement of labeled foodstuffs, from left to right and top to bottom:]<br />
:Premium Stone-ground Bespoke, Cage-free<br />
:Gourmet Fire-roasted Glazed flambé<br />
:Organic All-natural Locally-sourced Artisanal, Kosher, Grade A<br />
:Craft Barrel-aged Smoked Authentic Homemade Sun-dried Whole Extra Sharp<br />
:Low-calorie Lite Original Flavor<br />
:[Caption:] I'm trying to trick supermarkets into carrying my new line of adjective-only foods.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
<br />
* The word “artisanal” was originally misspelled as “artisenal”.<br />
** The wrong spelling is found [https://web.archive.org/web/20161219163201/http://xkcd.com/1774/ here].<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Food]]</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=972:_November&diff=58332972: November2014-01-21T22:23:20Z<p>108.162.246.11: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 972<br />
| date = November 2, 2011<br />
| title = November<br />
| image = november.png<br />
| imagesize = <br />
| titletext = November marks the birthday of Charles Schulz, pioneer of tongue awareness.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic is a homage to {{w|Charles Schulz}}, the creator of the comic {{w|Peanuts}}, who was born on November 26, 1922. [[:File:tongue awareness.jpg|Here's the comic in question]] by Schulz. xkcd's version has [[Black Hat]] as Linus, and [[Cueball]] as Lucy. In both comics, when you start thinking about your tongue, you can't stop thinking about it. This is similar to the way that if you start thinking about your breathing, you stop breathing unless you consciously think to breathe.<br />
<br />
[http://fuckyeahexistentialism.tumblr.com/post/852726235/im-aware-of-my-tongue-its-an-awful-feeling This link] also indicates that Schulz's comic is not completely about tongue awareness, instead has deeper meaning about one's existence in the world.<br />
<br />
The comic also seems to refer to the Movember charity which encourages men to grow mustache during the month of November as a sign of awareness for mens' health and for fundraising.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Black Hat and Cueball sit in a room]<br />
:Black Hat: Did you know November is Tongue Awareness Month?<br />
<br />
:[Cueball is suddenly aware of his tongue]<br />
<br />
:[Cueball continues to be aware of his tongue]<br />
<br />
:[Cueball is *still* aware of his tongue]<br />
:Cueball: I hate you.<br />
:Black Hat: Enjoy the next four weeks.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}} <br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:971:_Alternative_Literature&diff=58329Talk:971: Alternative Literature2014-01-21T22:15:09Z<p>108.162.246.11: </p>
<hr />
<div>I would totally buy a blank book. I could hollow them out to make boxes, or wire up the insides to build a revolving door, or hire an artist to draw wonderful images in them to put on display for anyone who comes over to my home. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|purple|David}}<font color=green size=3px>y</font></u><font color=indigo size=4px>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 08:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Interestingly, this is exactly the argument used to explain why reading books is better than watching TV: TV gives too much of the ready context, while a book allows the reader to fill in the blanks with his own imagination. The empty books just go one step further. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.11|108.162.246.11]] 22:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:951:_Working&diff=58321Talk:951: Working2014-01-21T21:34:03Z<p>108.162.246.11: </p>
<hr />
<div>Unless you're unemployed, in which case spending extra time to find deals is *probably* a good idea since you're not going to be earning any more money with that time anyways. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|purple|David}}<font color=green size=3px>y</font></u><font color=indigo size=4px>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 08:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Unless you read the title text. At which point, you are burning enough gas to not only negate the savings, but actually make the cheaper gas more expensive. Sure, if you have 2 gas stations across the street from each other, go to the cheaper one, but even unemployed people should just get the most convenient gas. --[[Special:Contributions/71.186.225.22|71.186.225.22]] 17:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The trick is that unless there is someone willing to pay you for your time at the moment, your time really cost nothing. Which means that for people working 40 hours a week, there are 128 unpaid hours per week. Okay, it can be argued that instead you could be doing something more pleasurable or useful (i.e. doing it yourself instead of paying someone else for the service). But in reality there still is plenty of time simply wasted, so 10 minutes one way or the other just doesn't matter. And by the way, at the typical U.S. marginal tax rate, a penny saved equals almost two pennies earned. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.11|108.162.246.11]] 21:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:950:_Mystery_Solved&diff=58317Talk:950: Mystery Solved2014-01-21T21:23:49Z<p>108.162.246.11: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Northwest Passage is a sea route from the North Atlantic to the Pacific, north of the North American continent. It has not been "open" until very recent years; the icepack extends far enough south that it is not generally navigable. [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206|75.103.23.206]] 16:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Another possible explanation is that the world includes more than just Earth. Amelia might have had to travel at or over the speed of light, which would also explain the time effects. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.11|108.162.246.11]] 21:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:892:_Null_Hypothesis&diff=58215Talk:892: Null Hypothesis2014-01-20T18:35:39Z<p>108.162.246.11: </p>
<hr />
<div>If you get a 50% discount at two shops and buy stuff from both of them, you have a 100% discount. Math. That's how it works, bitches. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|purple|David}}<font color=green size=3px>y</font></u><font color=indigo size=4px>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 10:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That's a misleading thing about percentages. Like this:<br />
Prices of coffee increase by 2% this year, then by 3% next year. That's a 1% increase between years, or a 50% increase between years (from 2 to 3). So which is it? 1 or 50?<br />
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.240|141.101.98.240]] 08:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That's why they've invented the "base points" in financials, to denote the percentages of percentages. It's 1% absolute but 50bpp (base point percentage). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.11|108.162.246.11]] 18:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.246.11https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:843:_Misconceptions&diff=57848Talk:843: Misconceptions2014-01-16T19:21:54Z<p>108.162.246.11: </p>
<hr />
<div>:''Note:'' The [[xkcd forums]] contain a great [http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=67352 discussion] of this comic. <br />
<br />
When I took Calculus-based Physics in college (2003), my professor taught us that glass was an "extremely viscous fluid." When was glass reclassified as an amorphous solid?<br />
<br/>[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]])<br />
Your professor was simply incorrect. Glass never was, and has never been, an "extremely viscous fluid". Molten glass is a "molecular liquid" where the viscosity depends on temperature. [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206|75.103.23.206]] 22:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br>"Extremely viscous fluid" is just another way to describe an amorphous solid (as opposed to the crystallic solid). There is no sharp cut-off between these states. Just at some point it starts feeling solid enough, so it gets called a solid. See the Pitch Drop Experiment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment] for an example (though glass is obviously harder than pitch). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.11|108.162.246.11]] 19:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.246.11