explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2222: Terminator: Dark Fate

2020-12-01T18:04:39Z

108.162.215.32: added, the clearly needed citation on hitler's death

{{comic
| number = 2222
| date = October 30, 2019
| title = Terminator: Dark Fate
| image = terminator_dark_fate.png
| titletext = I was sent here to stop the robot that was sent here to protect the human who was sent here to protect the human who was sent here to destroy the robot that was sent here to vacuum the floor.
}}
==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] is on his way to see the new ''[[:Category:Terminator|Terminator]]'' movie; ''{{w|Terminator: Dark Fate}}'', when Cueball's future self comes back to stop him, trying to convince him that, as always, he will be disappointed by sequels. (This was, for instance, the main joke in the last part of [[566: Matrix Revisited]].)

Future Cueball (who we shall call Cueball-2) almost succeeds convincing present-day Cueball (who we shall call Cueball-1) not to go see the movie in spite of good reviews and the fact that the original star {{w|Linda Hamilton}} is back after several movies without her. Due to the nature of time travel, ''Terminator: Dark Fate'' actually negates any movie that came after the first two (''The Terminator'' and ''Terminator 2: Judgment Day''). However, they are interrupted by a second Future Cueball, Cueball-3, who states that in his timeline he hadn't seen it but wished he had, making present-day Cueball exclaim that they should go see it together.

Cueballs 1, 2, and 3 are interrupted again by the appearance of two more Cueballs, presumably Cueball-1 and Cueball-3 who have seen the movie, regretted it as Cueball-2 did, and travel back in time to stop themselves from seeing it. In the next panel another 5 Cueballs appear, however their reasons for coming back have degraded, with the last one stating that he came back simply because, at the time he came from, the theater sold out of tickets because all the time-traveling Cueballs purchased all of them.

A common trope in science fiction is to {{tvtropes|SetRightWhatOnceWentWrong|Set Right What Once Went Wrong}}, where characters travel in time in order to stop a particular event from happening so as to prevent an undesirable timeline. The {{w|Terminator (franchise)|''Terminator'' series}} film series is famous for this time travel trope. The initial 3 films feature a time traveling robot sent from the dystopian future to kill a particular human, with the future resistance in turn sending a protector to ensure the human's survival. However, the series has never been consistent on even the most broad rules of how time travel affects the timeline, with each movie exploring different possibilities. This is another point of spoof for the comic, featuring multiple recursive time loops until it becomes a jumbled mess.

The final pane also invokes the "killing Hitler" trope. {{w|Adolf Hitler}} was the leader of Nazi Germany during World War II, and it has been a common plot idea to "go back in time to kill Hitler" such as in [[1063: Kill Hitler]], by presuming that the world would be better if World War II and {{w|The Holocaust}} had never happened. There are also works which postulate that such a killing would have unintended consequences, making things worse (for example, if Hitler had been replaced by a more competent leader, the Axis power might have won the war). In any case, this Cueball is over 70 years too late to kill Hitler, as Hitler is now dead {{Citation needed}}.

The title text is what is said by the next Cueball-11 (the 10th time-traveler), with each link in the chain relating to the Terminator movies. Except at the end where the initial "dangerous robot" turns out to being a robot sent to vacuum the floor. Robotic vacuums, such as the {{w|Roomba}}, are a [[:Category:Roomba|recurring theme]] on xkcd.

The title text split up:
#A robot was sent to clean the floor.
#A human was sent to destroy the robot (this happens in ''{{w|The Terminator}}'')
#A human was sent to protect the previous human (in ''The Terminator'' a human was sent back to protect another human, though the protectee was not a time traveler)
#A robot was sent to protect the previous human (this happens in ''{{w|Terminator 2: Judgment Day}}'')
#Cueball-11 was sent to stop the previous robot
Thus Cueball-11 tries to stop the person that needs to destroy the Roomba by stopping his protector's protector, presumably so that the floor will be cleaned in his timeline. It's strange that Cueball would rather execute a complicated time-travel plot than just clean the floor himself, but we've seen him make extreme versions of mundane activities before (e.g. [[1017: Backward in Time]], which is not actually related to time travel despite the name).

This was the second time travel comic in less than a week, as the one two comics before this one, [[2220: Imagine Going Back in Time]], also had Cueball travel back to visit his past self.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is walking to the right. Another Cueball, Cueball-2, appears behind him in a bubble of energy that appears with a loud sound. The bubble floats in the air behind the walking Cueball, with Cueball-2 inside holding his arms out to the side and having his legs bend.]
:''Zap!''

:[Cueball-2 from the sphere is standing to the left of Cueball, pointing at him. Cueball has stopped and is looking back over his shoulder]
:Cueball-2: I've traveled back in time to stop you from seeing ''Terminator: Dark Fate''!

:[Cueball-2 is looking at Cueball who has turned around and holds his arm a bit out to the sides.]
:Cueball: But it looks so good! Reviews are actually decent! Mackenzie Davis! '''''Linda Hamilton is back!'''''

:[Cueball-2 is holding both arms up, hands held down as Cueball stands normally.]
:Cueball-2: I know, but you always think this, and you're always disappointed.
:Cueball: I ''guess''...

:[Zoom out as another Cueball, Cueball-3, appears to the left in a similar bubble of energy and noise as in the first panel, his arms are out to the sides and his legs are bent. Cueball-2 is holding a hand in front of his mouth, while Cueball throws his arms out to the side.]
:''Zap!''
:Cueball-3: Hi, I'm from the future where you didn't watch it and I realize I still kind of want to see it.
:Cueball: Let's go together!

:[Another bubble appears from the right of the three Cueballs, the one in the middle (Cueball-2) holding his arms out. This new bubble contains two Cueballs. The first, Cueball-4, throws up his arms over his head, while Cueball-5 has one arm out in front of him. Both have their legs bent.]
:Cueball-4: No! We're both of you from the future! We're here to stop you!

:[In a large panel five more individual energy bubbles with five Cueballs appear. Two of the bubbles float over the now five Cueballs on the ground. The other three are a bit lower and in a line to the right. Cueball-6 to 10 are in different poses, all with their legs bent, all the way to sitting on the knees in one case and most of them throw their arms out to the side. All look down at the five regardless of their bubble's position. Their text is alternating between being up and down, so the text goes over or below the other text, making it hard to decide which comes first. This may be intentional. But here they are in the order of Cueballs as they come from left to right:]
:Cueball-6: I'm here to stop '''''you!'''''
:Cueball-7: I'm here to stop the robot sent to stop you!
:Cueball-8: I'm here to protect you from...you? I lost track.
:Cueball-9: I'm here to kill Hitler. Did I get the right year?
:Cueball-10: I'm here to get tickets because in like 20 minutes you people buy them all.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hitler]]
[[Category:Terminator]]
[[Category:Time travel]]
[[Category:Roomba]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]

2390: Linguists

2020-11-26T08:45:13Z

108.162.215.32: /* Transcript */ ce

{{comic
| number = 2390
| date = November 25, 2020
| title = Linguists
| image = linguists.png
| titletext = "Do you feel like the answer depends on whether you're currently in the hole, versus when you refer to the events later after you get out? Assuming you get out."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A LINGUIST IN A HOLE. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Ponytail hears the cries of an unidentified person who has become trapped in a hole. She rushes over and asks whether the trapped person's chosen phrasing for their predicament - "fell down a hole" - is equivalent to "fell in a hole."

In the caption, Randall comments that linguists' desire to extract exact meaning from phrases is, in fact, done with the best of intentions. He also claims that this is worse than if they were pedants browbeating their audience, possibly because a pedant could prioritize the elements a situation better than Ponytail is doing here.

The title text introduces the additional dimension of tense.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[Ponytail is walking to the left. A voice calls out from behind her (at the right of the panel):]
:Off-panel voice: Help!
:Off-panel voice: I fell down a hole!

:[Ponytail runs to the right, toward the hole.]

:[Ponytail, kneeling down next to the hole, calls out:]
:Ponytail: Hey!
:Ponytail: Is "fell down a hole" exactly equivalent to "fell in a hole," in your usage? Or do they have slightly different implications?

:[Caption below the panel]
:There's a myth that linguists are pedants who love correcting people, but they're actually just enthusiastic about understanding language in all its infinite varieties, which is much worse.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Language]]

2390: Linguists

2020-11-26T08:44:33Z

108.162.215.32: /* Transcript */ ce

{{comic
| number = 2390
| date = November 25, 2020
| title = Linguists
| image = linguists.png
| titletext = "Do you feel like the answer depends on whether you're currently in the hole, versus when you refer to the events later after you get out? Assuming you get out."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A LINGUIST IN A HOLE. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Ponytail hears the cries of an unidentified person who has become trapped in a hole. She rushes over and asks whether the trapped person's chosen phrasing for their predicament - "fell down a hole" - is equivalent to "fell in a hole."

In the caption, Randall comments that linguists' desire to extract exact meaning from phrases is, in fact, done with the best of intentions. He also claims that this is worse than if they were pedants browbeating their audience, possibly because a pedant could prioritize the elements a situation better than Ponytail is doing here.

The title text introduces the additional dimension of tense.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[Ponytail is walking to the left. A voice :calls out from behind her (at the right of the panel):]
:Off-panel voice: Help!
:Off-panel voice: I fell down a hole!

:[Ponytail runs to the right, toward the hole.]

:[Ponytail, kneeling down next to the hole, calls out:]
:Ponytail: Hey!
:Ponytail: Is "fell down a hole" exactly equivalent to "fell in a hole," in your usage? Or do they have slightly different implications?

:[Caption below the panel]
:There's a myth that linguists are pedants who love correcting people, but they're actually just enthusiastic about understanding language in all its infinite varieties, which is much worse.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Language]]

2390: Linguists

2020-11-26T08:42:57Z

108.162.215.32: /* Transcript */ caption

{{comic
| number = 2390
| date = November 25, 2020
| title = Linguists
| image = linguists.png
| titletext = "Do you feel like the answer depends on whether you're currently in the hole, versus when you refer to the events later after you get out? Assuming you get out."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A LINGUIST IN A HOLE. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Ponytail hears the cries of an unidentified person who has become trapped in a hole. She rushes over and asks whether the trapped person's chosen phrasing for their predicament - "fell down a hole" - is equivalent to "fell in a hole."

In the caption, Randall comments that linguists' desire to extract exact meaning from phrases is, in fact, done with the best of intentions. He also claims that this is worse than if they were pedants browbeating their audience, possibly because a pedant could prioritize the elements a situation better than Ponytail is doing here.

The title text introduces the additional dimension of tense.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[Ponytail is walking to the left. A voice :calls out from behind her (at the right of the panel):]
:Off-panel voice: Help!
:Off-panel voice: I fell down a hole!

:[Ponytail runs to the right, toward the hole.]

:[Ponytail, kneeling down next to the hole, calls out:]
:Ponytail: Hey!
:Ponytail: Is "fell down a hole" exactly equivalent to "fell in a hole," in your usage? Or do they have slightly different implications?

:[Caption below the panel]
:There's a myth that linguists are pedants who love correcting people, but they're actually just enthusiastic about understanding language in all its infinite varieties, which is much worse.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Language]]

2384: Set in the Present

2020-11-12T01:50:33Z

108.162.215.32: /* Transcript */ more cat

{{comic
| number = 2384
| date = November 11, 2020
| title = Set in the Present
| image = set_in_the_present.png
| titletext = She referenced Billie Eilish, so this must be getting pretty close to the pandemic. But we've seen the last two years in-universe, so if it's set in the future, they must be in at least 2023 by now. [*adds thumbtacks and string to wall*]
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:COVID-19]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]

2384: Set in the Present

2020-11-12T01:49:40Z

108.162.215.32: date; categories

2383: Electoral Precedent 2020

2020-11-10T17:40:54Z

108.162.215.32: /* Table of Broken Precedents */ fix

{{comic
| number = 2383
| date = November 9, 2020
| title = Electoral Precedent 2020
| image = electoral_precedent_2020.png
| titletext = He also broke the streak that incumbents with websites are unbeatable and Delawareans can't win, creating a new precedent: Only someone from Delaware can defeat an incumbent with a website.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an UNBEATABLE DELAWAREAN WITH A WEBSITE. Explain all broken precedents in more detail. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is an update to [[1122: Electoral Precedent]], adding "broken precedents" for the US presidential elections in 2016 and 2020. The majority of the comic's panels are duplicates from 1122, with the exception of the 2012 panel (modified to show that Obama did in fact break the streak), the 2016 panel (added to reflect the election of Donald Trump), and the two 2020 panels.

The final two panels again show how the 'precedent' have side conditions that influenced these precedents:
* No sitting president who was impeached was nominated for the office again... until Donald Trump. (Bill Clinton was the last president who was impeached, but he was not eligible for re-election due to term limits; before that, Nixon wasn't impeached but resigned from office; before that, Johnson was seeking re-election but lost in the primaries against Seymour) 
* The last time a challenger beat an incumbent was in 1992 when websites weren't nearly as predominant as now and Randall assumes the 1992 Clinton campaign not to have a website. By 1996 that had changed and both the incumbent [http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/websites/cg96/ Bill Clinton campaign] and the challenger [http://www.dolekemp96.org/main.htm Bob Dole campaign] had websites that look very simple by today's standards. There is no 'curse' on using websites. 

The 2020 election is also precedent-breaking in a few ways that Randall didn't mention:
* Biden received over 76 million votes, the highest ever, beating Obama 2008's previous record of just under 69.5 million votes. The second highest raw vote total was for Trump, with approximately 71.5 million votes, ''also'' beating Obama 2008. Turnout as a percentage of the eligible population was the highest in over a century. Consequently (especially as total population has also been rising), both major parties' raw vote totals smash previous precedents.
* At 78, Joe Biden will be the oldest president ever on the day of his inauguration.
* Biden's running mate Kamala Harris will be the first-ever female vice president, first Black vice president, and first vice president of Indian descent. A Californian, she'll also be the first Democratic president or vice president from the West.

The title text continues the theme of websites, by stating that no incumbent with a website had ever lost. Also, Biden is the first president from the state of Delaware, thus he broke the "precedent" that Delawareans can't win. Randall then proceeds to combine these 2 facts to create a new precedent: Only Delawareans can defeat incumbents with a website.

===Table of Broken Precedents===

{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"
|-
! Year !! Broken Precedent !! Explanation
|-
| 1788
| No one has been elected president before. ...But Washington was.
| Technically the Articles of Confederation had a president of Continental Congress, but Washington is the first president of the US
|-
| 1792
| No incumbent has ever been reelected. ...Until Washington.
| Washington is the first person who had a second term.
|-
| 1796
| No one without false teeth has become president. ...But Adams did.
| Washington had false teeth, made of human teeth and other materials. His successor Adams, despite having tooth decay, refused to wear false teeth
|-
| 1800
| No challenger has beaten an incumbent. ...But Jefferson did.
| Adams is the first president not to have a second term, due to signing the unpopular [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts Alien and Sedition acts]
|-
| 1804
| No incumbent has beaten an challenger. ...Until Jefferson.
|
|-
| 1808
| No congressman has ever become president. ...Until Madison.
|
|-
| 1812
| No one can win without New York. ...But Madison did.
|
|-
| 1816
| No candidate who doesn't wear a wig can get elected. ...Until Monroe was.
|
|-
| 1820
| No one who wears pants instead of breeches can be reelected. ...But Monroe was.
|
|-
| 1824
| No one has ever won without a popular majority. ...J.Q. Adams did.
|
|-
| 1828
| Only people from Massachusetts and Virginia can win. ...Until Jackson did.
|
|-
| 1832
| The only presidents who get reelected are Virginians. ...Until Jackson.
|
|-
| 1836
| New Yorkers always lose. ...Until Van Buren.
|
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:The problem with statements like
:"No <party> candidate has won the election without <state>"
:Or
:"No president has been reelected under <circumstances>"

:<nowiki>★</nowiki> Updated for 2020 ★

:1788... No one has been elected president before. ...But Washington was.
:1792... No incumbent has ever been reelected. ...Until Washington.
:1796... No one without false teeth has become president. ...But Adams did.
:1800... No challenger has beaten an incumbent. ...But Jefferson did.
:1804... No incumbent has beaten a challenger. ...Until Jefferson.
:1808... No congressman has ever become president. ...Until Madison.
:1812... No one can win without New York. ...But Madison did.
:1816... No candidate who doesn't wear a wig can get elected. ...Until Monroe was.
:1820... No one who wears pants instead of breeches can be reelected. ...But Monroe was.
:1824... No one has ever won without a popular majority. ...J.Q. Adams did.
:1828... Only people from Massachusetts and Virginia can win. ...Until Jackson did.
:1832... The only presidents who get reelected are Virginians. ...Until Jackson.
:1836... New Yorkers always lose. ...Until Van Buren.
:1840... No one over 65 has won the presidency. ...Until Harrison did.
:1844... No one who's lost his home state has won. ...But Polk did.
:1848... The Democrats don't lose when they win Pennsylvania. ...But they did in 1848.
:1852... New England Democrats can't win. ...Until Pierce did.
:1856... No one can become president without getting married. ...Until Buchanan did.
:1860... No one over 6'3" can get elected. ...Until Lincoln.
:1864... No one with a beard has been reelected. ...But Lincoln was.
:1868... No one can be president if their parent are alive. ...Until Grant.
:1872... No one with a beard has been reelected in peacetime. ...Until Grant was.
:1876... No one can win a majority of the popular vote and still lose. ...Tilden did.
:1880... As goes California, so goes the nation. ...Until it went Hancock.
:1884... Candidates named "James" can't lose. ...Until James Blaine.
:1888... No sitting president has been beaten since the Civil War. ...Cleveland was.
:1892... No former president has been elected. ...Until Cleveland.
:1896... Tall midwesterners are unbeatable. ...Bryan wasn't.
:1900... No Republican shorter than 5'8" has been reelected. ...Until McKinley was.
:1904... No one under 45 has become president. ...Roosevelt did.
:1908... No Republican who hasn't served in the military has won. ...Until Taft.
:1912... After Lincoln beat the Democrats while sporting a beard with no mustache, the only Democrats who can win have a mustache with no beard. ...Wilson had neither.
:1916... No Democrat has won without Indiana. ...Wilson did.
:1920... No incumbent senator has won. ...Until Harding.
:1924... No one with two Cs in their name has become president. ...Until Calvin Coolidge.
:1928... No one who got ten million votes has lost. ...Until Al Smith.
:1932... No Democrat has won since women secured the right to vote. ...Until FDR did.
:1936... No President's been reelected with double-digit unemployment. ...Until FDR was.
:1940... No one has won a third term. ...Until FDR did.
:1944... No Democrat has won during wartime. ...Until FDR did.
:1948... Democrats can't win without Alabama. ...Truman did.
:1952... No Republican has won without winning the House or Senate. ...Eisenhower did.
:1956... No Republican has won without Missouri. ...Until Eisenhower.
:1960... Republicans without facial hair are unbeatable. ...Kennedy beat Nixon.
:1964... No Democrat has won without Georgia. ...Johnson did.
:1968... No Republican vice president has risen to the Presidency through an election. ...Until Nixon.
:1972... No wartime candidate has won without Massachusetts. ...Until Nixon did.
:1976... No one who lost New Mexico has won. ...But Carter did.
:1980... No one has been elected President after a divorce. ...Until Reagan was.
:1984... No left-handed president has been reelected. ...Until Reagan was.
:1988... No Democrat who has won Wisconsin (without being from there) has lost. ...Until Dukakis did.
:1992... No Democrat has won without a majority of the Catholic vote. ...Until Clinton did.
:1996... No Dem. incumbent without combat experience has beaten someone whose first name is worth more in Scrabble. ...Until Bill beat Bob.
:2000... No Republican has won without Vermont. ...Until Bush did.
:2004... No Republican without combat experience has beaten someone two inches taller. ...Until Bush did.
:2008... No Democrat can win without Missouri. ...Until Obama did.
:2012... Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers. ... Until Obama did.
:2016... No one has become president without government or military experience. ... Until Trump did. (a second text faded in the background reads: "No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost.")
:2020? No one has won after being impeached. <big>✓</big>
:2020? No challenger with a website has won. <big>X</big>

:[Caption below the comic]
:Congratulations to President-Elect Joe Biden for breaking the website curse!

==Errors==
*This comic seems to have used the same image as [[1122: Electoral Precedent]], and so under the 2016 panel there is the ghost image of the original 2012 2nd "streak": "No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost.

*The comic implies that all Presidents before Monroe wore wigs; however, despite popular misconception, Washington did not wear a wig.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Statistics]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Elections]]
[[Category:Comics featuring politicians]]
[[Category:Comics featuring John F. Kennedy]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

Talk:1548: 90s Kid

2015-07-08T14:52:00Z

108.162.215.32:

Usual gripes that the median does not have to mean typical
13:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

(Above comment not properly signed..? It's not me, anyway.) I authored the first go at an explanation. Looks too wordy. But probably could do with other links to the various other "time flies, doesn't it?" cartoons, if anything ought to be added.

Not sure about my comments about LOL. I didn't really encounter it in force until >2000, before which I never really experienced Web 2.0. "ROFL" or various smilies having been the more standard on areas of Usenet that I frequented in the decade before that where web pages were rarely quite so chatty and 'social' IME.

(My own childhood was in the '70s in the UK. For some reason I'm actually fairly aware of Rugrats, but Doug is just something 'I know about'. There must be a child of the '90s, or late '80s, who can better describe the shows.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.252|141.101.98.252]] 14:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Median may not be typical, but it *does* mean right at the 50% mark, which means that a significant portion of the top half of the bell curve is going to be 90s kids, with the proportion continuing to increase throughout the decade as more years from the 90s come of age. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.169|173.245.56.169]] 14:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"Typical" doesn't have quite as strict a meaning as "median" ... but yeah, assuming the median date of birth of a new mother is 1 January 1990, then half of all new mothers are pre-90's kids. Taking into account mothers born in the 2000s, this would mean that the majority of new mothers are NOT 90's kids. [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 14:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I teach British teenagers, and they scoff at people who "still use facebook". These "time passes" comics are getting a little tedious for my tastes. [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 14:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

:What the hell are you supposed to use? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.32|108.162.215.32]] 14:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:946: Family Decals

2014-03-07T07:04:30Z

108.162.215.32:

So I can get sacks of money if I sell my children? I need to find a girl who's willing to have loads of kids, fast. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|purple|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the title text is referencing?[[Special:Contributions/108.101.176.132|108.101.176.132]] 19:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
:I don't know, so I did mark it as incomplete. Furthermore I'm sure there must be a pun on that adult pictures, it's much more common to show only the children (often with names) on it.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
::I checked the forum, and could not find a convincing argument either. The theory that in my eyes came closest to an explanation was the attractive power a small kitten can have on little girls. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 15:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually saw a car that had a guy and bags of money! At the time it made me mad, but I guess he's getting the last laugh! [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 20:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This comic explain is still incomplete, the title text is still missing. And what the hell the licence plate of the first car (ICE-IE3) does mean?--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Now, who can identify the cars? --[[User:Qwach|Qwach]] ([[User talk:Qwach|talk]]) 00:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
:Subaru Outback (https://google.com/search?q=subaru+outback+rear&tbm=isch) and Honda Fit (http://www.carid.com/images/t5i/spoilers/abs231a-honda-fit.jpg). Perhaps the article text about the Ford should be revised accordingly too. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.32|108.162.215.32]] 07:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)