Editing 1985: Meteorologist

Jump to: navigation, search

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 28: Line 28:
 
===Questions from the linguist meteorologist===
 
===Questions from the linguist meteorologist===
  
When they get back on air, the new meteorologist [[Blondie]] steps in. The management enquires (on air) to make sure she is not also a mathematician. She denies this but adds that she does have a linguistics degree, which the management thinks is fine, and thus believes they have prevented the same problem. However, Blondie quickly proves them wrong, as she goes into a linguistic tangent about the true meaning of the word "it" as referring to the weather. After one panel of this the management calls for security again.
+
When they get back on air gain a new meteorologist, [[Blondie]], steps in. The management enquires (on air) to make sure she is not also a mathematician. She states no, but tells that she has a linguistics degree, which the management thinks is fine, and thus believes they have prevented the problem with Cueball. However, this proves to be in vain, as Blondie goes into a tangent once more but from a linguistics standpoint, rather than a mathematical one, detailing the true meaning of the word "it" as referring to the weather. After one panel of this the management calls for security again.
  
While, at the most basic level, human speech is broken into subject, object, and verb; for some reason in English we are capable of producing and comprehending speech without objects or verbs, but there is a certain "resistance" to speech without a subject. If you were in the passenger seat of a car and spotted some deer nearby, you could simply say "Deer." rather than "There is a deer over there", deer being the subject of the sentence. However, if you noticed that it had begun to rain, you could not simply say "Raining." on its own. Feel how that sentence just seems weird? Hence we have developed the tendency to use the filler word "it"; despite the fact that when we say "It's raining.", the "it" is not a reference to the clouds producing the rain, but the general state of the rainfall around us. (McWhorter, John. Understanding Linguistics: The Science of Language. https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/understanding-linguistics-the-science-of-language.html)
+
While, at the most basic level, human speech is broken into subject, object, and verb; for some reason we are capable of producing and comprehending speech without both objects or verbs, but in English there is a certain "resistance" to speech without a subject. Thus if you are in the passenger seat of a car going down the highway and happened to see some deer in the trees nearby, you could simply say "Deer.", rather than "there is a deer over there", deer being the subject of the sentence. However, if you noticed that it had begun to rain, you could not simply say "Raining." on it's own. Feel how that sentence just seems weird? Hence we have developed the tendency to use the filler word "it" despite the fact that when we say "It's raining." the "it" is not a reference to the clouds producing the rain, but the general state of the rainfall around us. (McWhorter, John. Understanding Linguistics: The Science of Language. https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/understanding-linguistics-the-science-of-language.html )
  
 
The first question is again quite harmless, and both possible answers ("it" being a {{w|dummy pronoun}} or referring to the weather) are valid answers, but the second question is much more disturbing.
 
The first question is again quite harmless, and both possible answers ("it" being a {{w|dummy pronoun}} or referring to the weather) are valid answers, but the second question is much more disturbing.
 
In "It's hot out, and getting bigger" the first part of the sentence might be a dummy pronoun or it might reference the weather. But the second part breaks it: With a dummy pronoun "getting bigger" would be the impersonal action, which is not what is meant. It is referencing something (the hotness, that is getting bigger). But if the it references this entity in the second part, by grammatical rules it would also have to reference that in the first part. But "The hotness is hot out" makes no sense at all. (An alternative explanation is that the sentence is referring to the fact that if a dark (so as to absorb light energy from sunlight and convert it to thermal energy) object is placed outside in sunlight, it will heat up and undergo thermal expansion.)
 
In "It's hot out, and getting bigger" the first part of the sentence might be a dummy pronoun or it might reference the weather. But the second part breaks it: With a dummy pronoun "getting bigger" would be the impersonal action, which is not what is meant. It is referencing something (the hotness, that is getting bigger). But if the it references this entity in the second part, by grammatical rules it would also have to reference that in the first part. But "The hotness is hot out" makes no sense at all. (An alternative explanation is that the sentence is referring to the fact that if a dark (so as to absorb light energy from sunlight and convert it to thermal energy) object is placed outside in sunlight, it will heat up and undergo thermal expansion.)
This is again a common occurrence with informal speech: From a grammatical point of view, it is pure non-sense. But it still has meaning people understand. So if you want a proper descriptive grammar, it needs to cope with those cases. But then most such informal sentences would be special cases. (Case in point: What is the grammatical function of the "out" in that sentence?)
+
This is again a common occurrence with informal speech: From a grammatical point of view, it is pure non-sense. But it still has meaning people understand. So if you want a proper descriptive grammar, it needs to cope with those cases. But then most such informal sentences would be special cases. (Case of point: What is the grammatical function of the "out" in that sentence?)
  
 
===Questions from the software developer meteorologist===
 
===Questions from the software developer meteorologist===
  
In the title text, the news station has made the same error once more by hiring a software developer. The developer states concerns about the feasibility of the time system used to correlate to the weather patterns. Labels like "12pm" or "1pm" appear simple and clear, but because developers frequently have to deal with what these labels mean ''exactly'', the new meteorologist begins to wonder what time period is actually meant on a per-hour forecast. Does 12pm refer to the hour from 12 to 1pm, from 11:30am to 12:30pm, or only to the weather precisely at noon?
+
In the title text, the news station has made the same error again, this time by hiring a software developer as the third meteorologist. This last person is stating concerns about the feasibility of the time system used to correlate to the weather patterns. Because it appears simple, many people would simply assume they understand what is being said when a meteorologist talks about "12pm" or "1pm".  This is a common mistake because [https://www.nist.gov/pml/time-and-frequency-division/times-day-faqs#noon noon is neither post meridiem (pm) nor ante meridiem], and should be stated as "noon" or "12 noon" instead of "12 pm.". However, because software developers frequently have to deal with things such as specifying exactly what time-label means what, the new meteorologist begins to wonder what time period is actually meant on a per-hour forecast. On such an hour forecast does 12pm refer to the hour from 12 to 1pm, from 11:30 to 12:30 or is it actually only to the weather precisely at 12:00 that is referred to? The software developer also worries about an {{w|off-by-one error}}, which is a common error in software development occurring when boundary conditions include one element too few or too many: when counting by 24 once every set period (for example), it is common to forget whether the count should stop at 23 or at 24, especially if the number 0 (midnight) is included. In the 24-hour forecast, that means there's 25 hours represented every day, and the software developer worries that these 25 hours might add up and, every progressive day, the forecast is one more hour off. (If the news station's meteorology department had been around for a while, worrying about this would be absurd because if the new station tried to predict the weather one hour further into the future each day, it would eventually ask for the weather further into the future than the forecast models could supply, resulting in an error that someone would definitely notice (and it would likely be the case that long before that happened, someone would perceive the weather forecasts as being inaccurate or early). However, based on how quickly the linguist was fired, this was likely either the mathematician's first day or second day on the job, so if we assume that the mathematician was the first meteorologist (or that all previous meteorologists were fired quickly enough that the mathematician started within a few days of when the meteorology department started), there wouldn't have been enough time for the effects of an off-by-one error to stack up enough to be noticed, so the software developer's concern about an off-by-one error would not have been ruled out yet.) In theory these are valid concerns and notably less inane than his predecessors, but they are all things he should have asked ''before'' he went on the air.
 
 
The software developer also worries about an {{w|off-by-one error}}, which is a common error in software development which occurs when boundary conditions include one element too few or too many. For example, when counting by 24 once every set period, it is common to forget whether the count should stop at 23 or at 24, especially if the number 0 (midnight) is included. In the 24-hour forecast, this means that there would be 25 hours represented every day, and these extra hours would add up and put the forecast one more hour off with each progressive day.
 
 
 
This worry is probably absurd because the inaccuracies would quickly build up and be noticed, and even if they weren't, the time would eventually be further into the future than the forecast models could supply. At least these concerns are less inane than the previous meterologists', but they are all things the developer should have asked ''before'' they went on the air.
 
  
 
===Answering the meteorologists’ questions===
 
===Answering the meteorologists’ questions===
Line 56: Line 52:
 
So, to conclude:
 
So, to conclude:
  
* "How likely is it to rain this afternoon?" We don't know; you need to show the hourly forecast, not the 12 noon to 4pm forecast.
+
* "How likely is it to rain this afternoon?" We don't know, you need to show the 12 noon to 4pm forecast, not the hourly.
 
* "Is each hour independent? Correlated?" Hourly values are given for that hour only. They can be correlated, hence why they can't be used to calculate the answer to "How likely is it to rain this afternoon?"
 
* "Is each hour independent? Correlated?" Hourly values are given for that hour only. They can be correlated, hence why they can't be used to calculate the answer to "How likely is it to rain this afternoon?"
 
* "Is rain guaranteed and we're just unsure of the timing?" You cannot tell from the data given. It's possible (though unlikely), that this is the case.
 
* "Is rain guaranteed and we're just unsure of the timing?" You cannot tell from the data given. It's possible (though unlikely), that this is the case.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)