https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=162.158.2.166&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T13:13:55ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=explain_xkcd:Sandbox&diff=147582explain xkcd:Sandbox2017-11-09T03:25:01Z<p>162.158.2.166: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOINDEX__<br />
{{DISPLAYTITLE:explain XKCD:sAnDBoX}}<br />
Make changes, try things out, or just have fun with the wiki here! Just leave everything above the line alone, please.<br />
[http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=explain_xkcd:Sandbox&action=edit&oldid=91667 clear sandbox]<br />
------</div>162.158.2.166https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1881:_Drone_Training&diff=144576Talk:1881: Drone Training2017-08-25T16:43:42Z<p>162.158.2.166: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
;Deep learning<br />
With deep learning (or any kind of actively learning Artificial Intelligence), drones can learn from their experience. The question is if you need spray bottle for this (that is, if there is some programmatic way to teach it, like marking parts of home that it should not enter in an app, or a feedback from app), and if the spraying the drone would actually work (if the AI would actually take it for a negative reinforcement). --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 10:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)<br />
: Imho it would be really cool if you could teach an AI things without using any software, e.g. no programmatic way or app needed. Personally I'd prefer using a spray bottle over an app or similar. And I'm saying this as a professional software developer. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: 60 years ago when televisions had vacuum tubes instead of integrated circuits and the picture would get fuzzy, you could ''teach'' it to behave by slapping the side of the case. *wink* [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 12:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)<br />
:: Indeed, but it didn't learn from it XD /edit: I'm not sure if you're exaggerating with the "60 years ago", though... It's more like 10 to 15 when CRTs vanished https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube#Demise. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 13:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"This is the first comic to feature Black Hat, White Hat, and no other character." Is this correct. Which other comics feature both "hats".[[User:Zeimusu|Zeimusu]] ([[User talk:Zeimusu|talk]]) 14:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)<br />
:I've removed this from the explanation. Even when this is true it's not worth to be mentioned unless this really has a connection to the content of the comic. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 15:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is that interpretation of the alt text likely? My initial thought was that Black Hat's Roomba would be taken custody of because of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. (Well, actually, it was more like "aren't shock collars a form of animal abuse?") [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.166|162.158.2.166]] 16:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)</div>162.158.2.166https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1112:_Think_Logically&diff=101085Talk:1112: Think Logically2015-09-04T04:53:03Z<p>162.158.2.166: Think logically does not work all the time!</p>
<hr />
<div>Cueball is clearly a chess novice as demonstrated by the comic (at the very least he knows what the goal of the game is and how the pieces move), however he lacks higher knowledge of the game (which is gained through education) and is very inexperienced (experience is obviously gained by playing the game regularly). Given his non-expert position he attempts to deliver well-meaning advice as best he can (in this case through "thinking logically"), however the player receiving the advise (a clearly more knowledgeable and experienced player) immediately realises how utterly useless that advise is.<br />
Cueball approached the situation by "thinking logically", but his logic was flawed, possibly due to his lack of knowledge. Just because the goal of chess is to deliver checkmate does not necessarily mean that every move must be pushing a piece closer to the opponent's king. The best thing to do would be to first research and study the abundance of chess knowledge out there, practice it and then one can come up with tactics and strategies for every possible position (even if those aren't perfect). Chess is so complex that even if we wished to arrive at the absolute logical move for every position, this would be beyond us most of the time, it is just too complex. Not even computers know the perfect move for every position, although they do come up with great moves through the use of complex algorithms.<br />
Note: I thought the explanation given in the "Explanation" section above had some merit (it also explains some things I didn't include), and that is why I did not modify it and instead chose to provide mine here. Let me know what you thought, together we can explain everything.--[[User:DelendaEst|DelendaEst]] ([[User talk:DelendaEst|talk]]) 13:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Feel free to add your explanation to the actual page if you think it's lacking in information. Wikis are meritocracies, and anyone is welcome to voice their opinions. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 13:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:A good explanation. My takeaway was more about Dunning Kruger, and chess just happened to be a convenient backdrop. The expert proceeds to {{w|pwn}} the {{w|know-it-all}}... and even having been pwned, the braggart can't find the lesson in the defeat. But as with Randall's work, YMMV. (Or to paraphrase {{w|Euell Gibbons}}: "ever analyze an xkcd? Many interpretations are possible.") -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 14:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I think your explanation is the best one, you managed to find the essence of the situation. I can very easily see what you explained happening in the comic.--[[User:DelendaEst|DelendaEst]] ([[User talk:DelendaEst|talk]]) 00:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just a quick point on the explanation. Chess is not a perfectly balanced game due to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess first move advantage] enjoyed by white. This advantage is very small, however, and the pieces themselves are well balanced. [[User:Heyart|Heyart]] ([[User talk:Heyart|talk]]) 13:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Please note that experts are not in universal agreement about the supposed first move advantage held by white, and it's unwise to state it in such absolute terms as "Chess is not a perfectly balanced game" [[Special:Contributions/216.99.210.8|216.99.210.8]] 03:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I found Cueball's demeanor in this comic to be very remeniscent of {{w|Sheldon Cooper}} of ''The Big Bang Theory'' in that he thinks he knows better than everyone even though chess has been around forever. Also, there was a specific episode of ''TBBT'' in which Cooper invents three-player chess including several new pieces. Cooper does not, however, do so considering the traditional rules of chess to be flawed (other than not allowed a third player). The characters do consider chess to be too easy, however, and often play ''Star Trek'''s three-dimensional chess. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 16:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I see this comic, as so many comics before it, to be a description of nerd-dominance. The author seeks to entice the reader into inquiring about his own ill-thought out rules for chess. Do not inquire.<br />
<br />
<br />
Is the first character really wearing a "hat"? To me, it looks like a headband, similar to the one worn by {{w|Spock}} in the movie {{w|Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home}}. This would give another meaning to "Think logically"... --[[Special:Contributions/85.159.196.16|85.159.196.16]] 11:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Nope, not a headband -- there's hair below the brim but not above it. What you are seeing is a subtle clue that the chess expert is a Canadian, in that he is wearing what we call a toque, known in America as a stocking cap. https://www.google.ca/search?q=toque&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=JNV&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=MaFhUKmkEObRyAH9xoCACg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=960&bih=544 [[User:Noni Mausa|Noni Mausa]] ([[User talk:Noni Mausa|talk]]) 12:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Your point about the hair is interesting; however, a Vulcan is much better at explaining logic than any earthling... Canadians included!<br />
:--[[Special:Contributions/85.159.196.16|85.159.196.16]] 13:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I don't want to make a huge generalization, but in America they're known as beanies, stocking caps extend out from the head and end with pointed tips (or those silly poof balls). [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 17:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Another point I want to bring up is that it's generally not really a good idea to share your own strategy with your opponents (or potential opponents). I once participated in a Chess tournament, and before it began I encountered this guy who was bragging about his strategy, how he likes to move only his pawns at the beginning and form a sort of wall into which his opponents will invariably run their pieces and, in his words, "kill themselves." Of course, it just so happened that the first game I played in was against this same guy. And so I knew what he was trying to do, and I ended up destroying him. Granted, Cueball's "strategy" in this comic has very little to do with actual established Chess practices, but it's a similar idea. [[User:Erenan|Erenan]] ([[User talk:Erenan|talk]]) 18:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:As an avid chess player, I'd have to agree that we should keep our strategy to ourselves (unless we are planning to use deception). Also, I'd like to point out that your opponent's strategy to only move pawns in the opening is a very poor choice (unless the opening in question is a variation by Alekhine, which is considered to be sound). In the opening we are advised to mainly move pieces and only a few pawns and there are very good reasons for this, which I cannot go into here. Moreover, he plans to build a pawn wall for your pieces to destroy themselves? Typical novice threats, doesn't he realise you have an equally matched army and that you wouldn't purposefully endanger your pieces with his pawn wall? (Your pawns can neutralise his). His reasoning is laughable. If you'd like to learn lots about chess in a fun and painless way, I recommend the Chessmaster game. Anyway, good on you for beating that opponent!--[[User:DelendaEst|DelendaEst]] ([[User talk:DelendaEst|talk]]) 12:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Yes, indeed, he was clearly very inexperienced, and while I'm not exactly a seasoned expert, I did spend the weeks leading up to this tournament studying openings and playing Chessmaster (and other Chess games on my mobile phone while not at my computer), and to my surprise I ended up in second place. Of course, this wasn't an official tournament, but rather one organized by the business and economics club at the community college in the area. So really I prefer to attribute my ultimate loss not to my lack of skill but to being more tired than my final opponent (final game was played at Denny's around midnight). More to the point, I was going to say that Kasparov had moved only pawns for something like the first eight moves for one of the games he won against Deep Blue, but after looking again at those games, that doesn't appear to be true. So what am I thinking of? I could have sworn I saw this from Kasparov somewhere... [[User:Erenan|Erenan]] ([[User talk:Erenan|talk]]) 04:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I was reminded of the scene from ''A Beautiful Mind'' when John Nash criticized a game (Go, I think) because he played flawlessly and yet still lost because he didn't go first. So he invented his own game, called Hex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_(board_game)[[Special:Contributions/163.120.70.10|163.120.70.10]] 17:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Does anybody else think the chess player could be Randall's wife? You see her depicted with a beanie and short black hair in the biopsy versary comic {{[[Special:Contributions/24.110.27.83|24.110.27.83]] 18:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)|24.110.27.83}}<br />
:The transcript calls the chess player "hat '''guy'''," so I doubt such.<br />
:Also, sudo sign your discussion comments by entering four tildes in the end. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 11:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I've always thought of this comic as being one of those nerdy 13 year olds that are chess geniuses (I call them geniuses because I can't play chess, it's too complicated for me, my cat beats me), and for some reason, these brilliant kids are almost always portrayed as beanie toting. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just to add a comment as a chess player, "thinking logically" does not always work in chess. Sometimes, one must go with their 'intuition', or gut feeling. Of course, these gut feelings are usually backed by subconscious logical reasoning, but sometimes, a chess player plays a move because it FEELS right.</div>162.158.2.166https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1535:_Words_for_Pets&diff=950731535: Words for Pets2015-06-08T14:28:19Z<p>162.158.2.166: /* Explanation */ Attempted to "enhance" the explanation</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1535<br />
| date = June 8, 2015<br />
| title = Words for Pets<br />
| image = words_for_pets.png<br />
| titletext = Seventh year: Perfectly coherent words, but in the pet's language, not mine.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
The comic shows four similar {{w|Euler diagram}}s, one for each of the first four years of living with a pet. The diagrams depict sets of words which have varying efficacy in actually identifying the pet, and each one shows how the words used by Randall to refer to his pet changes year by year (becoming less and less specific as time goes on).<br />
<br />
In the first year it is dominated by the actual name of the pet or words closely related. For example a dog might be called "{{w|Lassie}}", "dog", "collie" or "boy/girl".<br />
<br />
Moving on to the second year, these related words like "dog" and "collie" get more abundant while the actual name is seldom used. Phrases such as "good dog" or "here, boy" are likely common.<br />
<br />
In the third year, the pet's name is no longer used at all and the owner probably uses simple phrases like "come" or "come here" to call the pet, omitting the name.<br />
<br />
The fourth year entails the use of just any sound. This may be referring to something like {{w|Baby talk}} or attempted mimicry of the pet's vocalizations.<br />
<br />
This development can be attributed to the fact, that some animals don't listen to their own name but rather react to the sound of the voice of their owner. It could also refer to the growing bond between owner and the pet.<br />
<br />
The title text suggests that the inevitable result of this continuing pattern is that by the seventh year, Randall will be communicating with the pet in its own language. This might refer to the tendency of some pet owners to mimic or imitate their pets' vocalizations, as if speaking to them.<br />
<br />
The idea of pets having a detrimental effect on human vocabulary was previously visited in [[231: Cat Proximity]], also with a graphical representation of the effect.<br />
<br />
{{incomplete|Could be enhanced.}}<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript}}<br />
[A box is shown, with title "Words I use to refer to a pet over the years I live with it".]<br />
<br />
[Inside the box are four diagrams. Each diagram contains three circles containing the previous one, each labeled "The pet's name", "Words related to the pet", and "Coherent words of any kind", from inside going out.]<br />
<br />
[The first diagram contains a red circle, labeled "First Year", overlapping the innermost circle.]<br />
<br />
[In the second diagram, the red circle, labeled "Second Year", now overlaps the first two circles.]<br />
<br />
[In the third diagram, the red circle, labeled "Third Year", has moved away from the first circle, and is now overlapping the second and third circles.]<br />
<br />
[In the fourth diagram, the red circle, labeled "Fourth Year Onward", has moved away from all three circles.]<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Charts]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>162.158.2.166