Talk:1316: Inexplicable

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(plain RAM errors, no ghost needed)
Line 19: Line 19:
  
 
:I just removed the sentence "While it might [be] a reasonable conclusion for a human, demons can't possess a computer."  In the real world ghosts (the comic does not mention demons) don't exist and can't possess either humans or computers; in a fictional world, they might be able to do either or both (a la King's "Trucks"). -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.217|108.162.212.217]] 15:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 
:I just removed the sentence "While it might [be] a reasonable conclusion for a human, demons can't possess a computer."  In the real world ghosts (the comic does not mention demons) don't exist and can't possess either humans or computers; in a fictional world, they might be able to do either or both (a la King's "Trucks"). -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.217|108.162.212.217]] 15:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 +
 +
::Are you completely sure of that? How do you look at news like [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/catholic-church-trains-more-priests-to-perform-exorcisms-9046578.html|Catholic Church trains more priests to perform Exorcism]? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  
 
I think the joke is just that normally the smartass that knows more about computers than you is able to easilly fix it, but not in this case. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 16:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 
I think the joke is just that normally the smartass that knows more about computers than you is able to easilly fix it, but not in this case. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 16:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:12, 14 January 2014

Literally haunted? 173.245.53.152 08:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering too if Randall was also taking a sideways swipe at the way many people today misuse the term "literally".108.162.216.30 22:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say he trying to say that some errors that computers have are impossible to fathom. I've baffled our IT people on many an occasion and the solution is usual 'rebuild' which is the computer equivalent of an exorcism.108.162.231.228 10:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Definitely this. It is also much harder to figure out what the problem is with a computer when you weren't the one who has spent all their time using the computer. It is why I can't understand how IT people do their jobs. Daleb (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Surprised nobody mentioned Ghost in the machine yet... --Koveras (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I find the current explanation entertaining but... raises questions.

Is "This comic is inexplicable and represents a self-referencing joke about explainxkcd.com." serious?

I think it's not and I deleted the sentence. 173.245.50.84 14:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
If the comic is not a self-referencing joke about explainxkcd.com, then what conceivable combination of words WOULD constitute such a joke? (note: I am not the one who first made the (now deleted) point, but I agree with it.) 108.162.231.214 08:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"While it might [be] a reasonable conclusion [i.e. that it is 'haunted'] for a human, demons can't possess a computer." - this reads like "demons exist, but are incapable of possessing computer equipment", rather than "demons cannot possess a computer, because they don't even exist", which would be my preference (under the standard rules of not being able to prove the non-existence of the supernatral... and, believe me, I've had my fair share of totally baffling computer problems, in my time, and often anthropomorphise equipment, somewhat, at least to explain it to non-tech users... but then end up adopting the same attitude myself, of course).

"The title text suggests that Megan insists that Cueball resume possession of his laptop, as she is unsettled by the ghost; Cueball simply refuses, seeing an opportunity to make his problem hers." - I see that as more akin to the "cursed gem" type of story. One simply cannot palm the gem off on somebody else, but it must have a legitimately willing recipient (including a thief stealing it, often) in order for the curse itself to transfer itself. Now that the 'status' of the laptop is known he's not going to accept it back and take the 'curse of errors' back upon himself. 141.101.99.223 14:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I just removed the sentence "While it might [be] a reasonable conclusion for a human, demons can't possess a computer." In the real world ghosts (the comic does not mention demons) don't exist and can't possess either humans or computers; in a fictional world, they might be able to do either or both (a la King's "Trucks"). -- 108.162.212.217 15:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you completely sure of that? How do you look at news like Church trains more priests to perform Exorcism? -- Hkmaly (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the joke is just that normally the smartass that knows more about computers than you is able to easilly fix it, but not in this case. Halfhat (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So am I the only one who thinks that the caption(or whatever the hover over text is called) refers to Cueball trying to return the laptop to a retail store. I mean I can see a store like Best Buy refusing to take back a laptop because a customer insists that there is a ghost in it. 108.162.216.83 18:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. but until more people notice it, lets leave it. Imanton1 (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought this too, except I thought it was more a comment on people's attachment to technology, "Demon-posessed or not, it's got all my kitten videos on it!".--141.101.98.230 08:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Overthinking, maybe, but if the computer is haunted (read: possessed), then a valid solution IS to return (read: unpossess? dispossess?) it. 108.162.216.57 23:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My wife says, "it's a Turing test!" 108.162.219.199 02:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only who have thought of a corrupted random access memory on this laptop? Last time when I had a RAM failure on one of my machines, for a non technical person it may have appeared haunted: e.g. not executing just specific applications, writing nonsensical error messages, crashing applications when a specific word was being used...you name it. Running memcheck revealed later that one RAM module had lots of corrupted bytes but the problem only appeared when one RAM module was getting hot. So as long as the machine was idling if behaved just fine. So no ghost for me, I guess. 108.162.231.217 09:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox

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 or Bitcoin?