Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Title text: Saying 'what kind of an idiot doesn't know about the Yellowstone supervolcano' is so much more boring than telling someone about the Yellowstone supervolcano for the first time.
This is certainly a great approach to take with someone that doesn't know something, rather than taking the "idiot" approach. For all those who haven't yet seen the Diet Coke and Mentos eruption: here is a Mythbusters video, and a music video (Pork and Beans by Weezer) with excessive eruptions.
Here is a good video about the Yellowstone supervolcano.
- I try not to make fun of people for admitting they don't know things.
- Because for each thing "everyone" knows by the time they're adults", every day there are, on average, 10,000 people in the US hearing about it for the first time.
- Fraction who have heard of it at birth = 0%
- Fraction who have heard of it by 30 ≈ 100%
- US birth rate ≈ 4,000,000/year
- Number hearing about it for the first time ≈ 10,000/day
- If I make fun of people, I train them not to tell me when they have those moments. And I miss out on the fun.
- Megan: "Diet coke and Mentos thing"? What's that?
- Cueball: Oh man! come on, we're going to the grocery store.
- Megan: Why?
- Cueball: You're one of today's lucky 10,000.
add a comment! ⋅ refresh comments!
Regarding: "This also assumes that 10,000 people learn of something every day from the day they are born." That's not accurate. Whatever the any distribution of "age you learn" is, the average will hold. For example, if everybody learns some particular fact on their 21st birthday, it holds simply becuase there are roughly 10,000 people having their 21st birthday each and every day.
I think it also may be referring, in a tongue-in-cheek manner, to the fact that people who call people idiots because they don't know something, and yet fail to explain it, are creating ignorance to criticise it.
Person A says, "What is x?"
Person B responds, "You're an idiot for not knowing x."
Person B is now responsible for the idiocy he claims Person A to have, thus making Person B the real idiot. In this comic, he makes this point by refusing to be Person B, while at the same time making subtle references to still having the sadistic glee person B has.126.96.36.199 22:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I think he's getting the pleasure of seeing the look on Person A's face when Person A learns/sees something incredible! I think it's more of a positive. Theo (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
I wonder which relative came back to life?Pennpenn (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Would someone care to explain the math behind this comic? 188.8.131.52 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- I did a try. The age is unimportant, it's only the birth rate. I'm happy about a feedback. --Dgbrt (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like there might be a callback to this comic in the latest What-If. http://what-if.xkcd.com/135/ 184.108.40.206
10:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)