https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=141.101.98.177&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T04:47:38ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2510:_Modern_Tools&diff=2175052510: Modern Tools2021-09-02T09:47:22Z<p>141.101.98.177: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2510<br />
| date = September 1, 2021<br />
| title = Modern Tools<br />
| image = modern_tools.png<br />
| titletext = I tried to train an AI to repair my Python environment but it kept giving up and deleting itself.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by MODERN TOOLS THAT HAS NOW DELETED THEMSELVES - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
[[Cueball]] tells [[White Hat]] how he has trained a {{w|artificial neural network|neural net}} to generate mostly valid {{w|Make_(software)#Makefile|Makefiles}}. <br />
<br />
This is the file type that the {{w|Make (software)|Make}} searches for. In software development, Make is a build automation tool that automatically builds executable programs and libraries from source code by reading files called Makefiles which specify how to derive the target program. (See [[2173: Trained a Neural Net]]).<br />
<br />
Then Cueball continues to tell that he next will train it to distinguish between Bash and Zsh. <br />
<br />
{{w|Bash (Unix shell)|Bash}} and {{w|Z_shell|Zsh}} are two {{w|Command-line_interface|command line interfaces}} for {{w|Unix-like}} OSes. The way to execute commands is almost identical, making detecting a script that contains a mixed syntax nearly impossible. This was previously referenced in [[1678: Recent Searches]].<br />
<br />
A human-designed 'random Makefile'-maker might have been written with this explicit choice amongst the earlier decisions in the generation process, but an AI might be assumed to have started (many, many generations ago) with something close to utter nonsense and painstakingly reached the stage of (mostly!) valid files along the way. Some might say that the differentiation functionality would have been better at another point in the lengthy process.<br />
<br />
On top of that, the current (mostly valid) results may even be {{w|Polyglot (computing)|polyglot}} and/or {{w|Agnostic (data)|shell-agnostic}}. Dependant upon the {{w|Fitness function|fitness tests}} in use, many other {{w|List of command-line interpreters|$SHELL}}-choices and Makefile styles may have been coevolved as valid (if rarer) subgenus of outputs, such as a ''command.com''-based makefile.<br />
<br />
In the caption it states that Cueball is using modern tools to make ancient technology, as opposed to other people who use ancient tools and UIs ({{w|User interface}}) to develop Modern Tools.<br />
<br />
In the title text Randall states that he tried to train an AI ({{w|Artificial intelligence}}) to repair his {{w|Python (programming language)|Python}} environment. But the AI kept giving up and deleting itself. The joke is that the AI was so intelligent that it was either so appalled by the task, or found it impossible to fix the environment that it committed a form of suicide. [[Python]] has been a recurring subject as has [[:Category:Programming|Programming]] and [[:Category:Artificial Intelligence|Artificial Intelligence]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Cueball is sitting on an office chair at his desk typing on his laptop. White Hat is standing behind the desk looking at Cueball.]<br />
:Cueball: Okay, I've got this neural net generating mostly valid makefiles.<br />
:Cueball: Next I'm going to train it to distinguish between Bash and Zsh...<br />
<br />
:[Caption below the panel:]<br />
:People often use ancient tools and UIs to develop modern cutting-edge technology, but I do it the other way around.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]<br />
[[Category:Programming]]<br />
[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]</div>141.101.98.177https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1769:_Never_Seen_Star_Wars&diff=132307Talk:1769: Never Seen Star Wars2016-12-09T15:21:48Z<p>141.101.98.177: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--><br />
Star Wars, pronounced Star Wors, was a very successful sci-fi action adventure movie from the 70s. Due to the success of the film, a sequel was made and is generally considered better than the first. The two movies are so iconic that someone who has not seen one or both of them would be considered unusual. Other sequals have been made, keeping the fanbase of the material constantly hoping for a 3rd movie that is on par with the firat two. Sadly, no such conclusion to the trilogy has arrived. Instead, each attempted sequel(more than half a dozen now) has been not much more than a 90 minute insult to the good taste and intelligence of the fans. This continued abuse of the star wars fanbase has prompted many former fans of the series to forgo watching recent releases, and to disavow ever seeing the original work in the first place. It appears that some of the cast of xkcd be doing likewise.{{unsigned ip|172.68.79.83}}<br />
:DAFUQ?? Seriously, just no...{{unsigned ip|108.162.242.98}}<br />
:The prequels were horrificly bad, but Episode VI was about as good as the original two, and Episode VII is actually better. Also, not including the first two movies, there are 5 sequals/prequals (6 if you include the unreleased Rogue One). That's not over 6. Also, everyone seems to agree that the 3 prequals are the only bad ones in the series (yet). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.60|162.158.2.60]] 10:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
::Some people found the Ewoks annoying. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 13:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My first time providing an explanation and transcript! For once I'm early enough, understand the joke, AND had time! LOL! Be kind... :)<br />
<br />
(Hey, if I had an account would I still have to do those damned Captchas?) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.227|162.158.126.227]] 06:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
:I assume your account would have to be autoconfirmed. That means its having over a certain "age" and over a certain edit count. I think the age is a couple of days and the edit threshold is fifteen, though this wiki may have those values configured differently. <span style="background:#0064de;font-size:12px;padding:4px 12px;border-radius:8px;">[[User talk:AgentMuffin|<span style="color:#f0faff;">~AgentMuffin</span>]]</span><br />
<br />
You mean it is not a reference to the BBC Radio 4 show. As an experience I will give XKCD 9/10. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.183}}<br />
: It is the go-to example of a film that 'everyone' has seen. Added a not to this effect, although I feel it could be better phrased. Surprised TVTropes doesn't have a page on this. [[User:Luckykaa|Luckykaa]] ([[User talk:Luckykaa|talk]]) 12:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
:: Fan Myopia is the assumption that a work you like is more popular than it is.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.177|141.101.98.177]] 15:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
--<br />
<br />
I added a few speculations about the number of people who actually have seen the movies (or one of them). If someone find a decent reference feel free to edit that. I also noticed one word play, not sure if it should be explained or not, but probably. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.89|141.101.80.89]] 09:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
:The issue with the numbers is that making them worldwide seems to miss the point and ends up being rather misleading. After all, any third world country is likely to have roughly 0 viewers, which brings the statistics down. It has been my impression that the feeling that everybody has seen Star Wars is a very North American thing, especially in America. And the cast of XKCD generally seem to reside in America. Of the billion people estimated viewers, I suspect a FAR higher percentage of them are North American than the precentage of North Americans to the world population (in other words, North America is over-represented in that billion). In the end, the assumption that everybody you encounter while in North America has seen them is actually a fairly reasonably assumption, while a percentage of 15% makes it sound like it's not. Also, there's the implied qualifier of opportunity. Cueball could easily have chosen to watch the films at some point, while there are many people worldwide for whom it has never been an option. And this comic is more about choosing not to, exercising their default option as it were. :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.227|162.158.126.227]] 04:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
::The author above did mention that distinction but didn't supply any numbers so I took that part out. If we can get a good estimate of the proportion of Americans who have watched the movies then yes, let's use that. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 13:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is there any canonical evidence Vader didn't eat Jedi though? In the prequel films, he only kills Jedi off-screen. In A New Hope, when he kills Obi-Wan, Obi-Wan disappears. Maybe he just went hungry that day. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.143|141.101.98.143]] 11:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
:Isn't there at least one scene in the prequel trilogy of Anakin eating something? Along with that, Vader has to have his helmet on outside his meditation chamber (evidenced by Luke saying Vader will die if Luke takes his helmet off in RotJ). It would be logical that Vader gets his nutrition intravenously or in a smoothie/drink form that he can ingest through his helmet, and Jedi are notoriously hard to turn into a smoothie. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.40|108.162.238.40]]<br />
::Jedi don't have to be the only part of his diet, and we don't know when in Vader's life he starts eating Jedi. Vader presumably drags them back to the meditation chamber when he wants to feast properly. He appears to have the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9ZMb0GOqfo teeth] to do it. Maybe when he's too desperate for Jedi flesh, he blends Jedi corpses using either mechanical or force means. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.143|141.101.98.143]] 19:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
--<br />
I think that the explanation should point out that the author differently form cueball is actually a huge fan of the saga with a vast knowlage of the SW lore including obscure expanded universe publications [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.184|141.101.98.184]] 16:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
--<br />
It's missing any comment on the "superpower" bit. I'm not sure where to add it and kind of rushed now, so I just leave this note to maybe prod someone else... [[User:MAP|MAP]] ([[User talk:MAP|talk]]) 16:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think it's time for a Star Wars remake. Like start with the first movie (ep iv). Maybe I'm wrong but I think young people nowadays don't enjoy sci-fi/action movies without a lot of CG. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.218|162.158.91.218]] 06:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
: Disney did that already, and called it ''Episode VII''. Unless you consider "reboot" to be separate from "remake" for some reason. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.58.226|162.158.58.226]] 18:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
As a fan dear god I hope the idea to remake the originals does not catch on. The re-releases were bad enough.<br />
<br />
He's updated it with the lines added to the first pannel. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 14:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I used to be like Cueball. And then I ''grew the hell up'' and realized that avoiding good movies is the least normal thing of all[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.72|162.158.255.72]] 21:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)</div>141.101.98.177https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Template:w&diff=88553Template:w2015-04-06T02:18:50Z<p>141.101.98.177: Reverting to Revision as of 01:59, 5 March 2013 by Davidy22</p>
<hr />
<div><includeonly>[[Wikipedia:{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}{{!}}{{{2|{{{1|}}}}}}]]|{{PAGENAME}}{{!}}{{PAGENAME}}]] at [[Wikipedia:|Wikipedia]]}}</includeonly><noinclude><br />
A template to make a link to wikipedia.<!-- For a tag to have "at [[Wikipedia:|Wikipedia]]" without being a link to the page name, use {{Tl|wat}} - this is useful for see-also lists.--><br />
<br />
==Usage==<br />
*<nowiki>{{w}}</nowiki> by itself links to the wikipedia page for the page you use the template on<br />
**{{w}}<br />
*<nowiki>{{w|Page}}</nowiki> links to the wikipedia article on "Page"<br />
**{{w|Page}}<br />
*<nowiki>{{w|Page|Display}}</nowiki> prints "Display" which links to the wikipedia article on "Page"<br />
**{{w|Page|Display}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Templates]]<br />
</noinclude></div>141.101.98.177https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:925:_Cell_Phones&diff=79626Talk:925: Cell Phones2014-11-22T10:20:41Z<p>141.101.98.177: </p>
<hr />
<div>On first read I thought the joke is that the cell phone graph shape (somewhat) closely mimics the shape of the cancer graph, including the part where it begins to level off - implying that one linearly correlates with the other, with a 20 year delay (a typical time it takes for cancer to manifest, except in this case it's backwards). ultramage 14:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
That and the fact the graph is out by a scale factor of 1000 is always a fun way to screw over how the statistics look.{{unsigned ip|82.16.27.115}}<br />
<br />
Nah b', it's 2000.{{unsigned ip|76.67.97.246}}<br />
<br />
::The real problem with the graph is that it makes it look like cancer rates have increased from near-zero levels to way higher since 1970, until you actually read the Y axis and see that it's gone from about 400 (per 100,000) to about 475. This is an increase of only 18.75%, as opposed to the visual appearance of a 300% increase. Hats off to Black Hat!! [[Special:Contributions/108.28.72.186|108.28.72.186]] 01:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I thought the laptop joke was that some people believe not to put it on your lap because it messes with your reproductive organs! ~JFreund<br />
:But you know now you are wrong, correct? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 06:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:If your laptop starts messing with your reproductive organs, you may want to either tell an adult, or stop taking drugs (or possibly take more drugs). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 06:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I originally thought that the graph was supposed to show that an increase in cellphone use caused a decrease in cancer. I'm not sure why Randell didn't go with that conclusion, as it seems way more obvious to make when you look at tha graph, and it's humorously the opposite of what people are saying. Still very silly, of course :p [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 08:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Why does the title text explanation refer to panel 2? From what I can see the title text either refers to a) you should not hold your laptop by its screen as it may damage it (in panel 2) or b) you should not not rest your laptop on your lap as it may overheat and damage you (in panel 4). I think a) makes more sense since the comic refers to how black hat "holds" the laptop, but I can also see that b) references the subject of the comic. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.177|141.101.98.177]] 10:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)</div>141.101.98.177https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:925:_Cell_Phones&diff=79625Talk:925: Cell Phones2014-11-22T10:19:48Z<p>141.101.98.177: </p>
<hr />
<div>On first read I thought the joke is that the cell phone graph shape (somewhat) closely mimics the shape of the cancer graph, including the part where it begins to level off - implying that one linearly correlates with the other, with a 20 year delay (a typical time it takes for cancer to manifest, except in this case it's backwards). ultramage 14:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
That and the fact the graph is out by a scale factor of 1000 is always a fun way to screw over how the statistics look.{{unsigned ip|82.16.27.115}}<br />
<br />
Nah b', it's 2000.{{unsigned ip|76.67.97.246}}<br />
<br />
::The real problem with the graph is that it makes it look like cancer rates have increased from near-zero levels to way higher since 1970, until you actually read the Y axis and see that it's gone from about 400 (per 100,000) to about 475. This is an increase of only 18.75%, as opposed to the visual appearance of a 300% increase. Hats off to Black Hat!! [[Special:Contributions/108.28.72.186|108.28.72.186]] 01:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I thought the laptop joke was that some people believe not to put it on your lap because it messes with your reproductive organs! ~JFreund<br />
:But you know now you are wrong, correct? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 06:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:If your laptop starts messing with your reproductive organs, you may want to either tell an adult, or stop taking drugs (or possibly take more drugs). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 06:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I originally thought that the graph was supposed to show that an increase in cellphone use caused a decrease in cancer. I'm not sure why Randell didn't go with that conclusion, as it seems way more obvious to make when you look at tha graph, and it's humorously the opposite of what people are saying. Still very silly, of course :p [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 08:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Why does the title text explanation refer to panel 2? From what I can see the title text either refers to a) you should not hold your laptop by its screen as it may damage it (in panel 2) or b) you should not not rest your laptop on your lap as it may overheat and damage you (in panel 4). I think a) makes more sense the comic refers to how black hat "holds" the laptop, but I can also see that b) references the subject of the comic. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.177|141.101.98.177]] 10:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)</div>141.101.98.177