Talk:1299: I Don't Own a TV - Revision history

PDesbeginner: /* Curve Extrapolation/Realistic Data */ new section

2025-09-11T01:52:20Z

‎Curve Extrapolation/Realistic Data: new section

Davidy22 at 17:40, 2 June 2016

2016-06-02T17:40:23Z

162.158.83.144 at 16:02, 2 June 2016

2016-06-02T16:02:06Z

Weatherlawyer at 07:36, 10 January 2015

2015-01-10T07:36:56Z

TobyBartels: change phrasing

2013-12-10T18:07:12Z

change phrasing

TobyBartels: Pics!

2013-12-10T18:06:14Z

Pics!

TobyBartels: More reply to Dgbrt.

2013-12-10T17:37:37Z

More reply to Dgbrt.

Zweisteine at 06:02, 9 December 2013

2013-12-09T06:02:32Z

Zweisteine at 06:01, 9 December 2013

2013-12-09T06:01:40Z

Dgbrt at 20:20, 8 December 2013

2013-12-08T20:20:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:52, 11 September 2025
Line 141:		Line 141:

	I disagree with the explanation (to some degree). The thing why people don't feel smug about not owning a TV is because Smart-TV is the new thing. I don't think the program has to do a lot with this trend. It's just Smart-TV is the new cool thing, yet it's still a TV. So instead of just wanting to own a TV many people go to wanting to own a big nice Smart-TV with new features and stuff. Blah! {{unsigned ip\|162.158.83.144}}		I disagree with the explanation (to some degree). The thing why people don't feel smug about not owning a TV is because Smart-TV is the new thing. I don't think the program has to do a lot with this trend. It's just Smart-TV is the new cool thing, yet it's still a TV. So instead of just wanting to own a TV many people go to wanting to own a big nice Smart-TV with new features and stuff. Blah! {{unsigned ip\|162.158.83.144}}
		+
		+	== Curve Extrapolation/Realistic Data ==
		+
		+	According to an extrapolation estimate, embarrassment should peak again in the 2030s. Also, is there any realistic data about how people feel when they say "I don't own a TV" between now and when the comic was released?
		+	Maybe someone could create some photoshopped images of the graph in the comic with updates/predictions/extrapolations. [[User:PDesbeginner\|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner\|talk]]) 01:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Annual Data for households between 1958-1970
 http://www.tvhistory.tv/Annual_TV_Households_50-78.JPG
@@ Line 141: / Line 139: @@
 I would suggest something like this, but with a bit more depth: The title text sugests that smugness and the second derivative of TV ownership are related. The derivative of a graph is its rate of change at any given point, and the second derivative is the rate of change in the first derivative. [[User:Zweisteine|Zweisteine]] ([[User talk:Zweisteine|talk]]) 06:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:02, 2 June 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	I disagree with the explanation (to some degree). The thing why people don't feel smug about not owning a TV is because Smart-TV is the new thing. I don't think the program has to do a lot with this trend. It's just Smart-TV is the new cool thing, yet it's still a TV. So instead of just wanting to own a TV many people go to wanting to own a big nice Smart-TV with new features and stuff. Blah!
		+
	Annual Data for households between 1958-1970		Annual Data for households between 1958-1970
	http://www.tvhistory.tv/Annual_TV_Households_50-78.JPG		http://www.tvhistory.tv/Annual_TV_Households_50-78.JPG

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 : Agreed. Removed. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 17:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 I feel quite smug, not having to pay £145.50 a year to watch people wanting to be famous, or wanting to remind people that they used to be famous, screaming for attention on "Strictly Got Talent Factor On Ice Brother" [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.218|141.101.99.218]] 16:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 :As a fellow Britisher, similarly not paying for (or needing!) a TV Licence, I think this might need explaining to the furriners here.  There are different payment methods (<strike>up to</strike> down to, and including, purely commercial channels, but also the same cable/satelite subscriptions as we might ''also'' have to make) supporting TV channels, elsewhere.  And how do ''you'' deal with the TV Licencing people, pestering you about your TV that you (I presume) do not have? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 02:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 :: 5 simple words: "I don't have a TV" and they go away for a couple of years. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.211|141.101.98.211]] 11:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 ;Sigmoid function or Sine curve

@@ Line 103: / Line 103: @@
 :::Holy crap, as {{w|Sigmoid function|wiki}} says: "A sigmoid formula is a mathematical function having an "S" shape (sigmoid curve)." It looks like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gjl-t%28x%29.svg graph] and really does NOT match this [http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/i_dont_own_a_tv.png one]. There is just no simple graph to explain Randall's plot.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
-:::: Calm down, nobody is claiming that a sigmoid graph looks like this graph.  The claim is that the SECOND DERIVATIVE of a sigmoid graph looks like this graph.  See the pictures on the Wolfram Alpha pages that I linked earlier; you will see that most of them (all but the last really, but the earliest ones the best) look like this graph.  All of them are computed by Wolfram Alpha as second derivatives of sigmoid graphs; in fact, they are all second derivatives of opposites (negatives) of formulas given on the Wikipedia article as examples of sigmoids.  —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 17:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
+:::: Don't worry, nobody is claiming that a sigmoid graph looks like this graph.  The claim is that the SECOND DERIVATIVE of a sigmoid graph looks like this graph.  See the pictures on the Wolfram Alpha pages that I linked earlier; you will see that most of them (all but the last really, but the earliest ones the best) look like this graph.  All of them are computed by Wolfram Alpha as second derivatives of sigmoid graphs; in fact, they are all second derivatives of opposites (negatives) of formulas given on the Wikipedia article as examples of sigmoids.  —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 17:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 Sigmoid curve:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:06, 10 December 2013
Line 104:		Line 104:

	:::: Calm down, nobody is claiming that a sigmoid graph looks like this graph. The claim is that the SECOND DERIVATIVE of a sigmoid graph looks like this graph. See the pictures on the Wolfram Alpha pages that I linked earlier; you will see that most of them (all but the last really, but the earliest ones the best) look like this graph. All of them are computed by Wolfram Alpha as second derivatives of sigmoid graphs; in fact, they are all second derivatives of opposites (negatives) of formulas given on the Wikipedia article as examples of sigmoids. —[[User:TobyBartels\|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels\|talk]]) 17:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)		:::: Calm down, nobody is claiming that a sigmoid graph looks like this graph. The claim is that the SECOND DERIVATIVE of a sigmoid graph looks like this graph. See the pictures on the Wolfram Alpha pages that I linked earlier; you will see that most of them (all but the last really, but the earliest ones the best) look like this graph. All of them are computed by Wolfram Alpha as second derivatives of sigmoid graphs; in fact, they are all second derivatives of opposites (negatives) of formulas given on the Wikipedia article as examples of sigmoids. —[[User:TobyBartels\|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels\|talk]]) 17:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	Sigmoid curve:
		+
		+	[[Image:SigmoidCurve.gif]]
		+
		+	Second derivative of a sigmoid curve:
		+
		+	[[Image:2ndDerivativeSigmoidCurve.gif]]
		+
		+	Negative second derivative of a sigmoid curve:
		+
		+	[[Image:Negative2ndDerivativeSigmoidCurve.gif]]
		+
		+	vs
		+
		+	Sine curve:
		+
		+	[[Image:SineCurve.gif]]
		+
		+	It seems clear to me that the sine curve matches the graph from about 1960, but the negative second derivative of the sigmoid curve (curve 2 from my series above) matches the overall graph better. —[[User:TobyBartels\|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels\|talk]]) 18:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:37, 10 December 2013
Line 102:		Line 102:
	:: Umm... no, actually, "he was only talking about the second derivative" of the (not-shown) TV-ownership function. The smugness plot (depicted) looks quite like the negative second derivatives of sigmoids, doesn't it? -- [[Special:Contributions/173.245.51.210\|173.245.51.210]] 01:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)		:: Umm... no, actually, "he was only talking about the second derivative" of the (not-shown) TV-ownership function. The smugness plot (depicted) looks quite like the negative second derivatives of sigmoids, doesn't it? -- [[Special:Contributions/173.245.51.210\|173.245.51.210]] 01:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::Holy crap, as {{w\|Sigmoid function\|wiki}} says: "A sigmoid formula is a mathematical function having an "S" shape (sigmoid curve)." It looks like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gjl-t%28x%29.svg graph] and really does NOT match this [http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/i_dont_own_a_tv.png one]. There is just no simple graph to explain Randall's plot.--[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 20:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)		:::Holy crap, as {{w\|Sigmoid function\|wiki}} says: "A sigmoid formula is a mathematical function having an "S" shape (sigmoid curve)." It looks like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gjl-t%28x%29.svg graph] and really does NOT match this [http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/i_dont_own_a_tv.png one]. There is just no simple graph to explain Randall's plot.--[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 20:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	:::: Calm down, nobody is claiming that a sigmoid graph looks like this graph. The claim is that the SECOND DERIVATIVE of a sigmoid graph looks like this graph. See the pictures on the Wolfram Alpha pages that I linked earlier; you will see that most of them (all but the last really, but the earliest ones the best) look like this graph. All of them are computed by Wolfram Alpha as second derivatives of sigmoid graphs; in fact, they are all second derivatives of opposites (negatives) of formulas given on the Wikipedia article as examples of sigmoids. —[[User:TobyBartels\|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels\|talk]]) 17:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@@ Line 102: / Line 102: @@
 :: Umm... no, actually, "he was only talking about the second derivative" of the (not-shown) TV-ownership function. The smugness plot (depicted) looks quite like the negative second derivatives of sigmoids, doesn't it? -- [[Special:Contributions/173.245.51.210|173.245.51.210]] 01:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 :::Holy crap, as {{w|Sigmoid function|wiki}} says: "A sigmoid formula is a mathematical function having an "S" shape (sigmoid curve)." It looks like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gjl-t%28x%29.svg graph] and really does NOT match this [http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/i_dont_own_a_tv.png one]. There is just no simple graph to explain Randall's plot.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 I think that the new explanation for the title text, while somewhat accurate is a bit overcomplex.
 . There is probably a simpler way to explain what a second derivative is (not necessarily diffently described; it's just a bit jumbled up in the description).
 . For the purposes of explanation, I doubt that so much detail is needed, especially because the real-life meaningfulness of the second derivative of TV ownership doesn't seem like much at all.
 I would suggest something like this, but with a bit more depth: The title text sugests that smugness and the second derivative of TV ownership are related. The derivative of a graph is its rate of change at any given point, and the second derivative is the rate of change in the first derivative. [[User:Zweisteine|Zweisteine]] ([[User talk:Zweisteine|talk]]) 06:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:01, 9 December 2013
Line 102:		Line 102:
	:: Umm... no, actually, "he was only talking about the second derivative" of the (not-shown) TV-ownership function. The smugness plot (depicted) looks quite like the negative second derivatives of sigmoids, doesn't it? -- [[Special:Contributions/173.245.51.210\|173.245.51.210]] 01:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)		:: Umm... no, actually, "he was only talking about the second derivative" of the (not-shown) TV-ownership function. The smugness plot (depicted) looks quite like the negative second derivatives of sigmoids, doesn't it? -- [[Special:Contributions/173.245.51.210\|173.245.51.210]] 01:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::Holy crap, as {{w\|Sigmoid function\|wiki}} says: "A sigmoid formula is a mathematical function having an "S" shape (sigmoid curve)." It looks like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gjl-t%28x%29.svg graph] and really does NOT match this [http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/i_dont_own_a_tv.png one]. There is just no simple graph to explain Randall's plot.--[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 20:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)		:::Holy crap, as {{w\|Sigmoid function\|wiki}} says: "A sigmoid formula is a mathematical function having an "S" shape (sigmoid curve)." It looks like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gjl-t%28x%29.svg graph] and really does NOT match this [http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/i_dont_own_a_tv.png one]. There is just no simple graph to explain Randall's plot.--[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 20:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	I think that the new explanation for the title text, while somewhat accurate is a bit overcomplex.
		+	1. There is probably a simpler way to explain what a second derivative is (not necessarily diffently described; it's just a bit jumbled up in the description).
		+	2. For the purposes of explanation, I doubt that so much detail is needed, especially because the real-life meaningfulness of the second derivative of TV ownership doesn't seem like much at all.
		+	I would suggest something like this, but with a bit more depth: The title text sugests that smugness and the second derivative of TV ownership are related. The derivative of a graph is its rate of change at any given point, and the second derivative is the rate of change in the first derivative. [[User:Zweisteine\|Zweisteine]] ([[User talk:Zweisteine\|talk]]) 06:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:20, 8 December 2013
Line 101:		Line 101:

	:: Umm... no, actually, "he was only talking about the second derivative" of the (not-shown) TV-ownership function. The smugness plot (depicted) looks quite like the negative second derivatives of sigmoids, doesn't it? -- [[Special:Contributions/173.245.51.210\|173.245.51.210]] 01:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)		:: Umm... no, actually, "he was only talking about the second derivative" of the (not-shown) TV-ownership function. The smugness plot (depicted) looks quite like the negative second derivatives of sigmoids, doesn't it? -- [[Special:Contributions/173.245.51.210\|173.245.51.210]] 01:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
		+	:::Holy crap, as {{w\|Sigmoid function\|wiki}} says: "A sigmoid formula is a mathematical function having an "S" shape (sigmoid curve)." It looks like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gjl-t%28x%29.svg graph] and really does NOT match this [http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/i_dont_own_a_tv.png one]. There is just no simple graph to explain Randall's plot.--[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 20:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)