Editing 1831: Here to Help
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
| − | This comic is a satire of computer programmers, who sometimes forget that not everything can be solved with an {{w|algorithm}}, or of the tendency to think computers are the answer to everything. In the first panel, [[Megan]] talks about how the field that she and [[Hairy]] | + | {{incomplete|Is the hard problem explanation relevant? The main part of that explain has been moved into a trivia for easier reading to the conclusion at least.}} |
| + | This comic is a satire of computer programmers, who sometimes forget that not everything can be solved with an {{w|algorithm}}, or of the tendency to think computers are the answer to everything. In the first panel, [[Megan]] talks about how the field that she and [[Hairy]] works in has a difficult problem that many people have been working on. [[Cueball]], believing that algorithms can solve their problem, tries to help. In the next panel, Megan and Hairy silently watch Cueball working on the problem on his laptop. Finally, six months later, Cueball concedes, and an exasperated Megan retorts sarcastically, pointing out that she had explained its difficulty six months ago with the timeline. | ||
| − | The title text furthers Cueball's apparent arrogance by showing a dialogue. Megan or Hairy says, "We TOLD you it was hard," referring to the first panel, but Cueball, still confident in his own ability's superiority, says, "Yeah, but now that I'VE tried, we KNOW it's hard." The joke is that Cueball believes that, even though he has just failed, it was his attempt which proved the difficulty, and not Megan and Hairy's work for years. The dialog references an exchange from the film ''{{w|The Imitation Game}}'', in which {{w|Alan Turing|Alan Turing's}} superior claims, "The Americans, the Russians, the French, the Germans, everyone thinks Enigma is unbreakable | + | The title text furthers Cueball's apparent arrogance by showing a dialogue. Megan or Hairy says, "We TOLD you it was hard," referring to the first panel, but Cueball, still confident in his own ability's superiority, says, "Yeah, but now that I'VE tried, we KNOW it's hard." The joke is that Cueball believes that, even though he has just failed, it was his attempt which proved the difficulty, and not Megan and Hairy's work for years. The dialog references an exchange from the recent film ''{{w|The Imitation Game}}'', in which {{w|Alan Turing|Alan Turing's}} superior claims, "The Americans, the Russians, the French, the Germans, everyone thinks Enigma is unbreakable." and Turing replies, "Good. Let me try and we'll know for sure, won't we?" |
| − | The satire, however, applies far beyond computer programmers. It can be read as a political commentary, | + | The satire, however, applies far beyond computer programmers. It can be read as a political commentary, like in ''[http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/trump-nobody-knew-health-care-could-be-so-complicated.html Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.]'' It is what we'd all like to see when well-meaning advice givers provide the "simple" solution to all our problems, or management provides glib advice from ten thousand feet. It is a commentary on the universal tendency to see problems as simple because we don't know what makes them hard. |
| + | |||
| + | In the first place, the satire apparently refers to the mathematical/informatical definition of a "hard problem" (see [[#Trivia|below]]) and its confusion with its trivial understanding as well as to a common misunderstanding about verification/falsification. The plot is that Cueball is an enthusiastic and optimistic programmer but obviously a bad informatics guy because he apparently does not know the technical meaning of a "hard problem" and mixes up the lack of a successful falsification/disproof that a problem is "hard" with a verification/proof. Actually, the formal proof that a problem is "hard" would not be a fail, but an "epic win" (well, maybe not for the disappointed Cueball). | ||
| + | |||
| + | The comic may refer to the false belief that there is a solution algorithm for any problem (see [[#Trivia|below]]). | ||
| + | |||
| + | This may also be referencing IT support call centres ([[806: Tech Support]]), who often act as though complex computer problems can be solved with clichèd solutions such as 'turn it off and back on again'. | ||
This comic calls back to [[793: Physicists]] and possibly [[1570: Engineer Syllogism]] in central theme. | This comic calls back to [[793: Physicists]] and possibly [[1570: Engineer Syllogism]] in central theme. | ||
| Line 29: | Line 36: | ||
:Cueball: Wow, this problem is really hard. | :Cueball: Wow, this problem is really hard. | ||
:Megan: '''''You don't say.''''' | :Megan: '''''You don't say.''''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Trivia== | ||
| + | *'''Hard problem''': | ||
| + | **The trivial understanding of a "problem" is any random task like "make me a webpage" and a "hard problem" means "it takes much effort to solve it". However, the informatical definition of a "problem" is a formal description of a task like "find me the password to a given hash (with a length of N bits)" so it can be solved with an algorithm, i.e. a formal mathematical "how-to" or a piece of program code. A "hard problem" is a problem which can only be solved by "brute force", that means (in this example) you have to try every possible password (2^N possibilities) and check whether its hash matches the given one. A "simple problem" is one where a "short-cut" algorithm to the "brute force" method exists. There are problems which can be formally proven to be "hard" but, unfortunately, most problems like breaking a certain encryption algorithm can only be hoped to be "hard" or at least not be proven "simple" by finding a "short-cut" too soon. You may prove that a problem is not "hard" by finding such a "short-cut" but you cannot prove it is "hard" by trying and failing (the fact that you didn't find a "short-cut" does not mean there is none). | ||
{{comic discussion}} | {{comic discussion}} | ||
