Talk:1117: My Sky

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 08:31, 8 October 2012 by Hkmaly (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

I wonder if the "It's not the same color as anything" line is a reference to Microsoft's cloud service which is named "Azure". "Azure" in conventional speech, is a color. Properly, is a shade of Sky Blue. However, the HTML color Azure is incorrect (propagated from an error in the Linux source code), and is set to a shade of Off-White, coincidentally making it the color of clouds. James Curran

Any reference to that? Specifically the Linux and Microsoft connection? #F0FFFF does looks blue to me ... -- Hkmaly (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Why was the comment taken out about how "WOW" upside down is "MOM"? I thought it was incredibly clever. Jillysky (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Jeff suggested that I post it again down here, to see if anyone knew why it was removed.

An alternate explanation for the Title Text is that, if he was hanging upside-down from the earth, then Randall's actual first word would have been "Mom!".

--Carlneely (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Well you'd have to flip over the exclamation mark, too (all or nothing). "iMom". 02:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I do think that was the point of the title text. The current "explanation" on this part in place is hardly an explanation, as all it does is define "wow". As this (and 1115) have been about perspective on the sky, that would explain it. And the most common word word is "mom," after all. Bobidou23 (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I think it should go back up. Nobody *says* "exclamation point", and wow->mom is very much in line with Randall's type of sneakiness. Almost nothing he does is ever on accident or by chance, and since "mom" is definitely one of the top baby words... Put it back up, Carlneely. You have the right, and even the first page says nothing is set in stone. If someone disagrees with it, too bad for them. Jillysky (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
For this comic, the title text doesn't seem to be a statement from Beret Guy. Beret Guy usually expresses his feelings in a more abstract way. On the other hand, recently, Randall has been posting many inspirational comics, that are awe-inspiring about the world, so it makes sense that a direct awe-inspired comment would be from him. In the comic, by the time Beret Guy says "wow" he standing "upright" again. The title text doesn't say that he was upside-down, just looking at the sky. Being horizontal doesn't count as being upside-down. Now, if the title text said that he was doing hand-stands, and said wow, absolutely, then the wow-mom joke would work. On a more technical note, it is not a right to edit a wiki, it is a privilege, and other editors have the privilege to go back and edit your work. Let's not feature-creep the definition of the word 'right'. lcarsos (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
He doesn't need to be doing a handstand; these two comics are about perspectives, right? If the image of his saying "mom" were depicted as in the first panel here (i.e. with the earth towards the top), if would be "wow", wouldn't it? And the profound statement also works, but isn't a double meaning plausible? — Comment by Bobidou23 (talk) (please sign your comments)
I'm not arguing that there are different perspectives in these two comics. I'm saying that you can't attribute a statement made by one character, to the actions of another. Beret Guy is the one upside-down, Randall is the one saying "wow" with a reference to his mother. If you have a gluten intolerance, it does not mean that your cousin will throw up after eating a slice of bread, that is a logical fallacy, it's a version of post hoc ergo propter hoc. lcarsos (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Explanations do not need to be wordy to be complete. Being overly wordy is the sign that you are trying too hard, and probably missing the point. That said, this is a wiki, anyone can edit the explanation as they wish to. Sometimes it may spark an edit war, but if you think the explanation is insufficient, if someone who came here for help in understanding this joke still wouldn't get it, then please, flesh out the explanation. lcarsos (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools


It seems you are using noscript, which is stopping our project wonderful ads from working. Explain xkcd uses ads to pay for bandwidth, and we manually approve all our advertisers, and our ads are restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs. If you found this site helpful, please consider whitelisting us.

Want to advertise with us, or donate to us with Paypal?