Talk:2263: Cicadas - Revision history

Revolutionary girl euclid: explaining my edit

2025-08-14T19:47:35Z

explaining my edit

162.158.154.121 at 13:47, 18 February 2020

2020-02-18T13:47:22Z

NiceGuy1 at 04:27, 16 February 2020

2020-02-16T04:27:03Z

Elektrizikekswerk at 09:13, 6 February 2020

2020-02-06T09:13:54Z

Lupo at 07:40, 6 February 2020

2020-02-06T07:40:04Z

Fabian42 at 23:06, 5 February 2020

2020-02-05T23:06:57Z

141.101.98.118 at 22:56, 5 February 2020

2020-02-05T22:56:51Z

Fabian42 at 22:50, 5 February 2020

2020-02-05T22:50:12Z

Rtanenbaum at 20:22, 5 February 2020

2020-02-05T20:22:28Z

Rtanenbaum at 20:20, 5 February 2020

2020-02-05T20:20:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:47, 14 August 2025
Line 32:		Line 32:

	I used to listen to, a lot to R.E.M.'s 'Daysleeper' where they mention 'circadian rhytm' (at the end of the first verse) - that line I always overheard as 'cicadian rhytm' (the 'r' is disappearing)... wonder if this has something to do with the pun too? Or coincidence? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.121\|162.158.154.121]] 13:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)		I used to listen to, a lot to R.E.M.'s 'Daysleeper' where they mention 'circadian rhytm' (at the end of the first verse) - that line I always overheard as 'cicadian rhytm' (the 'r' is disappearing)... wonder if this has something to do with the pun too? Or coincidence? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.121\|162.158.154.121]] 13:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
		+
		+	I've removed the following paragraph from the explanation:
		+	<blockquote>This entire comic seems to only have been a lead-up to the "cicadian rhythm" punchline. This is an interesting suggestion since [[Randall]] has mentioned in an interview that he makes up the title text after completing the comic.{{Actual citation needed}} Seems like he made an exception here; unless he didn't.</blockquote>
		+	The reason I deleted it rather than rephrasing or editing it is that it is an utterly pointless paragraph to begin with. It's an editor who thought the title text was a better punchline, so Randall ''must'' have thought it up first; then another editor comments on the first editor's assumption, and a third editor (with their tongue in cheek, I believe) reinforces that the preceding sentences are just a guess. This paragraph doesn't need to be revised; it doesn't need to exist at all. [[User:Revolutionary girl euclid\|Revolutionary girl euclid]] ([[User talk:Revolutionary girl euclid\|talk]]) 19:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:47, 18 February 2020
Line 30:		Line 30:
	::Because I'm a dumb German and "to" just sounds wrong in my head ;) Reverted it again, thanks :) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk\|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk\|talk]]) 09:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)		::Because I'm a dumb German and "to" just sounds wrong in my head ;) Reverted it again, thanks :) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk\|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk\|talk]]) 09:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
	:::The correct phrase you want is "go so far as to remove". :) You were missing the word "as". The phrase "go so far as" is very common. [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 04:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)		:::The correct phrase you want is "go so far as to remove". :) You were missing the word "as". The phrase "go so far as" is very common. [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 04:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
		+
		+	I used to listen to, a lot to R.E.M.'s 'Daysleeper' where they mention 'circadian rhytm' (at the end of the first verse) - that line I always overheard as 'cicadian rhytm' (the 'r' is disappearing)... wonder if this has something to do with the pun too? Or coincidence? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.121\|162.158.154.121]] 13:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:27, 16 February 2020
Line 29:		Line 29:
	:Why did you make an edit to replace "go so far to remove" with "go so far and remove"? [[User:Fabian42\|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42\|talk]]) 18:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)		:Why did you make an edit to replace "go so far to remove" with "go so far and remove"? [[User:Fabian42\|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42\|talk]]) 18:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
	::Because I'm a dumb German and "to" just sounds wrong in my head ;) Reverted it again, thanks :) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk\|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk\|talk]]) 09:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)		::Because I'm a dumb German and "to" just sounds wrong in my head ;) Reverted it again, thanks :) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk\|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk\|talk]]) 09:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
		+	:::The correct phrase you want is "go so far as to remove". :) You were missing the word "as". The phrase "go so far as" is very common. [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 04:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 ::Sorry, I only know it from memory, from when I watched about 10 interviews with and talks by him in a day. :D And it was all YouTube recommendations and a few months old, so it's probably not even in my YouTube history anymore. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 22:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
-I think the current explanation is sufficient and complete - I'd even go so far and remove the part about why there is a 17-year cycle since for the understanding of the comic it's totally irrelevant. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
+I think the current explanation is sufficient and complete - I'd even go so far to remove the part about why there is a 17-year cycle since for the understanding of the comic it's totally irrelevant. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 :No that is very relevant. It is the reason why 17 seconds was chosen and very likely why Randall thinks these cicadas are so interesting that he ended up doing a comic on them. But I agree with the completeness. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 :: If it was 12 years instead it would be 12 seconds in the comic. Being prime or not doesn't matter at all neither for the comic nor the explanation. It's trivia at best. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 14:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 :Why did you make an edit to replace "go so far to remove" with "go so far and remove"? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 18:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 ::: (Yeah, sorry, +1 on indent aain.) Indeed, it's difficult to use the right language to get that point across, though. In my Trivia edit I put in the word "happenstance" at one point. An awkward word, but trying to make that point. Ditto demonstrating why 16 years is 'worse' (while mentioning just one reason why, e.g., 2<sup>82,589,933</sup>−1 would be an impractical choice of Prime, too!).  So DNA/etc that ''just happens to'' produce an effective counter-to-N (of external cues indicating another year has passed) before provoking a given stage of life transition is better when that N is 17 (or 13), and other Ns are less advantageous. They may well have arisen, but died out. (As did the 13-year Brood-21, IIRC, for whatever reason, maybe anthropogenic, at the end of the 19<sup>th</sup>C.)  Not that we're entirely sure why 'better' (I would firmly side with it being likely related to predator and/or resource-competitor avoidance, with self-reinforcing temporal divergence from their relatives that chose a different frequency and/or offset, but there could be other advantages not observed), and the cicadas probably don't know or properly appreciate what {{w|Dayworld_(novel_series)|they're doing}}. Their ancestors definitely did not go "Hey, chaps, I've got a ''brilliant'' plan...", just before one of their kind decided to make his inaugural multi-year nap. But something happened, and a fascinating emergent behaviour resulted. Don't you just love the Universe, sometimes? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.118|141.101.98.118]] 22:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 ::::The intendation gets pretty confusing with my reply below for a comment far above. Anyway, are you sure that 2⁸²⁵⁸⁹⁹³³-1 is a prime number? :D I couldn't even get an online "big number calculator" to just print out the number for me, especially not check for being prime. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 23:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 :Why did you make an edit to replace "go so far to remove" with "go so far and remove"? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 18:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:56, 5 February 2020
Line 23:		Line 23:

	::: (reduced the indenting) The process of evolution is that benefits happen '''not for any ultimate purpose''' but are randomly selected by environmental circumstances. If cicadas randomly reproduce on 1 or 2 or 3 or 5 or multiples of those numbers then it is more likely that their predators will be able to match that cycle and it will be less effective. So if the random changes in their maturity cycles happen to hit upon 13 or 17 then it is less likely that the predators will match that cycle. Therefore it becomes a more successful reproductive method and that's how it happens. The prime number is not a '''reason or cause''' of the 17 year cycle. It is a consequence that this particular random change in cycle provides ('''after the fact''') a better survival chance than any other cycle. This is an important distinction in understanding evolution. [[User:Rtanenbaum\|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum\|talk]]) 20:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)		::: (reduced the indenting) The process of evolution is that benefits happen '''not for any ultimate purpose''' but are randomly selected by environmental circumstances. If cicadas randomly reproduce on 1 or 2 or 3 or 5 or multiples of those numbers then it is more likely that their predators will be able to match that cycle and it will be less effective. So if the random changes in their maturity cycles happen to hit upon 13 or 17 then it is less likely that the predators will match that cycle. Therefore it becomes a more successful reproductive method and that's how it happens. The prime number is not a '''reason or cause''' of the 17 year cycle. It is a consequence that this particular random change in cycle provides ('''after the fact''') a better survival chance than any other cycle. This is an important distinction in understanding evolution. [[User:Rtanenbaum\|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum\|talk]]) 20:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
		+	::: (Yeah, sorry, +1 on indent aain.) Indeed, it's difficult to use the right language to get that point across, though. In my Trivia edit I put in the word "happenstance" at one point. An awkward word, but trying to make that point. Ditto demonstrating why 16 years is 'worse' (while mentioning just one reason why, e.g., 2<sup>82,589,933</sup>−1 would be an impractical choice of Prime, too!). So DNA/etc that ''just happens to'' produce an effective counter-to-N (of external cues indicating another year has passed) before provoking a given stage of life transition is better when that N is 17 (or 13), and other Ns are less advantageous. They may well have arisen, but died out. (As did the 13-year Brood-21, IIRC, for whatever reason, maybe anthropogenic, at the end of the 19<sup>th</sup>C.) Not that we're entirely sure why 'better' (I would firmly side with it being likely related to predator and/or resource-competitor avoidance, with self-reinforcing temporal divergence from their relatives that chose a different frequency and/or offset, but there could be other advantages not observed), and the cicadas probably don't know or properly appreciate what {{w\|Dayworld_(novel_series)\|they're doing}}. Their ancestors definitely did not go "Hey, chaps, I've got a ''brilliant'' plan...", just before one of their kind decided to make his inaugural multi-year nap. But something happened, and a fascinating emergent behaviour resulted. Don't you just love the Universe, sometimes? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.118\|141.101.98.118]] 22:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


	:Why did you make an edit to replace "go so far to remove" with "go so far and remove"? [[User:Fabian42\|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42\|talk]]) 18:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)		:Why did you make an edit to replace "go so far to remove" with "go so far and remove"? [[User:Fabian42\|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42\|talk]]) 18:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 Randall said in an interview that he first makes the entire comic and only comes up with the title text shortly before publishing. So either he broke his own rule or the comic is not a buildup to the punch line in the title text. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 08:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 :Quite sure he got the title text first this time and found a way to make a comic that fitted it. But we will never know if he doesn't make a new interview. Would really like to see a link to that interview to add it to the explanation. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 I think the current explanation is sufficient and complete - I'd even go so far and remove the part about why there is a 17-year cycle since for the understanding of the comic it's totally irrelevant. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 :::::::::I added the section on prime numbered lifecycles, but I do agree, it is irrelevant to understanding the comic. It's a pretty cool fact, but it is cidada trivia at best. If it breaks the flow of the explanation at present, I'm happy for it to be moved or removed. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 11:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 ::::::::::Since there seems to be consesus I just removed the part about the "why did they do the research" and moved the part about the prime numbers to the trivia section. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
-:::::::::::I don't know if it's still Trivial enough to be in Trivia, but I expanded it to (best guess, and I think current) thinking on the background to the septendecenial insect. That the actual proposed mechanism/cause for the 17-year natural Cicada cannot really have anything to do with the fictional reason behind their roughly 31556952-times more frequent offspring (unless someone engineered the lab environment to express seasonal pulses in heat, surrogate root bichemistry, etc, at the faster rate to cue the more vastly more responsive experimental subjects) probably means it should ''stay'' in Trivia rather than form any kind of Explanation (beyond, as it already does, explaining that the original insect actually exists). Or can be reverted, to leave people wondering what the marvel of God Or Nature it is, until they decide to go and look it up themselves.
+:::::::::::I don't know if it's still Trivial enough to be in Trivia, but I expanded it to (best guess, and I think current) thinking on the background to the septendecenial insect. That the actual proposed mechanism/cause for the 17-year natural Cicada cannot really have anything to do with the fictional reason behind their roughly 31556952-times more frequent offspring (unless someone engineered the lab environment to express seasonal pulses in heat, surrogate root bichemistry, etc, at the faster rate to cue the more vastly more responsive experimental subjects) probably means it should ''stay'' in Trivia rather than form any kind of Explanation (beyond, as it already does, explaining that the original insect actually exists). Or can be reverted, to leave people wondering what the marvel of God Or Nature it is, until they decide to go and look it up themselves. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.117|162.158.158.117]] 19:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 ::: (reduced the indenting) The process of evolution is that benefits happen '''not for any ultimate purpose''' but are randomly selected by environmental circumstances. If cicadas randomly reproduce on 1 or 2 or 3 or 5 or multiples of those numbers then it is more likely that their predators will be able to match that cycle and it will be less effective. So if the random changes in their maturity cycles happen to hit upon 13 or 17 then it is less likely that the predators will match that cycle. Therefore it becomes a more successful reproductive method and that's how it happens. The prime number is not a '''reason or cause''' of the 17 year cycle. It is a consequence that this particular random change in cycle provides ('''after the fact''') a better survival chance than any other cycle. This is an important distinction in understanding evolution. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 20:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
-[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.117|162.158.158.117]] 19:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 :Why did you make an edit to replace "go so far to remove" with "go so far and remove"? [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 18:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)