Talk:1113: Killed in Action

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 08:16, 5 October 2012 by Hkmaly (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

The title text is essentially the beginning of the hanging paradox:

It's not quite the same--Joehammer79 (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC) thing. The unexpected hanging paradox only applies when you have a measure of foreknowledge. Davidy22 (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there's also a strong indication that this is mocking cop films from the 80's/90's, such as Lethal Weapon, where a character would always die just before retirement. -- 07:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This one is a variant of the old Czech joke: "The study has proved that statistically the most casualties happen in the last car of a train. Therefore the committee suggests to make all trains one car shorter." --Mity (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This comics's explanation is complete bollocks, I think. Of course it is NOT a "fact that such a room exists". This comics parodies trope often used in cop movies - an elderly cop goes to work for the last time before his retirement, packs things, plans fishing the next day ... only to be called to one more case (possibly with a new, young and brash partner). And despites his efforts not to screw anything and stay clear of danger, he is either mortally wounded or screws big time and is degraded. So much clichè, that if someone says "It's my last day or service", you might be sure one of the two options above happens. See for all the use cases and examples. Edheldil (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I added the tv trope to the explanation. Didn't even see your comment at first, but why didn't you just change and add to the explanation yourself? That would be the whole point of the wiki. --Buggz (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

To add a little irony to the irony, the dead cop actually IS in a "locked, heavily guarded room." (There's a Sufi story along those lines.) The real solution to the retirony risk would be for their retirement day to fall within a 12 month window, chosen by some randomly generated number chosen before the shift begins. Thus they could avoid building up a hazardous "retirony field" focused around the point-source retirement day. Sort of like this thing: Noni Mausa (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

...But that doesn't eliminate the "retirony field", it only dispurses it over a larger area. The retirony claim would shift to "(s)he was due to retire this year" times the number of retirees within that retirement window. Assuming these tragic events are "uniformly distributed" the probability they'll happen will be present right up to the end of one's active tour of duty, no matter what. Shorten the train, indeed. :) -- IronyChef (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
How about simply not planning your retirement at all, and instead just spontaneously quitting at some point? Erenan (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that would work. Writing it into a collective agreement might be a bit iffy...Noni Mausa (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
That would not work. Working on Dec 30th, you would know for sure that Dec 31st would be your retirement date. So you cannot retire on Dec 31st. With that in mind: working on Dec 29th, you would know for sure that Dec 30th would be your retirement date. With that in mind: working on Dec 28th, you would know for sure that Dec 29th would be your retirement date. With that in mind....

An unstated but related phenomenon is "Confirmation Bias, where something significant stands out in our mind, causing us to overreact or use bad judgement. In this case, the confirmation bias makes it seem like cops are always killed on their last day, so they create such a room.

Actually, all cops who are killed on the job are killed on their last day!
Not necessary true in all movies. Detective Marty Hopkirk, for example, continued fighting crime after dead. -- Hkmaly (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)