https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=172.68.110.58&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T18:39:15ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2020:_Negative_Results&diff=160149Talk:2020: Negative Results2018-07-17T05:40:11Z<p>172.68.110.58: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
The idea of publishing "failed" investigations arose out of the demand to punish all of the results from medical trials. Then there was the realisation that more than one team may have had the same hypotheses, got funding, investigated and not published the proof that they were wrong. So the idea that a A =/= B is still a valuable finding to be reported has come about. There may seem to be lots being published due to years of keeping silent about such results. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 20:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:@RIIW, you meant 'publish' instead of 'punish trial results'? Save the results from violent you! Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.58|172.68.110.58]] 05:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There can be several reasons, why a study has a negative outcome or is delayed. Most of those, especially from smaller studies, are not directly related to the matter being investigated, but more to study design, analysis tools or organizational issues. It is much easier to get a wrong or no result than the correct one. The best solution is to somewhere publish these failed experiments and describe the circumstances and reasons so that it can be judged by a third party (even if that is an embarassment for the scientists in an institution). But if you report that you have started a study, and the reasons are rather mundane as in the case within the comic, what should you report? The truth? Should you lie? Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.58|172.68.110.58]] 05:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)</div>172.68.110.58https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2020:_Negative_Results&diff=160148Talk:2020: Negative Results2018-07-17T05:38:19Z<p>172.68.110.58: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
The idea of publishing "failed" investigations arose out of the demand to punish all of the results from medical trials. Then there was the realisation that more than one team may have had the same hypotheses, got funding, investigated and not published the proof that they were wrong. So the idea that a A =/= B is still a valuable finding to be reported has come about. There may seem to be lots being published due to years of keeping silent about such results. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 20:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:@RIIW, you meant 'publish' instead of 'punish trial results'? Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.58|172.68.110.58]] 05:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There can be several reasons, why a study has a negative outcome or is delayed. Most of those, especially from smaller studies, are not directly related to the matter being investigated, but more to study design, analysis tools or organizational issues. It is much easier to get a wrong or no result than the correct one. The best solution is to somewhere publish these failed experiments and describe the circumstances and reasons so that it can be judged by a third party (even if that is an embarassment for the scientists in an institution). But if you report that you have started a study, and the reasons are rather mundane as in the case within the comic, what should you report? The truth? Should you lie? Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.58|172.68.110.58]] 05:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)</div>172.68.110.58https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1869:_Positive_and_Negative_Reviews&diff=1432671869: Positive and Negative Reviews2017-07-28T05:37:59Z<p>172.68.110.58: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1869<br />
| date = July 28, 2017<br />
| title = Positive and Negative Reviews<br />
| image = positive and negative reviews.png<br />
| titletext = This restaurant is great! I was feeling really sick, but then I ate there and felt better!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|New page}}<br />
Positive and negative reviews are explained like matter and anti-matter. Physically anti-matter is matter going backwards in time.<br />
<br />
In the title text, Randall gives an example of a positive review, which seems to actually be a negative review backwards in time.<br />
<br />
So it gets philosophical and subjective: Are there only positive experiences in life - some going forward, some backwards in life. Or actually only negative ones.<br />
<br />
Or is the positivity of an event not the only deciding property, whether one should see it as going forwards or backwards in life, like charge in anti-matter: Positrons, the anti-matter of electrons have positive, i.e. reversed, charge, but there exist positive and negative matter, and positive and negative anti-matter at the same time.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript}}<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<!-- Include any categories below this line. --></div>172.68.110.58https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1869:_Positive_and_Negative_Reviews&diff=1432661869: Positive and Negative Reviews2017-07-28T05:36:22Z<p>172.68.110.58: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1869<br />
| date = July 28, 2017<br />
| title = Positive and Negative Reviews<br />
| image = positive and negative reviews.png<br />
| titletext = This restaurant is great! I was feeling really sick, but then I ate there and felt better!<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|New page}}<br />
Positive and negative reviews are explained like matter and anti-matter. Physically anti-matter is matter going backwards in time.<br />
<br />
In the title text, Randall gives an example of a positive review, which seems to actually be a negative review backwards in time.<br />
<br />
So it gets philosophical and subjective: Are there only positive experiences in life - some going forward, some backwards in life. Or actually only negative ones.<br />
<br />
Or is the positivity of an event not the only deciding property, whether one should see it as going forwards or backwards in life, like charge in anti-matter: Positrons, the anti-matter of electrons have positive, i.e. reversed, charge, but there exist positive and negative matter, and positive and negative anti-matter.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript}}<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<!-- Include any categories below this line. --></div>172.68.110.58https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1855:_Telephoto&diff=1420641855: Telephoto2017-06-27T17:32:30Z<p>172.68.110.58: Better explained, what the joke is</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1855<br />
| date = June 26, 2017<br />
| title = Telephoto<br />
| image = telephoto.png<br />
| titletext = I was banned from the airliners.net photography forum by concerned moderators after the end of my lens started brushing against planes as they flew by.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
{{w|Telephoto lens}}es are special {{w|camera lens|lenses for cameras}} that have a longer {{w|focal length}} than standard lenses, which allows the photographer to zoom in on an object. Alternatively one could add "{{w|teleconverter|converters}}" and "{{w|extension tube|extenders}}" to an existing lens to get a greater focal length for the cost of reduced brightness. The joke is that [[Cueball]] did not want to spend the money on buying a new telephoto lens or real converters, and instead achieved the same effect by moving his cheap camera (a standard {{w|webcam}}, in this case) close enough to the subject to obviate the need for zoom. This 'solution' only works, if the extended lense with the camera gets relevantly close to the subject. In this comic it is first realized with a bird on a tree. In the title text it is further exaggerated to the case of taking pictures of passing planes, which would mean a camera of about 10km length.<br />
<br />
There are many problems with this. First, the end result is completely impractical to carry around; as shown in the comic, Cueball has to set up two tripods just to support the weight of his hulking behemoth of a camera. Second, if you're an animal photographer like Cueball, you need to be able to see the animal as close up as possible in order to get a good picture; a lens with lots of magnification power accomplishes just that without alerting the animal to the photographer's presence, but Cueball's camera would surely scare off any birds he tried to photograph (except in fanciful proof-of-concept diagrams like this comic).<br />
<br />
Perhaps most damning of all, though, is the fact that Cueball's idea involves installing a webcam at the far end to be able to photograph anything. Webcams are not designed to capture high-resolution images, so the resulting image will be of considerably lower quality compared to professional photographers' works, although it could be better than a standard camera setup taking account of the huge achievable zoom levels. But more importantly, the presence of the webcam renders the functionality of the extenders (and the base camera itself!) completely redundant, cementing this idea as a total waste of time and effort. The same could be achieved by mounting the webcam on a long stick.<br />
<br />
The title text continues this by saying he was banned from the {{w|Airliners.net}} [http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=7 photography forum] because his new modified lens got so long from all of the attachments that it started brushing against planes as they flew by. It would seem that having a greater than 100 foot lens set up on or near the runway, along with the potential to damage planes in-flight, being banned from an online forum would be the least of his worries.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Cueball stands behind a huge telephoto lens which rests on two tripods, one at the left in front of Cueball, and an other larger one in the middle. The lens is more than five times longer than Cueball is high. In front of the lens is a tree with a bird on top close to the lens. The bird is labeled "Subject". Inside the telephoto lens at the location of the objective lens a small device is shown and labeled "Webcam". From that device a small cable runs through the entire telephoto lens to the eyepiece, where an other device labeled "Camera" is shown.]<br />
:[Caption below the panel:]<br />
:Telephoto tip: If you add enough converters and extenders, you don't actually need a fancy lens.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]</div>172.68.110.58https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1827:_Survivorship_Bias&diff=139086Talk:1827: Survivorship Bias2017-04-21T07:05:01Z<p>172.68.110.58: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--><br />
Is "defeatest" a typo or a joke? I've never seen Randall make a typo before, but I also don't get the joke if there is one. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.184|162.158.2.184]] 04:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Definitely a typo. [[User:Cardboardmech|Cardboardmech]] ([[User talk:Cardboardmech|talk]]) 04:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::At first I thought this was an unfamiliarity with the word, and was about to talk about how it's a real word and what it means, then I noticed the spelling, LOL! I KNOW I've seen such spelling errors several times before - often getting fixed in the next day or two - but I couldn't provide examples even if my life depended on it. And yeah, I'd say this is more "spelling error" than "typo", the I is nowhere near the E on any keyboard. :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.88|108.162.219.88]] 05:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Transcript's kind of done. [[User:Cardboardmech|Cardboardmech]] ([[User talk:Cardboardmech|talk]]) 05:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Other than the title text, does any more work need to be done on the explanation? The Template:Incomplete param is pretty vague right now. <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 />
No doubt a lottery isn't a wise investment. However, I have not heard about accepting 25% of the prize or in annual instalments for over a decade before. Is that an american habbit? Vince [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.174|141.101.105.174]] 06:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The title text is written in the style of an inspirational/motivational speech. Do not be deterred, you can do ANYTHING. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.58|172.68.110.58]] 07:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)</div>172.68.110.58