Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Fortunately, the charging one has been solved now that we've all standardized on mini-USB. Or is it micro-USB? Shit.
This one is pretty straightforward and oh so true. In this comic, Cueball and Ponytail see that there are 14 different competing technologies to become a universal standard. So, they create one in attempt to become the universal standard. And instead of becoming the standard, it just becomes one of the many competitors.
add a comment! ⋅ add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ refresh comments!
But this new video codec might just be the one that solves all our problems! You never know until you try it! Davidy²²[talk] 09:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Is the mini-USB vs micro-USB standards rift a good representative example of what this comic is hinting at? Dexterous (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is. Though, basically, there were even more variants than that around. Before each maker basically had their own socket, most kept it through their phone models, mostly. But everyone basically just uses Micro-USB nowadays... Some still use Mini-USB, but those numbers are dwindling. What really fits to this comic is something that was just recently announced: USB 3.1. If you Google for the new USB 3.1 plugs, you see they're completely different but "cover all use cases"... Let's see how that goes. Sinni800 (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- 3.1 type-c was meant to be fairly quickly adopted and designed to meet all use-cases for the foreseeable future. when the foreseeable future presents currently unforseeable use-cases a new standard will likely be rapidly developed and deployed. this is a functional model, different than the one that leads to competition amoungst hardware/software developers. Also, MKV is another example of a sustainable standard (container for media files). Googles VP9, and the coming VPx 18 month update cycle, seem to be the best current option for an open video codec standard.
This particular comic is widely cited in about four different SDO's that I participate in 184.108.40.206 08:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
This is more applicable to politics. It's so prevalent in the left and I frequently reference it on /r/socialism and stuff. Once in a while there will be a person posting saying that we need to form one major socialist party that appeals to als many tendencies as possible like Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, with the parties like SAlt, SPUSA, etc. It's like. NO. YOU'LL JUST FURTHER SHATTER THE LEFT. Forget parties. We all have the common goal of class consciousness and worker ownership of the means of production. Let's first work on that and *later* argue about the specifics. Like seriously. For the organizing the left is known for, there seems to be less organizing and more arguing going on... International Space Station (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hah, with that kind of talk, it's no wonder your Popular Front for Galilee only has one member, bleedin' splitter! The goal of the People's Popular Liberation Front for East Judea (Bethlehem) is to free our country from the Judean People's Front (and the Romans after that) but there is no way allying with Samarian splitters like you is going to bring us closer to that goal! We will defeat the People's Popular Liberation Front for East Judea (Bethlehem) and free our country! Bloody SPLITTERS! Long live the People's Popular Liberation Front for East Judea (Bethlehem-North)!
- Sorry, but after seeing that comment I couldn't resist :P --220.127.116.11 01:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
UTF-8 and UTF-16 can both encode the entire Unicode character set, so I edited the page to say this. (In actual fact, UTF-16 is more commonly thought of as the more limited version, by people who confuse it with UCS-2.) --Sophira (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)