Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
The average person's lifespan is 80 years now. So while, immortality may become a reality, Ponytail won't live long enough to achieve it.
Cueball is looking for a programming language that will simply execute the way he wants it to without having to explain what he means. This is a problem with computers, they are very precise, they will do exactly what you tell it to do, not what you want it to do.
This is when we find out that one of Megan's boyfriends (past/present/future, she's had a few) is hiding in the well, waiting for her to come for an Unfortunate Truth.
The title text suggests he might just be down there for the money everyone is throwing away.
All comics in the Well series:
[People are lined up by a well. A sign says "The Uncomfortable Truths Well." The first person in line drops in a coin.]
Well: Science may discover immortality, but it won't happen in the next eighty years.
[The next person drops in a coin.]
Well: You'll never find a programing language that frees you from the burden of clarifying your ideas.
Programmer: But I know what I mean!
[The next person drops in a coin.]
Well: You avoid your friend Mike because you're uncomfortably attracted to him.
Person: Nice try, Mike.
Person: Get out of the well.
add a comment! ⋅ add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ refresh comments!
...1,372 people??? Greyson (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not necessarily; maybe some people threw quarters, dimes or nickels? 184.108.40.206 22:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Could the money be a refernce to 313: Insomnia? 220.127.116.11 02:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The explanation has this line: "Maybe Megan still thinks the well really works, since she wishes him to get out." I really don't think that is the implied meaning. To me it is pretty clear (and backed up by the title text) that Mike is actually down the well. --Pudder (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The explanation above interprets panel #2 as meaning that no programming language will ever be self-documenting (inherently clear to the reader). I don't think that's what it means, and furthermore think that self-documenting code plausibly could exist (at least, I don't see why it would be impossible). Instead, I took panel #2 to mean that no programming language will ever allow you to be vague about what you want the program to do: writing a program inherently involves specifying in exacting detail every single thing the program should do in every possible situation, and no possible change in the language can ever eliminate that fundamental difficulty. (I feel that non-programmers generally fail to appreciate the staggering level of precision that programming requires.) 18.104.22.168 09:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- What you need to do is invent audio.
- Some sort of a warm wax jar that will take an imprint of sound-waves that you can collect ideas in. With enough jars you could explain the idea as you go -even include problem solving with each step.
- It just requires some sort of mechanism to read it back later. And something to cool the wax and keep it solid until needed.
- I think that is what comments are for (unless you're being sarcastic, in which case "ha ha!")21:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I changed the interpretation of the proramming language part to mean the communication problem between programmer and compiler, rather than between programmer and others. I take it from 22.214.171.124 that I am not the only one, feeling that this is more what is ment here. --SomebodyFromTheInternet 07:38, 9 July 2015