https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=141.101.89.222&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T13:32:06ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1562:_I_in_Team&diff=99382Talk:1562: I in Team2015-08-10T08:51:15Z<p>141.101.89.222: </p>
<hr />
<div>There is no I in team, but there is an M and an E.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.56.215|162.158.56.215]] 08:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Check it out! there's "l" in "vowels"! --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.222|141.101.89.222]] 08:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)</div>141.101.89.222https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1562:_I_in_Team&diff=993811562: I in Team2015-08-10T08:47:16Z<p>141.101.89.222: /* Transcript */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1562<br />
| date = August 10, 2015<br />
| title = I in Team<br />
| image = i_in_team.png<br />
| titletext = There's no "I" in "VOWELS".<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|explain the meaning of "I in team" }}<br />
<br />
{{w|Orthography}} is a set of rules and conventions that dictates how a language should be written. [[Cueball]] is trying to point out to [[Hairy]] that the spelling of a word doesn't relate to its meaning (an instance of the {{w|use–mention distinction}}). He does this by the use of a self-referential joke.<br />
<br />
The title text provides another example of the difference between orthography and meaning. In this case the vowel "I" does not appear in the word "vowels".<br />
<br />
"There is no 'I' in team" means that when working as a team one cannot think only for oneself or work alone and can be used to reprimand someone on your team who isn't cooperating. Cueball is using the same joke against Hairy by saying there ''is'' a "u" in "People who apparently don't understand the relationship between orthography and meaning". The joke here is that the person who is not cooperating will refer to him/herself as "I" but there is no "I" in team, so they can't only think about themselves. There is a "u" in what Cueball said, implying that Hairy is included in the set of people who mistakingly link orthography and meaning.<br />
<br />
The phrase "no I in team" dates from the 1950s in the USA with printed references[http://www.knowyourphrase.com/phrase-meanings/Theres-no-I-in-team.html] show it is familiar to base-ball pitchers such as {{w|Vern Law}}.<!--Interesting that it seems to come from baseball, a sport where individual plays are so important, compared to, say, rugby.--><br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Hairy and Cueball stand opposite each other.]<br />
:Hairy: Remember, there's no "I" in "team".<br />
:Cueball: No, but there's a "U" in "People who apparently don't understand the relationship between orthography and meaning".<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>141.101.89.222https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1516:_Win_by_Induction&diff=92049Talk:1516: Win by Induction2015-05-01T17:20:47Z<p>141.101.89.222: </p>
<hr />
<div>Is the alt text a reference to double-yolkers (eggs with two yolks)? [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16118149 They're only about 1 in every 1000] but it seems like an obvious reference. --[[User:Fenn|Fenn]] ([[User talk:Fenn|talk]]) 08:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Makes sense to me. I didn't even think of double yolks until you mentioned it here. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.89|173.245.50.89]] 09:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)BK201<br />
::Seconded. --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.110.52|188.114.110.52]] 14:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::I'd think it's a reference to the rate of twins, which is currently almost exactly 1/30 (and on the rise) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin#Statistics] [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.186|173.245.56.186]] 17:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Merkky[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.186|173.245.56.186]] 17:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The explanation currently says that doubling makes it uncountably infinite. I'm pretty sure that doubling at each step (or every few steps) is still a countable infinite set. Proof here: http://practicaltypography.com/the-infinite-pixel-screen.html (see section "The internet demands a recount", because the first attempt is wrong). We can also prove it using the same argument as when proving that N x N is countable infinite (making zig-zag), but in this case making a breadth-first search of the tree of Pikachus: map 1 to the first Pikachu, map 2 and 3 to the two Pikachus at the second level, map 4, 5, 6, 7 to the four Pikachus at the third level, map (2^(n-1))…((2^n) - 1) to the 2^(n-1) Pikachus at level n. {{unsigned ip|108.162.229.177}}<br />
:Saw this too late. Yes, I agree, and I have fixed it accordingly. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 09:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:The problem being that we don't have an exact number for how many steps include double Pikachus. Granted, this is just a problem of practice, not theory. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.88|173.245.50.88]] 12:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"infinite, but countable" {Cough.} Someone doesn't understand infinity. Perhaps they meant "enumerable". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 09:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)ū<br />
:Someone doesn't understand countability. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.217|141.101.89.217]] 09:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::enumeration is counting, in the simplest sense. "To name one by one; specify, as if in a list". That said, the whole of infinite whole numbers CAN be counted, just not by a human and not within a reasonable amount of time. --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.110.52|188.114.110.52]] 14:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"The front most Pikachu speaks." Hey, look, it has those little lines to show it's speaking, not the blank white space behind it. Duh. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 09:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Looks like Megan is looking at her watch as well. Mention in transcript/explanation? [[User:Fenn|Fenn]] ([[User talk:Fenn|talk]]) 09:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Are Megan and Cueball supposed to fight each other? It seems like Cueball still has his closed Pokéball in his hands. Is it then Megan's Pokéball that has evolved into all these Pikachu? And is it because she waits for her Pokémon to be ready to fight Cueball, that she checks her watch? I do not know anything about the Pokémon game/world. But it seems to me that some part of this setup is unexplained by the above... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Friendly reminder: Grammatically speaking, Pokémon are like sheep or deer. Singular and plural are both written the same. One Pikachu, many Pikachu, all the Pikachu. You'd be surprised at how much rage forgetting this causes in certain corners of the Internet. {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.42}}<br />
<br />
What doesn't make sense to me is how this could continue indefinitely – after all, each of those Pikachu must have caught its own Pikachu beforehand. I don't see any infinite loop here, just a bunch of Pikachu that already had one another caught itselves. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.217|141.101.96.217]] 10:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Ah, the immortal quip from Jerry Bona: "The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the well-ordering principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's Lemma?" [[User:Aube|Aube]] ([[User talk:Aube|talk]]) 05:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The word "induction" could also be intended to have a double meaning, referring also to electromagnetic induction. Pikachu is, after all, and electric pokémon. {{unsigned ip|141.101.105.194}}<br />
:Yes, I think this is right. Something about Maxwell's equations and induction. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.203}}<br />
::From an engineering standpoint, in my opinion, Pikachu act more like biological capacitors (stored electric charge at potentially high voltage able to deliver large discharge currents) than inductors ("storing" magnetic energy via constant current, able to deliver high voltage when interrupted, like the ignition coil for an older automotive engine). I'm not too familiar with the Pokémon in-game/in-show universe, but I would imagine the Nurse Jenny corps could use electric Pokémon such as Pikachu (or Raichu) like defibrillators for cardiac events! --BigMal // [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.177|173.245.50.177]] 11:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::There are certain moves, including some that Pikachu can learn, that appear to be based on induction (Thunder Wave and Shock Wave). Besides, they build up charge in their bodies from somewhere; I'd suspect induction from the surrounding environment is what charges them up. --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.110.52|188.114.110.52]] 14:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There's a point floating about how infinity doesn't imply completion. For instance, the number of all even integers is infinite, yet any given integer "only has a 50% chance of being even", so the series is quite obviously incomplete. This article seems to tend towards the idea (in diction) that an infinite number of pikachu would result in a win based on a 'logical' premise, without referring specificially to the terms of it's assumption. [[User:Xerxesbeat|Xerxesbeat]] ([[User talk:Xerxesbeat|talk]]) 11:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:The observation proceeds from the fact that the cardinality of all even integers is the same as the cardinality of all natural numbers (and the cardinality of all rational numbers). You can say that there are as many even integers are there are integers, conterintuitive as that seems. This, however, has nothing to do with the reasoning behind induction. Suppose that there is a finite number that doesn't correspond with a Pikachu, we can pick the least number for which this is the case (just check all the lower numbers until we find the least non-pikachu number N). But there is a pikachu corresponding to N-1, and it is holding a pokeball with a pikachu. So the pikachu in the pokeball of pikachu N-1 is pikachu N, and we have a contradiction to our supposition. Therefore there is no finite number that doesn't correspond with a Pikachu, QED.[[User:Aube|Aube]] ([[User talk:Aube|talk]]) 05:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What happens if the Pikachu in the ball is recursing - picking himself? That doesn't fit the 30-40 double yolk thing, but would explain an infinite series. Food for thought. Megan is bored, waiting for the fight to start. I thought the game was supposed to begin when the players choose, though, so I don't understand why the wait is happening at all. {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.151}}<br />
<br />
I doubt this is an intentional part of the joke, but the strongest Ground-type moves (Earthquake, Precipice Blades, etc.) are multi-target, hitting all foes in a 1v5 situation such as Horde Battles. In theory, a strong enough super effective move from Cueball's lead would still end the battle in one turn. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.176|173.245.56.176]] 12:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Not Land's Wrath, Dig, or Earth Power, which are strong ground-type moves.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.126|173.245.48.126]] 13:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Actually, Land's Wrath is multi-target. (The ones you named are also weaker than Earthquake and Precipice Blades, so the original comment stands regardless. Although a lucky Magnitude is more powerful than any of those.) --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.98|108.162.221.98]]<br />
<br />
I normally get a hearty chuckle out of Randall's graphical musings, but this one had me scratching my head. Fortunately, ExplainXKCD always comes to the rescue! After reading this page, my first thought was: Pokéception! 13:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This sentence is nonsensical: ''When Trainers do battle, the anime's dub has immersed the phrase "<Pokémon's name>, I choose you!" into popular culture memory, which is accompanied by throwing the ball containing the selected Pokémon to the ground, which releases the Pokémon at full size.'' [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.161|108.162.219.161]] 17:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Should it be noted that the Pikachu is drawn without its tail? It would normally a have lightning bolt shaped tail that appears to the side or from behind its head. (Trivia or other note?) [[User:Azule|Azule]] ([[User talk:Azule|talk]]) 15:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:I agree it looks weird, but can it be written off as it's being obscured by itself? {{unsigned ip|173.245.50.89}}<br />
::I would say not. Look how the left arms are all a bit obscured by the body. This indicates that the Pikachu are turned slightly toward a side view. That would mean the back end would more visible, including the tail. [[User:Azule|Azule]] ([[User talk:Azule|talk]]) 09:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In Pokemon games from Gold and up, pokemon are able to hold items, including pokeballs. While in the game, once a pokeball is filled it is no longer available to select as an item, this comic would seem to imply the possible 'inception' scenario of having a pokemon hold an active pokeball (as the games have already shown that a pokeball can go into a pokeball). --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.193|173.245.54.193]] 14:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
: ahem... "pokeception" short for "pocket inception" - I can't be the first one to coin this (?) - [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 16:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
With Megan looking at her watch and Cueball holding the ball, I think we're meant to understand that Megan IS the Pokémon Cueball intends to use against Pikachu.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.153|108.162.221.153]] 19:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Since Cueball has a closed ball in hand he has yet to choose a Pokemon. Tjus Megan cannot be his. She must have thrown the first Pikachu ball. Should be changed in explanation.[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
It is possible the "win by induction" is from the Pikachu's opponent inferring the series in infinite, and conceding. 19:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Am I missing something or does Randall not quite understand how Pokemon works? (Or is intentionally misrepresenting it for the sake of the joke) Pokemon don't come out with their own pokeball with them-- the pokemon aren't magically created. In theory, if someone were to give a pokemon its own pokemon, a chain could occur, but it would be limited to the number of pokemon previously caught. The pokemon are born in the wild and are captured inside pokeballs-- not created from them. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.91}}<br />
:If a Pikachu can catch another Pikachu in a Pokéball, then there is no reason why the Pikachu it just caught, did not think about this before, and that it had done the same. So when it was caught and put into the Pokéball, it already had a Pokéball with another Pikachu. Of this has occurred enough times you get the result of this comic. No one said this would go on forever, that is something we have interpreted from the comic. It does not come directly from Randall! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 05:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Bother this. I send out Quagsire. Use Earthquake. '''Please''' do not wait.[[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 05:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
No mention of the exponential growth? If every 40th pikachu releases 2 and each of those also release their own pikachu then there is an average growth rate of the pikachu able to release another pikachu of 41/40 = 1.025. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.49.90|173.245.49.90]] 19:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Induction<br />
<br />
Two other possibilities: one, in a bit of googling, it would appear that there is a type of Pokémon evolution called induced evolution, which involves stones of some kind? Alternately, we can use the term induction in the sense of soneone being ''inducted'' into a group. In this case, Megan has trained her Pikachu to be a Pokémaster. (Perhaps by arranging for it to be inducted into a rarified "gym"? I confess, I know nothing about the show.) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.196|173.245.56.196]] 13:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm surprised no one mentioned that Pokémon is a game a long time before becoming a show. Although it was because of the animated series that Pikachu became "special" among the hundreds of other cute critters.<br />
<br />
Also, no mention to the russian matryoshka dolls? Come on...<br />
Closest other xkcd I recall is https://xkcd.com/878/ {{unsigned ip|198.41.230.68}}<br />
<br />
;Axiom of choice<br />
<br />
Could this be to do with the {{w|axiom of choice}} from set theory? From my understanding, it's a fundamental axiom of set theory that says 'given a set of sets, it's possible to choose one element from each of those sets'. "Choosing" is in this case a specific operation that can be performed on an element.<br />
<br />
One specific detail about the axiom is that all sets under consideration must be nonempty; that is, they must contain at least one element. So I think this is analogous to the situation of a Pokemon trainer owning multiple (full) Pokeballs: his Pokeballs are a collection of non-empty sets from which he is now trying to choose a single element ("Pikachu, I choose you!").<br />
<br />
Under ''normal'' circumstances, he can do this without invoking the axiom of choice because he knows the names of all his Pokemon and so can select one from each set. In this case, he could prove his ability to make the choice simply by releasing all of his Pokemon from their balls one at a time. (The Pokemon's name is actually irrelevant, because simply releasing the Pokemon counts as a choice).<br />
<br />
However, the situation becomes more complex if it turns out that his Pokemon also possess Pokeballs, because now his ability to make the choice is uncertain. In this situation, there could be ''infinitely many'' Pikachus, and so he can't definitely select a Pikachu from all the Pokeballs under his control. In a situation like this, a mathematician would invoke the axiom of choice.<br />
<br />
However, it seems that Cueball is actually having a go at it using an inductive method of choice: first by choosing a Pikachu, then having each Pikachu choose a Pikachu. If the number of Pikachus carrying Pokeballs is finite, then eventually, this will demonstrate that the choice can be made and so the axiom of choice is unnecessary. However, if it's ''infinite'', then this will generate a neverending stream of Pikachus. In the latter case, the game never begins, because you can't begin a Pokemon battle until all participants have chosen Pokemon. Most likely, the other players would simply abandon the game, which Cueball could claim as a victory. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 13:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:I think you are confused about the AoC. AoC states that given any collection of elements, you can choose an element from EACH set. If you are choosing a pokemon from a collection of pokeballs, it's equivalent to choosing one full pokeball from the collection and you are picking an element from a single set, which doesn't involve the AoC (this is something you can always do as long as the set is non-empty). In the example in the comic, AoC is not needed because there is already a natural ordering (ignoring the alt-text, which would make the set a partial ordering), so it's trivial to construct a choice function for any subset (choose the "least" pikachu in the sequence). On the other hand, if we have infinite pikachus running wild, we would need the Axiom of Choice (preferably its equivalent, the Well-Ordering Theorem) to assert that they can be ordered so that all of them except one is captured in a pokeball held by another pikachu.[[User:Aube|Aube]] ([[User talk:Aube|talk]]) 05:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I was hoping a real mathematician would get involved. ^^ Do you think that this mathematical definition of 'choice' is the one being referred to in the comic, though? [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 13:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Why don't those Pikachu have tails? Have they been sliced off? Is this some kind of mutation?-🐼🐯😺🐱 {{unsigned|FlyingPiggy}}<br />
<br />
<br />
Its all moot anyway. Pokemon can't talk but to say their name. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|Yourlifeisalie]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 14:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The 1 in 30 or 40 could be a reference to the fact that twins account for around 1 in 30 child births in the US, following in this vein, induction could be wordplay on the act of inducing labour in pregnant animals. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.69|141.101.99.69]] 21:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Pikachu (the one the main character has) doesn't like living in a Pokeball. Maybe this comic explains why? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.184|108.162.221.184]] 23:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC) <<Why are all the IP addresses wrong?<br />
<br />
4th Pokemon movie (Pokémon 4Ever: Celebi - Voice of the Forest; 2001) takes place in the past (relatively to Pokemon anime canon). There is old-fashioned pokeball used by young prof. Oak and it looks similar to one in the comic. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1DWzqUbJE8 Watch that part here.] [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.222|141.101.89.222]] 17:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)</div>141.101.89.222https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1501:_Mysteries&diff=86771Talk:1501: Mysteries2015-03-20T18:13:20Z<p>141.101.89.222: </p>
<hr />
<div>Here's a list of wikipedia links I compiled that will be useful for anyone wanting to update this page. http://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/2zog5d/xkcd_1501_mysteries/cpktray {{unsigned ip|141.101.106.155}}<br />
<br />
And I've got a solar eclipse to see (explainable, but weird!) but I started to compile things. Haven't got any links sorted yet, and percentages are (badly) done by eye. If someone does it better, ignore it.<br />
<br />
<!-- Who Carly Simon is singing about in ''You're So Vain''<br />
A song allegedly about a specific person, but it remains a closed secret exactly who.<br />
95% No explanation (There are many theories.)<br />
100% Not weird (It's 'just' a song.)<br />
UVB-76<br />
?<br />
60% No explanation<br />
25% Not weird<br />
Lindberg Baby<br />
A notorious kidnapping case (or some would say ''purported'' kidnapping) that has remained unsolved.<br />
50% No explanation (It could be as advertised, or it might be merely a trivial coverup to a family tragedy).<br />
75% Not that weird (Rich people who were obvious targets for kidnappers, or easily able to engineer a fake one.)<br />
Toynbee Tiles<br />
??<br />
30% No explanation<br />
60% Not weird<br />
Jimmy Hoffa<br />
A notorious missing person case<br />
15% No explanation (Easily understood links to Mob activities.)<br />
100% Not weird (People often vanished, or were made to vanish, in such circumstances.)<br />
MH370<br />
A passenger plane that went missing with very few good signs of why or where.<br />
100% No explanation (No physical evidence.)<br />
100% Weird (The best guess for its last verified location is well off its intended flight-path.)<br />
Lead Masks Case<br />
??<br />
80% No explanation<br />
100% Weird<br />
DB Cooper<br />
A plane hijacker who was never found, dead or alive.<br />
70% No explanation (He and (most of) his money disappeared, never to be seen again.)<br />
50% Weird (The circumstances of his crime and fate.)<br />
The WOW Signal<br />
A single, unrepeated, signal that has yet to be adequately pinned down.<br />
70% No explanation (It doesn't match anything obvious.)<br />
10% Weird (...Which leads to the ''posibility'' that it's not something so obvious.)<br />
The Mary Celeste<br />
A sailing vessel discovered 'abandonded' in the middle of the ocean.<br />
10% No explanation (There's worse things that happen at sea.)<br />
30% Weird (But the tale as often told suggests that it wasn't any of the more common circumstances.)<br />
Voynich Manuscript<br />
??<br />
30% Cear<br />
30% Not weird<br />
JFK<br />
The assasination of John F. Kennedy is a standard in the conspiracy theory stable.<br />
60% clear (He was shot, and there's an obvious susupect. As there is with who shot the obvious suspect.)<br />
20% Not weird (Some people think there was more to it, but Randall obviously thinks that it's simple, if not straightforward.)<br />
Why I keep putting ice cream back in the fridge instead of the freezer<br />
Ice-cream should be kept frozen, not just cool.<br />
100% clear (Randall obviously knows why he does it. Maybe it's convenience, laziness or some kind of mental block against the obvious reasoning.)<br />
120% Not weird (And apparently he knows he ''will'' do it. Despite everything.)<br />
Oak Island Money Pit<br />
??<br />
100% Clear<br />
30% Not weird<br />
Zodiac Letters<br />
??Serial killer thing??<br />
20% Clear<br />
20% Weird<br />
Amelia Earhart<br />
A female pilot who went missing on a long-distance flight<br />
40% Clear (It was in earlier days of aeornautics when tragedy could easily strike.)<br />
10% Weird (But there's no obvious wreckage, so we don't know what ''did'' happen.)<br />
Lost Colony<br />
??Early Americas colonisation effort??<br />
50% Clear (There were many dangers that easily beset such exploration/colonisation efforts.)<br />
50% Weird (The signs that were left behind were ambiguous at best.)<br />
Kentucky Meat Shower<br />
??Rain of meat??<br />
75% Clear<br />
80% Weird (This kind of thing just ''is'' weird.)<br />
Bigfoot<br />
Cryptozoological creature. An ape-man occasionally 'seen' in various North American forested areas.<br />
95% Clear (Probably ultimately a hoax, with a little bit of misidentification and misinterpretation mixed in.)<br />
20% Weird (Still not exactly normal.)<br />
Loch Ness Monster<br />
Cryptozoological creature. A marine creature allegedly inhabiting a Scottish freshwater body.<br />
100% Clear (Almost certainly a hoax/misidentification.)<br />
30% Weird (Extra credit for being a supposed dinosaur remnant?)<br />
Dyatlov Pass Incident<br />
??<br />
100% Clear<br />
100% Weird<br />
<br />
--><br />
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.63|141.101.98.63]] 09:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:(Whoops, pasted the flatfile format version by accident, in my rush, rather than the more Wikifriendly one that I discarded. Commenting it out until/unless I redo it. But you should still be able to see the details via the Talk Edit pages if you're bothered. Oh, and there was really too much cloud to see the eclipse for what it was. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.63|141.101.98.63]] 10:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC))<br />
<br />
::I dropped the image into our CAD system and plotted the point co-ordinates. I've filled in the resulting percentages, which should be somewhere about right with a little rounding. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 10:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Exactly right. (Although I didn't read the zero/zero crossing point is supposed to be maybe 50% on both scales, but instead ±zero. Still, doesn't matter. And perhaps displays/sorts better.) And looks like I don't need to recover my formatted notes after all. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.63|141.101.98.63]] 11:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.176|199.27.128.176]] 09:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC) XKCD has explained the Voynich Manuscript before: http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/593:_Voynich_Manuscript<br />
<br />
:XKCD has also 'explained' DB Cooper before ([[1400: D.B. Cooper]]) if that is worth mentioning. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.167|108.162.250.167]] 12:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I have to wonder if Randall has ever seen http://keithledgerwood.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using and if so, whether he simply doesn't believe it. Not to sabotage his 100%-100% example if he wants to keep it there, but I'd put it at only 50% weird and 10% unexplainable. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.27|199.27.133.27]] 14:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Carly Simon ==<br />
<br />
The Carly Simon explanation includes the text "This sets up a paradox in which the song is and isn't about the vain person." This isn't correct. The song is definitely about the person. Carly is thus asserting that the subject's vanity will lead him to a correct interpretation of the song. Going to change the explanation. [[User:EverVigilant|EverVigilant]] ([[User talk:EverVigilant|talk]]) 14:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== WOW signal ==<br />
<br />
It now says "This is the strongest evidence to date of extraterrestrial radio signals.", which is technically incorrect. We observe radio signals from outer space all the time, they originate from young stars, Big Bang, active galaxies, and so on. This should probably be rephrased to something about extraterrestrial intelligence, but I'm not sure if it deserves to be called "evidence". [[User:Jolindbe|Jolindbe]] ([[User talk:Jolindbe|talk]]) 16:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Dyatlov Pass ==<br />
<br />
Um, Wikipedia regards avalanche as most plausible explanation of the Dyatlov Pass incident, and it appears to be most widespread and down-to-earth explanation that doesn't involve the supernatural or secret soviet weapons test, things like that. Shouldn't we include mention of the avalance then, perhaps? I mean, with such high "explainability" rating it's pretty clear that Randall probably assumes avalanche, since if he assumed other, less widespread theory he probably would downgrade the "explainability" to account for the fact that it's more disputed version. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.222|141.101.89.222]] 18:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)</div>141.101.89.222