https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=172.68.90.10&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T22:46:06ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2119:_Video_Orientation&diff=1704682119: Video Orientation2019-03-04T16:58:26Z<p>172.68.90.10: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2119<br />
| date = March 4, 2019<br />
| title = Video Orientation<br />
| image = video_orientation.png<br />
| titletext = CIRCULAR VIDEO - PROS: Solves aspect ratio problem. CONS: Never trust anyone who talks to you from inside a circle.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|This was created by a TRUSTWORTHY CIRCULAR VIDEO. Nothing about Bold and Dynamic. Bad dubious template. Better explanation on horizontal and vertical needed. DO NOT DELETE THIS TOO SOON (It already was once.}}<br />
<br />
This comic compares different pros and cons of 3 video angles.<br />
<br />
Horizontal angling <br />
1. Good for people not used to phones and has been used for centuries. (True)<br />
2. Humans can’t be captured as well. (True if a full body shot is desired)<br />
3. Can be uncomfortable to hold the smartphone when recording and viewing. (True)<br />
4. It more accurately displays the way humans view the world: we view approximately 150 degrees horizontally and only 50 degrees vertically. (not stated in the comic)<br />
<br />
Vertical angling <br />
1. Is normal for most smartphone users. (True)<br />
2. Can’t capture the background well. (True, when not used in panoramic view)<br />
3. When the subject of the video is a human, it captures more of their body. (True)<br />
4. Is less stressful on the hands of the one holding the mobile recording device. (True)<br />
<br />
((([[Randall]]))) does love a good [https://explainxkcd.com/690/ compromise], so he suggests the following angle:<br />
<br />
Diagonal angling <br />
1. Not a standard format of video {{Citation needed}} (True)<br />
2. Equally annoying to all viewers (Almost certainly true)<br />
3. Diagonal angling has no flaws, and is perfect in every way {{Dubious}}. (False)<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
Video Orientation<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Video Orientation<br />
! PROs<br />
! CONs<br />
|-<br />
| Horizontal<br />
| Looks normal to old people<br />
Format used by a century of cinema<br />
| Humans are taller than are wide<br />
I'm not turning my phone sideways<br />
|-<br />
| Vertical<br />
| How most normal people shoot and watch video now so we may as well accept it<br />
| Human world is mostly a horizontal plane<br />
|-<br />
| Diagonal<br />
| Bold and dynamic<br />
Equally annoying to all viewers<br />
<br />
Good compromise<br />
| None<br />
|}<br />
Title text: CIRCULAR VIDEO - PROS: Solves aspect ratio problem. CONS: Never trust anyone who talks to you from inside a circle.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Compromise]]</div>172.68.90.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2106:_Sharing_Options&diff=1690142106: Sharing Options2019-02-04T15:31:36Z<p>172.68.90.10: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2106<br />
| date = February 1, 2019<br />
| title = Sharing Options<br />
| image = sharing_options.png<br />
| titletext = How about posts that are public, but every time a company accesses a bunch of them, the API makes their CEO’s account click 'like’ on one of them at random so you get a notification.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic is a satire of social media’s presence in our lives and its vulnerabilities. [[Cueball]] is flying in an atmosphere that represents a Virtual Reality cyberspace, and he is talking to a screen that may be a smartphone with an advanced virtual assistant installed. This suggests that the comic is set in the distant future, where VR will have become commonplace and be embraced by [[Cueball]] and his friends. [[Ponytail]] and other characters also fly in the background, so this cyberspace may be the social network’s cyberspace where everyone interacts. The clouds represent the cloud server where the data of the social network is stored. The advanced virtual assistant seems to have a virtual face and have very advanced AI, which can even be arrogant by assuming that it already knew the information about the “option in between”.<br />
<br />
Many social media sites allow users to control who is able to see data (posts, pictures etc.) that they share online, ranging from immediate friends to all other users (public). The settings for controlling the sharing of data are not always obvious to the user and several high profile social media sites have sparked controversy by having default settings that allow user data to be widely shared.<br />
<br />
As most social media sites are free to use, the business model for these companies involves a mixture of selling advertising space on their website and selling data on its users to other companies, who may be interested in using it for marketing purposes. Targeted advertising takes data on users’ past behavior and things that they have liked, and uses this to predict what adverts they may be interested in or be most vulnerable to. Targeted adverts are more valuable to advertisers as they avoid paying to show adverts to individuals who are unlikely to be interested in their products; but can lead to users feeling that they are being spied on. Whilst the terms and conditions for social media websites will include details of how data will be used, the length of these documents and legal terminology may deter some users from reading them, meaning that they may be unaware that their data is being exploited in this way. Government legislation has so far been slow to catch up with changing online trends; however, the European Union have recently introduced {{w|General Data Protection Regulation|General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR)}} which aims to regulate how user data can be shared. GDPR was featured in comic [[1998: GDPR]].<br />
Internet scammers refer to the scammers who acquire user data from using web crawlers to automatically scan social networks for personal information (particularly emails) to scam their owners. Those bots called web crawlers can get the information without scammers' manual browsing of the victims' profile. Those people who set their social network account as public (the 2nd option in the comic) are more likely victims of scammers since they can access their profiles without being the victim's friend or follower.<br />
<br />
Randall, who might have never heard of the Facebook option to share with “friends of friends” as well, is making a point that there ought to be some option between sharing posts only with your friends and making them completely public. The title text shows that he would specifically like to know when corporations read his posts.<br />
<br />
This also could be a stab at the sharing policies between Facebook and the just-announced end of Google+. Google+ was designed so that users could create multiple groups called 'circles'. Posts could then be shared by targeting specific circles. For example: "I have cancer" could be shared with just the family circle, but the "I got a promotion" could be shared with the family circle, the co-workers circle, and the general public circle.<br />
<br />
Randall might be interested in [https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/ scuttlebutt] or [https://secushare.org/ secushare]. The comic is set in the future of VR, yet the fact that Internet companies like Facebook, Tencent and Twitter try hard to collect and sell user data won't change. This may suggests that Randall believe those companies will never reconsider their approach regarding user privacy.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
:[Cueball floating in midair is communicating with a small floating screen that resembles a smartphone. Other people and clouds visible floating by in background.]<br />
:Screen: Welcome to social media! When you put stuff here, you have two options: (1) You can make it available to a small set of 300 or so approved friends. <br />
:Screen: Or (2) you can share permanent copies of it all with billions of people, including internet scammers, random predatory companies, and hostile governments.<br />
<br />
:Cueball: Why would anyone pick option two?<br />
:Screen: Two is the default.<br />
:Cueball: Yikes.<br />
<br />
:Cueball: So those are the only two options? There’s nothing in in between?<br />
:Screen: I don’t understand. Like what?<br />
<br />
:Cueball: I mean…there are numbers between 300 and a billion.<br />
:Screen: Huh? Name one.<br />
:Screen: ''Pretty'' sure I would have heard of those.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Social networking]]</div>172.68.90.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2094:_Short_Selling&diff=1677122094: Short Selling2019-01-04T17:28:46Z<p>172.68.90.10: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2094<br />
| date = January 4, 2019<br />
| title = Short Selling<br />
| image = short_selling.png<br />
| titletext = "I'm selling all my analogies at auction tomorrow, and that witch over there will give you 20 beans if you promise on pain of death to win them for her." "What if SEVERAL people promised witches they'd win, creating some kind of a ... squeeze? Gosh, you could make a lot of–" "Don't be silly! That probably never happens."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a SHORT WITCH. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
Shorting stocks (short selling stocks) is a stock market practice where someone takes a risk because they believe that a certain stock's price is going to drop. The risk-taker then borrows stock to sell, believing that they will be able to buy the stock back later at a lower price and return it. If everything goes according to plan, the risk-taker will walk away with a profit. Of course, if things don't go according to plan, the risk-taker winds up losing money.<br />
<br />
Cueball asks Ponytail to explain shorting stocks. Ponytail starts out with a fairy tale story that falls apart almost before she even starts.<br />
<br />
In one version of the 'Jack and the Beanstalk' fairy tale story, Jack sells a cow for magic beans. His mother, thinking the beans are fake, is angry with Jack. Jack plants the beans and a magic beanstalk grows up into the clouds. Jack climbs the beanstalk and explores the land above the clouds. He finds the home of a cruel giant and proceeds to steal from the giant. The giant discovers the theft and chases Jack back down the beanstalk. Jack reaches the bottom of the beanstalk first and cuts the beanstalk down. The giant falls to his death, and Jack uses his stolen wealth to take care of himself and his mother.<br />
<br />
Ponytail's version starts with a father (not Jack) selling a child he hasn't had yet to a witch. Like short selling, the father is selling something he doesn't own. But unlike short selling, the father is selling something that doesn't exist yet. The child is sold for five magic beans, and the father thinks he will make a profit as he believes the child will only be worth two beans/love once born. The debt comes due, but the value of the child is now 200 beans/love.<br />
<br />
The somewhat broken analogy breaks further when Ponytail says the father now is going to fight the witch instead of paying the witch with the child. There is no 'fighting' if a short selling stock strategy fails. You simply lose money.<br />
<br />
Our now definitely broken analogy breaks even further (if possible) by sending the kid up the beanstalk to fight the giant. A giant that Ponytail says represents high interest rates. Interest rates have nothing to do with shorting stocks. (Technically they can, but the short seller would have / should have calculated that when determining if their investment strategy would work.)<br />
<br />
Cueball comments that the analogy is rapidly losing it's value to him. Ponytail fires back with the comment that he should have shorted her advice before asking for it, thus making a profit.<br />
<br />
The title text is actually the most useful part of this comic when it comes to investment advice. The witch (the broker) is offering the father (short seller) 20 magic beans now if the father/short seller buys all of the analogies (stocks) later. However, the witch/stock broker tricks several people into this strategy. Since every father/seller now needs the same analogies/stocks, a bidding war erupts. The winner pays a much higher price than expected. And the losers wind up either dead or enslaved (bankrupt).<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
[Cueball and Ponytail walking]<br />
<br />
Cueball: I don't understand shorting stocks.<br />
<br />
Ponytail: It's like when you promise your firstborn to a witch for five magic beans.<br />
<br />
[Ponytail close up]<br />
<br />
Cueball: It that a common-<br />
<br />
Ponytail: She's a sucker, right? You know your awful kid will be worth one or two beans at best.<br />
<br />
[Ponytail and Cueball stopped, facing each other]<br />
<br />
Ponytail: But then it turns out you love your kid, a love worth 200 beans! You can't afford that loss!<br />
<br />
Ponytail: There's only one way out: You gotta fight the witch.<br />
<br />
[]<br />
<br />
Ponytail: So you send your kid up the beanstalk to battle the giant, who represents interest rates.<br />
<br />
Cueball: This analogy is getting less helpful by the minute.<br />
<br />
Ponytail: If only you'd somehow shorted my wisdom before you asked.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>172.68.90.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1294:_Telescope_Names&diff=1671291294: Telescope Names2018-12-18T19:22:03Z<p>172.68.90.10: /* Transcript */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1294<br />
| date = November 22, 2013<br />
| title = Telescope Names<br />
| image = telescope_names.png<br />
| titletext = The Thirty Meter Telescope will be renamed The Flesh-Searing Eye on the Volcano.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
The {{w|Very Large Telescope}} is an existing telescope, while the {{w|European Extremely Large Telescope|(European) Extremely Large Telescope}} was in an advanced planning stage at the time of the comic's release. The {{w|Overwhelmingly Large Telescope}} was another proposed telescope that, as the comic mentions, was cancelled. The comic pokes fun at the generic nature of the names of the telescopes by proposing more generic but increasingly ridiculous names for future telescopes.<br />
<br />
The title text talks about the {{w|Thirty Meter Telescope}}, which is about to begin construction on {{w|Mauna Kea}} (a dormant volcano) in Hawaii, and seems to compare it to the {{w|Sauron#Eye of Sauron|Eye of Sauron}}. It is expected to be the most advanced and powerful optical telescope on Earth when completed.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[A list of telescope names is given, with a series of checkboxes at right.]<br />
:{|<br />
|align<br />
|-<br />
|align="right"|The Overwhelmingly Large Telescope||☑ (Canceled)<br />
|-<br />
|align="right"|The Oppressively Colossal Telescope||☐<br />
|-<br />
|align="right"|The Mind-numbingly Vast Telescope||☐<br />
|-<br />
|align="right<br />
|-<br />
|align="right"|The Cataclysmic Telescope||☐<br />
|<br />
|align="right"|The Telescope of Devastation||☐<br />
|-<br />
|align="right"|The Nightmare Scope||☐<br />
|-<br />
|align="right"|The Infinite Telescope||☐<br />
|-<br />
|align="right"|The Final Telescope||☐<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Charts]]<br />
[[Category:Telescopes]]</div>172.68.90.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2078:_Popper&diff=1664522078: Popper2018-11-28T18:17:36Z<p>172.68.90.10: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2078<br />
| date = November 28, 2018<br />
| title = Popper<br />
| image = popper.png<br />
| titletext = At least, I don't think there's evidence. My claim that there's no evidence hasn't been falsified. At least, not that I know of.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|There is no evidence that this wasn’t created by a DESCENDANT OF KARL POPPER. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
{{w|Karl Popper}} was a philosopher who believed in falsification but not proof. Under his philosophy, statements could be proven false but could not be proven true. This leads to technicalities like the ones stated in the comic.<br />
<br />
The title text takes Popper's philosophy a couple steps further. It points out that the lack of evidence could have been falsified and that we're also dealing with only the knowledge of a single individual who may not be aware of evidence that might exist.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
: There's no evidence that Karl Popper wasn't born on July 28th, 1902.<br />
<br />
: No one has proven that he didn't grow up in Vienna...<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category: Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]</div>172.68.90.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2073:_Kilogram&diff=166060Talk:2073: Kilogram2018-11-16T21:50:50Z<p>172.68.90.10: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
I didn't know that weights and currencies could be converted 1:1, that's cool! [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I wish they ''had'' redefined the kilogram a little bit. It would have been neat if 1 kg was exactly the weight of 1 dm^3 (1 litre) of water under one atmosphere of pressure. Right now it's soooo close. It's a good enough estimate for simple maths, but whenever you tell people that a litre of water weighs one kilogram the pedants comes out of the woodworks... [[User:Kapten-N|Kapten-N]] ([[User talk:Kapten-N|talk]]) 16:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Up until 1964 a litre (and therefore actually the metre too) used to be defined as the volume that water with mass 1kg takes. But this is not good for exact measurements not only because you need exactly reproducable temperature, pressure (not so problematic, because you can measure them and then calculate the divergence) and gravity (not so easy to measure, because you need an exact mass and exact masses are impossible to keep the same), but also because you need pure water free of any polutions of other stuff (hard and expensive) and even free of tiny amounts of isotopes which are deuterium and tritium (even way more expensive).<br />
Because the water that was used then was never close to pure the actual weight of water nowadays is 0.99997kg at 4°C and 1.013bar and I don't know which value for g. There is also another definition which I like, but is hard to measure in real life scenarios: E=mc². A kilogramm should be 1/c² of the mass which anything becomes heavier that you accelerate by the energy of one Joule. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.150|162.158.90.150]] 17:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:But how do you define/measure a Joule then? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 18:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:No, until 1964, meter and litre were totally independent, a meter has never been defined directly or indirectly in relation to a mass of water. It is only since 1964 that the liter is defined as a cubic decimeter.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.36|162.158.90.36]] 18:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Also, in E=mc², E is the energy '''at rest''' (for a stationary object of mass m), so your definition using the acceleration makes no sense.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.254|162.158.88.254]] 18:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
Actually, for the new definition of the kilo using the Kibble balance you need to measure the gravity... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.16|162.158.134.16]] 17:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Welp, looks like 1 kg, a.k.a. 1 lb, a.k.a 2.2 lb, is now officially defined to have zero mass.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.50.28|172.69.50.28]] 16:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:…or infinite. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 16:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
::What I understand: the joke is not (only) about 1 (old) kg = 1 (old) lb, but (also) about 1 new kg = 1 old lb... or 1 new lb = 1 old kg :^) Or about a ring of positive characteristic --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.102.94|188.114.102.94]] 17:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
what about the ambiguity of the pound? would they reference an Avoirdupois bound or a Troy lb? --wonderkatn {{unsigned ip|172.69.50.16}}<br />
<br />
I don't believe the Imperial system is "no longer used". Gills have been retired, but yards and even chains are still in use, not to mention the Imperial <s>lb</s> pint. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 18:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:The imperial system has some good things about it. Feet are divisible by 12, and Fahrenheit is much nicer for human temperatures. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 18:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, coz it's so easier to divide by 12 than to divide by 10! {{unsigned ip|162.158.89.61}}<br />
:::No it is easier to divide by 2, 3, 4, and 6, and yes, I can divide the number of feet by 10 easily in my head. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::The idea is that with twelve parts, you can have 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, and 1/12 all be integer number of parts. This is why these types of systems developed in the past, and why so many systems also had multiples of 60 (you can do the math here.). They were easy to divide by merchants without access to any sort of calculation method. The base-10 system is great if you're only ever dealing with halves or tenths. But if you want a quarter or a third of something, you have to split the base units. It's no longer necessary in modern life, but it had a real advantage in ancient times. [[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 19:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Ok, I'm going to point out something. What's a meter? 1000 milimeters. What's a milimeter? .....skipping the questions all the way to the end, the answer is "the wavelength of the color orange". Or at least that's what I read. So my question is: why orange? What's so special about orange? What as a species or as a solar system or as universe does the color orange have to do with anything? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.90.10|172.68.90.10]] 21:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC) SiliconWolf<br />
<br />
'''Be very careful'''<br />
<br />
An announcement to a new definition of the kilogram is published wildly (I mean what I'm saying) today. Please do not present this issue as a final fact, I'm still missing an official statement -- it's just press hype. And there are two possible definitions taken account, not only the one from the US. The final decision right now looks like some of Randall's compromises. Just sayin... --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)</div>172.68.90.10