explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=108.162.218.47 explain xkcd - User contributions [en] 2026-04-15T04:14:45Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.30.0 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1671:_Arcane_Bullshit&diff=118835 Talk:1671: Arcane Bullshit 2016-04-27T03:58:54Z

<p>108.162.218.47: </p> <hr /> <div><br /> I was obsessively refreshing XKCD and the new comic popped up. Then I did the same on ExplainXKCD to make an explanation. Here's my first rough-draft attempt. [[User:Papayaman1000|Papayaman1000]] ([[User talk:Papayaman1000|talk]]) 13:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Your explanation confuses OOP with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured_programming structured programming].<br /> [[User:Svorkoetter|Svorkoetter]] ([[User talk:Svorkoetter|talk]]) 15:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Developing a kernel is not the same as compiling a kernel. You would, for example, rebuild a Linux kernel after you've added a module, or changed some parameters. Also, the purpose of object-oriented programming is not to solve the problem of spaghetti code. (That problem was solved by structured programming.) It's to enforce principles of abstraction, information hiding and modularity.<br /> [[User:Krishnanp|Krishnanp]] ([[User talk:Krishnanp|talk]]) 15:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I modified the explanation on OOP to include Structured & Procedural language code and briefly described the 80's era of low level languages.<br /> [[User:Digital_Night|Digital_Night]] ([[User talk:Digital_Night|talk]]) 15:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> OK, I rewrote the kernel compiling explanation to explain why someone would recompile a 80's era kernel. Modular kernels sure are nice!<br /> [[User:Digital night|Digital night]] ([[User talk:Digital night|talk]]) 15:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Could this be a reference to the large amount of open-source projects using C (an arcane bull* language from the 70s/80s that need 10000 lines ./configure scripts to work) ? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.79|108.162.219.79]] 16:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> T.M.I. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.231|162.158.222.231]] 18:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> I think this comic refers to keeping or fixing 30 over year old programs and their "bs" factor. At which the most extreme will be something like gentoo where you have to compile everything first before doing anything productive. (Sorry gentoo users didnt meant to start a flame war) {{unsigned ip|103.31.5.240}}<br /> <br /> :While installing applications on gentoo takes longer because it's being compiled, it's the time of the COMPUTER. You can do something else while it's compiling. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 14:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I'm afraid the explanation misses the point completely ... Rather than excursion to programming techniques and languages, the sociology behind that should be focused on. Programmers were considered mages (hence "arcane", or do I get the meaning of it wrong, not being native speaker?), and don't forget also that 80's were the time when the GNU project started. The title text then may refer to changing standards in (released) software quality - I remember my ZX Spectrum crashing because of overheating, but not because of software problems. And its system was written in assembler that is kinda badmouthed by the current version of the explanation, in favour of sophisticated languages. Then, with DOS, a problem emerged from time to time, but not a big deal. Then, with Windows 95, the system crashed daily ... Nowadays, programmers just throw their bullshit code on users, and break "everyone else's computer", also thanks to Internet etc. It has very little to do with programming language choice and jumps/gotos. - [[Special:Contributions/141.101.95.123|141.101.95.123]] 06:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Agree, the "breaking everyone else's computer" is definitely about low code quality. It's true than programming with "goto" is harder, but maybe that was the reason only people who known how to program was doing it. Nowadays, everyone thinks he can program, but based on number of bugs it's obviously not true. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 14:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The current explanation completely misses the point and honestly should be taken down -- no offense to the original writer. Arcane BS here means "wizard-like stuff" in the sense of what programmers do which is different from what users would do. Where regular users just buy a computer and never open it, the arcane programmer might just actually open the computer and start swapping parts in and out, with or without a precise grasp on what s/he's doing. Same goes on the software part where a user might just run Windows in the 80s since it comes off-the-shelf and one never modifies it, whereas the arcane programmer might go through the effort of installing a UNIX-like system such as Minix and recompile the kernel to adjust parameters, add new modules, all of which involve complicated command lines that look like insane arcane magic to normal users. This is what is called "hacking" in the sense of the original meaning of the work "[http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html hacker]" as you can find in [http://www.catb.org/jargon/ The Jargon File] and that work "hacking" really meant tinkering -- the word "cracker" was coined after misuse of the former by the media. <br /> <br /> It was tinkering for the sole purpose of tinkering, which is why the comics says this accomplishes nothing. It is however an excellent way to learn how computers really work, something, again, that normal end-users don't care for, thus the "arcane" aspect.<br /> <br /> Also note that in the 80's there was no Linux (the project started in 1991) and no GNU (the project started in the mid 80s with the manifesto but GNU had no kernel at first till it got combined with Linux to form the now-ubiquitous GNU/Linux.)<br /> <br /> The tag line is easily explained: nowaday hacking (tinkering) on Linux is a common thing; the arcane hacking happens at the secops level. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 17:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The bullshit is a reference to the whole stack of all software. Back in the 1980's, it was still possible for completely new software architectures to be started. GNU, NT, BSD, X-Windows, NeXTSTEP, C++, all started in the 1980's, all still dominant in some way. And it is all bullshit. Slow, insecure, badly architected, and we can't fix it without breaking everything. Heck, Windows 10 is still releasing security updates for kernel vulnerabilities in its font renderer, and Linux is bloating from its multitude of new features and its No Breaking Applications rule. X-Windows has a whole lot of vestigial functionality that nobody uses anymore, and lacks functionality that its own maintainers want to use, but its successor Wayland is taking a long time to come into use.<br /> <br /> BeOS showed what you could do for performance if you ignored backwards compatibility with backwards architectures, but it was too little, too late, and not designed for a networked world. Also, BeOS and its poorly funded open-source imitator Haiku are written in C++, and not C++14, at that.<br /> <br /> Which brings me to the programming languages. C++ is deliberately obtuse so it can be compatible with programs written for previous versions of C++, even those written as if C++ were C with classes. C is known for having no type safety, no memory safety, no thread safety; so C++ also lacks those unless somebody imposes strict discipline on the programmer. Java, JavaScript, C#, PHP, Python, Perl, were all written as alternatives, rejecting some aspect of C++, but they all use the same ideas of modularity and execution as C++, and they are all implemented in some combination of C, C++, and assembly(!). To be fair, though, until a major organization made it a priority (Mozilla Rust or Google Go), there just has been no high-performance alternative to C++.<br /> <br /> Since we all have limited time and money to deal with bullshit, we just keep using it. Decade [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.69|162.158.255.69]] 21:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> So, as someone who's taken like one course on Python ever, I'd like to offer my perspective on what I think your average "dumb person" wants to know. It's not the details of how programming in the 40's worked - all that does is reinforce the fact that it's "Arcane Bullshit", which is pretty obvious because every language is pretty close to arcane bullshit. It's more about why it's funny (or possible) to get break more things with a better understanding of code. The current explanation provides about two sentences on that - which helps ("okay, so you wouldn't even try if you're not familiar"), but I still feel like I'm missing something. Is it a programmer trope that people try to fix things and blow things up (like in XKCD 349)? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.163|162.158.255.163]] 18:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)<br /> : Not REALLY, no. It's more that anyone who has programmed more than a little can quickly see how long and complex programs can get, especially if it was good enough and functional enough to still be around 30 years later to be getting such an update. Then, looking through the code like this, unless you programmed it in the first place, you likely would have to learn both the language AND this particular code at the same time. It's a monumental task that even an experienced and talented programmer could easily miss something (or get something wrong), at which point Murphy's Law takes over and makes sure the mistake turns out to be a doozy. :) Sometimes I've looked at programs i wrote myself 25 years ago, and it looks completely foreign to me, even though I wrote it myself, alone! - Niceguy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]] 03:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> As a bullshit programmer (55 years, FORTRAN) who loathes Java with a vengeance I'd like to point out that OOP merely relocated the bullshit to the classes interplay. Any program that doesn't have to navigate a rocket to the moon or suchlike I could write in FORTRAN with 10% of code and time.<br /> [[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.142|162.158.202.142]] 20:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.47 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:488:_Steal_This_Comic&diff=117658 Talk:488: Steal This Comic 2016-04-13T04:30:08Z

<p>108.162.218.47: </p> <hr /> <div>I'm not sure how credible Natural News is.<br /> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews<br /> Then again, I'm not sure how credible RationalWiki is, either. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87|76.106.251.87]] 16:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)<br /> :I'm not sure how credible The Internet is. [[User:Thokling|Thokling]] ([[User talk:Thokling|talk]]) 06:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> :Replacing that NaturalNews link with a link to the same story on The Guardian. --[[User:Alex|Alex]] ([[User talk:Alex|talk]]) 14:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)<br /> "Steal this Comic" refers to the TPB-related "Steal this Film" and not to "Steal this Book" unless I'm very much mistaken. Also, it needs an explanation of what DMCA 1201 is and why it makes "getting your stuff back" illegal (it is, IIRC, the anti-circumvention clause, which says that breaking DRM, even for a legal purpose, is illegal; thus, getting your stuff back, ordinarily a perfectly legal act, is illegal if it involves getting around the DRM). [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 11:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)<br /> :The title of "Steal this Film" was itself a reference to "Steal this Book." {{unsigned ip|162.158.56.197}}<br /> <br /> <br /> I believe the breaking of DRM is necessary in certain cases because the media could be associated with specific accounts/computers/IPs/etc. It is not just about the use of iTunes or any other media manager. [[User:Flewk|flewk]] ([[User talk:Flewk|talk]]) 23:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I deleted the "license" crap. When you buy music - on physical media - you <b>do</b> own it. Copyright law prohibits you from doing some things with it - just like how driving laws prohibit you from doing some things with your car - that doesn't mean you don't own it. CDs, tapes, and LPs usually don't even have shrinkwrap "licenses". You only need a license to do legally restricted stuff. IANAL. PS I hate the CAPTCHAs on this site.Tor user @ [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]] 04:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.47 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1640:_Super_Bowl_Context&diff=111015 Talk:1640: Super Bowl Context 2016-02-09T18:18:01Z

<p>108.162.218.47: </p> <hr /> <div>Peyton Manning is a football player who is really good (the only NFL player been MVP five times). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyton_Manning [[User:Aquaplanet|Aquaplanet]] ([[User talk:Aquaplanet|talk]]) 11:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Am I the only one who finds the last speech pattern weird? Saying "mammals like Payton" seems a little reminiscent of comics [[1541]] and [[1530]]... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.140|162.158.2.140]] 13:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)<br /> : Don't think so, there is no body snatching involved -- he is simply trying to connect whitehat's statement with some trivia; Mainnings is a human, humans are mammals, retirement is a recent human invention -- the statement is simply just hyper over loaded with irrelevant facts. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.109|162.158.255.109]] 15:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)<br /> :: Agree with that. Since we are all mamals and all mamals age, many of them via the same processes there is nothing wrong with the statment, only with the timing. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Ok, I'm just gonna come out and say it: Coldplay sucks. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.235.173|198.41.235.173]] 14:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)<br /> : Is this some pop culture reference I'm missing? (I didn't watch the Super Bowl, so perhaps it's a reference to that?) [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.246|199.27.130.246]] 19:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)<br /> :: Coldplay played in the Halftime show. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The first paragraph at the moment is merely insulting nerds and not really explaining anything. (N.B.: would the "stereotypical Nerd" watch sports, at all?) --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.240|198.41.242.240]] 15:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)<br /> : I wrote it. I'm a nerd. It is more a self-reflection than an insult. I think it explains everything. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.109|162.158.255.109]] 16:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)<br /> :: I'm also a nerd, but the generalization given (in the present/former comic explanation) is not a high-fidelity description of me. However, since it's a humorous hyperbole, I'm letting it go with just a "citation needed" stamp. :-)<br /> :: But, hyperbole or not, I did not feel like the rest of it was generally accurate. That is, not all nerds are (or act) the same. The description given seems to match Cueball's depiction in this comic, but does not match "nerds" generally. So I tried to soften it a little, while exercising restraint. (It's the sort of generalization that is funny when it's the joke, but does not seem as appropriate in an ''explanation'' of the joke.)<br /> :: To answer the first point, though, it's hard to define what a "stereotypical nerd" is. If we choose it to be [[wikipedia:Sheldon_Cooper|Sheldon]] (of [[wikipedia:The_Big_Bang_Theory|TBBT]]), then you're right in assuming that a nerd would not be watching sports at all (and would need a reminder of [[1480|last year's Super Bowl comic]]). However, there are many types of nerds. If "nerd" means "someone with an extreme interest in a field" then "sports nerd" can be a synonym for what we called a "jock" back in school.<br /> :: Also, for what it's worth, I work in the software industry, and an alarming (to me) number of engineers are quite interested in sports and sporting events. They might otherwise be called nerds. YMMV. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.246|199.27.130.246]] 19:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)<br /> :::I have changed this completely. He is not a nerd. He just cannot focus on a normal conversation. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)<br /> :::: You are a nerd. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.109|162.158.255.109]] 23:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Does anyone else feel that the "maybe next year" line was intentional? Teams that don't win the Super Bowl (or at least their fans) will use the line when their hopes for a ring have been lost. This is particularly apparent in the case of the Cleveland Browns. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]] 18:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.47 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1002:_Game_AIs&diff=110693 Talk:1002: Game AIs 2016-02-05T06:36:15Z

<p>108.162.218.47: </p> <hr /> <div>Mornington Crescent would be impossible for a computer to play, let alone win... {{unsigned|188.29.119.251}}<br /> It is unclear which side of the line jeopard fall upon. Why so close to the line I wonder. [[User:DruidDriver|DruidDriver]] ([[User talk:DruidDriver|talk]]) 01:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> : Because of {{w|Watson (computer)}}. (Anon) 13 August 2013{{unsigned ip|24.142.134.100}}<br /> <br /> Could the "CounterStrike" be referring instead to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Strike computer game] which can have computer-controlled players? --[[Special:Contributions/131.187.75.20|131.187.75.20]] 15:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I agree, this is far more likely. [[Special:Contributions/100.40.49.22|100.40.49.22]] 10:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> On the old blog version of this article, a comment mentioned Ken tweeting his method right after this comic was posted. He joked that they would asphyxiate themselves to actually see heaven for seven minutes. I don't know how to search for tweets, or if they even save them after so much time, but I thought it should be noted. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 07:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I disagree about the poker part. Reading someone's physical tells is just a small part of the game. Theoretically there is a Nash equilibrium for the game, the reason why it hasn't been found is that the amount of ways a deck can be shuffled is astronomical (even if you just count the cards that you use) and you also have to take into account the various betsizes. A near perfect solution for 2 player limit poker has been found by the Cepheus Poker Project: http://poker.srv.ualberta.ca/.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ~ Could the description of tic-tac-toe link to xkcd 832 which explains the strategy? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.173|162.158.152.173]] 13:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Saying that computers are very close to beating top humans as of January 2016 is misleading at best. There is not enough details in the BBC article, but it sounds like the Facebook program has about a 50% chance of beating 5-dan amateurs. In other words, it needs a 4-stone handicap (read: 4 free moves) to have a 50% chance to win against top-level amateurs, to say nothing about professionals. If a robotic team could have a 50% chance to beating Duke University at football (a skilled amateur team), would you say they were very close to being able to consistently beat the Patriots (a top-level professional)? If anything that underestimates the skill difference in Go, but the general point stands. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.38}}<br /> : How about bearing one of the top players five times in a row and being scheduled to play against the world champion in March? http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/27/google-s-ai-is-the-first-to-defeat-a-go-champion/ [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 06:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)<br /> ::However DeepMind ranked AlphaGo close to Fan Hui 2P and the distributed version has being at the upper tier of Fan's level. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7587/fig_tab/nature16961_F4.html <br /> ::The official games were 5-0 however the unofficial were 3-2. Averaging to 8-2 in favor of AlphaGo.<br /> ::Looking at http://www.goratings.org/ Fan Hui is ranked 631, while Lee Sedol 9P, whom is playing in March, is in the top 5.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]] 06:12 5 February 2016 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.47 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1002:_Game_AIs&diff=110692 Talk:1002: Game AIs 2016-02-05T06:32:26Z

<p>108.162.218.47: </p> <hr /> <div>Mornington Crescent would be impossible for a computer to play, let alone win... {{unsigned|188.29.119.251}}<br /> It is unclear which side of the line jeopard fall upon. Why so close to the line I wonder. [[User:DruidDriver|DruidDriver]] ([[User talk:DruidDriver|talk]]) 01:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> : Because of {{w|Watson (computer)}}. (Anon) 13 August 2013{{unsigned ip|24.142.134.100}}<br /> <br /> Could the "CounterStrike" be referring instead to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Strike computer game] which can have computer-controlled players? --[[Special:Contributions/131.187.75.20|131.187.75.20]] 15:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I agree, this is far more likely. [[Special:Contributions/100.40.49.22|100.40.49.22]] 10:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> On the old blog version of this article, a comment mentioned Ken tweeting his method right after this comic was posted. He joked that they would asphyxiate themselves to actually see heaven for seven minutes. I don't know how to search for tweets, or if they even save them after so much time, but I thought it should be noted. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 07:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I disagree about the poker part. Reading someone's physical tells is just a small part of the game. Theoretically there is a Nash equilibrium for the game, the reason why it hasn't been found is that the amount of ways a deck can be shuffled is astronomical (even if you just count the cards that you use) and you also have to take into account the various betsizes. A near perfect solution for 2 player limit poker has been found by the Cepheus Poker Project: http://poker.srv.ualberta.ca/.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ~ Could the description of tic-tac-toe link to xkcd 832 which explains the strategy? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.173|162.158.152.173]] 13:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Saying that computers are very close to beating top humans as of January 2016 is misleading at best. There is not enough details in the BBC article, but it sounds like the Facebook program has about a 50% chance of beating 5-dan amateurs. In other words, it needs a 4-stone handicap (read: 4 free moves) to have a 50% chance to win against top-level amateurs, to say nothing about professionals. If a robotic team could have a 50% chance to beating Duke University at football (a skilled amateur team), would you say they were very close to being able to consistently beat the Patriots (a top-level professional)? If anything that underestimates the skill difference in Go, but the general point stands. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.38}}<br /> : How about bearing one of the top players five times in a row and being scheduled to play against the world champion in March? http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/27/google-s-ai-is-the-first-to-defeat-a-go-champion/ [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 06:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)<br /> ::However DeepMind ranked AlphaGo close to Fan Hui 2P and the distributed version has being at the upper tier of Fan's level. Phttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7587/fig_tab/nature16961_F4.html <br /> ::The official games were 5-0 however the unofficial were 3-2. Averaging to 8-2 in favor of AlphaGo.<br /> ::Looking at http://www.goratings.org/ Fan Hui is ranked 631, while Lee Sedol 9P, whom is playing in March, is in the top 5.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]] 06:12 5 February 2016 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.47 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1002:_Game_AIs&diff=110691 Talk:1002: Game AIs 2016-02-05T06:31:31Z

<p>108.162.218.47: </p> <hr /> <div>Mornington Crescent would be impossible for a computer to play, let alone win... {{unsigned|188.29.119.251}}<br /> It is unclear which side of the line jeopard fall upon. Why so close to the line I wonder. [[User:DruidDriver|DruidDriver]] ([[User talk:DruidDriver|talk]]) 01:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> : Because of {{w|Watson (computer)}}. (Anon) 13 August 2013{{unsigned ip|24.142.134.100}}<br /> <br /> Could the "CounterStrike" be referring instead to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Strike computer game] which can have computer-controlled players? --[[Special:Contributions/131.187.75.20|131.187.75.20]] 15:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I agree, this is far more likely. [[Special:Contributions/100.40.49.22|100.40.49.22]] 10:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> On the old blog version of this article, a comment mentioned Ken tweeting his method right after this comic was posted. He joked that they would asphyxiate themselves to actually see heaven for seven minutes. I don't know how to search for tweets, or if they even save them after so much time, but I thought it should be noted. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 07:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I disagree about the poker part. Reading someone's physical tells is just a small part of the game. Theoretically there is a Nash equilibrium for the game, the reason why it hasn't been found is that the amount of ways a deck can be shuffled is astronomical (even if you just count the cards that you use) and you also have to take into account the various betsizes. A near perfect solution for 2 player limit poker has been found by the Cepheus Poker Project: http://poker.srv.ualberta.ca/.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ~ Could the description of tic-tac-toe link to xkcd 832 which explains the strategy? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.173|162.158.152.173]] 13:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Saying that computers are very close to beating top humans as of January 2016 is misleading at best. There is not enough details in the BBC article, but it sounds like the Facebook program has about a 50% chance of beating 5-dan amateurs. In other words, it needs a 4-stone handicap (read: 4 free moves) to have a 50% chance to win against top-level amateurs, to say nothing about professionals. If a robotic team could have a 50% chance to beating Duke University at football (a skilled amateur team), would you say they were very close to being able to consistently beat the Patriots (a top-level professional)? If anything that underestimates the skill difference in Go, but the general point stands. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.38}}<br /> : How about bearing one of the top players five times in a row and being scheduled to play against the world champion in March? http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/27/google-s-ai-is-the-first-to-defeat-a-go-champion/ [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 06:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)<br /> ::However DeepMind ranked AlphaGo close to Fan Hui 2P and the distributed version has being at the upper tier of Fan's level. Phttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7587/fig_tab/nature16961_F4.html <br /> ::The official games were 5-0 however the unofficial were 3-2. Averaging to 8-2 in favor of AlphaGo.<br /> Looking at http://www.goratings.org/ Fan Hui is ranked 631, while Lee Sedol 9P, whom is playing in March, is in the top 5.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]] 06:12 5 February 2016 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.47 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1002:_Game_AIs&diff=110690 Talk:1002: Game AIs 2016-02-05T06:26:38Z

<p>108.162.218.47: </p> <hr /> <div>Mornington Crescent would be impossible for a computer to play, let alone win... {{unsigned|188.29.119.251}}<br /> It is unclear which side of the line jeopard fall upon. Why so close to the line I wonder. [[User:DruidDriver|DruidDriver]] ([[User talk:DruidDriver|talk]]) 01:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> : Because of {{w|Watson (computer)}}. (Anon) 13 August 2013{{unsigned ip|24.142.134.100}}<br /> <br /> Could the "CounterStrike" be referring instead to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Strike computer game] which can have computer-controlled players? --[[Special:Contributions/131.187.75.20|131.187.75.20]] 15:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I agree, this is far more likely. [[Special:Contributions/100.40.49.22|100.40.49.22]] 10:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> On the old blog version of this article, a comment mentioned Ken tweeting his method right after this comic was posted. He joked that they would asphyxiate themselves to actually see heaven for seven minutes. I don't know how to search for tweets, or if they even save them after so much time, but I thought it should be noted. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 07:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I disagree about the poker part. Reading someone's physical tells is just a small part of the game. Theoretically there is a Nash equilibrium for the game, the reason why it hasn't been found is that the amount of ways a deck can be shuffled is astronomical (even if you just count the cards that you use) and you also have to take into account the various betsizes. A near perfect solution for 2 player limit poker has been found by the Cepheus Poker Project: http://poker.srv.ualberta.ca/.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ~ Could the description of tic-tac-toe link to xkcd 832 which explains the strategy? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.173|162.158.152.173]] 13:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Saying that computers are very close to beating top humans as of January 2016 is misleading at best. There is not enough details in the BBC article, but it sounds like the Facebook program has about a 50% chance of beating 5-dan amateurs. In other words, it needs a 4-stone handicap (read: 4 free moves) to have a 50% chance to win against top-level amateurs, to say nothing about professionals. If a robotic team could have a 50% chance to beating Duke University at football (a skilled amateur team), would you say they were very close to being able to consistently beat the Patriots (a top-level professional)? If anything that underestimates the skill difference in Go, but the general point stands. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.38}}<br /> : How about bearing one of the top players five times in a row and being scheduled to play against the world champion in March? http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/27/google-s-ai-is-the-first-to-defeat-a-go-champion/ [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 06:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)<br /> ::However DeepMind ranked AlphaGo close to Fan Hui 2P and the distributed version has being at the upper tier of Fan's level. Phttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7587/fig_tab/nature16961_F4.html <br /> ::The official games were 5-0 however the unofficial were 3-2. Averaging to 8-2 in favor of AlphaGo.<br /> Looking at http://www.goratings.org/ Fan Hui is ranked 631, while Lee Sedol 9P, whom is playing in March, is in the top 5.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]]</div>

108.162.218.47 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1002:_Game_AIs&diff=110689 Talk:1002: Game AIs 2016-02-05T06:22:49Z

<p>108.162.218.47: Fan Hui 2P level and ranking</p> <hr /> <div>Mornington Crescent would be impossible for a computer to play, let alone win... {{unsigned|188.29.119.251}}<br /> It is unclear which side of the line jeopard fall upon. Why so close to the line I wonder. [[User:DruidDriver|DruidDriver]] ([[User talk:DruidDriver|talk]]) 01:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> : Because of {{w|Watson (computer)}}. (Anon) 13 August 2013{{unsigned ip|24.142.134.100}}<br /> <br /> Could the "CounterStrike" be referring instead to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Strike computer game] which can have computer-controlled players? --[[Special:Contributions/131.187.75.20|131.187.75.20]] 15:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I agree, this is far more likely. [[Special:Contributions/100.40.49.22|100.40.49.22]] 10:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> On the old blog version of this article, a comment mentioned Ken tweeting his method right after this comic was posted. He joked that they would asphyxiate themselves to actually see heaven for seven minutes. I don't know how to search for tweets, or if they even save them after so much time, but I thought it should be noted. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 07:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I disagree about the poker part. Reading someone's physical tells is just a small part of the game. Theoretically there is a Nash equilibrium for the game, the reason why it hasn't been found is that the amount of ways a deck can be shuffled is astronomical (even if you just count the cards that you use) and you also have to take into account the various betsizes. A near perfect solution for 2 player limit poker has been found by the Cepheus Poker Project: http://poker.srv.ualberta.ca/.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ~ Could the description of tic-tac-toe link to xkcd 832 which explains the strategy? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.173|162.158.152.173]] 13:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Saying that computers are very close to beating top humans as of January 2016 is misleading at best. There is not enough details in the BBC article, but it sounds like the Facebook program has about a 50% chance of beating 5-dan amateurs. In other words, it needs a 4-stone handicap (read: 4 free moves) to have a 50% chance to win against top-level amateurs, to say nothing about professionals. If a robotic team could have a 50% chance to beating Duke University at football (a skilled amateur team), would you say they were very close to being able to consistently beat the Patriots (a top-level professional)? If anything that underestimates the skill difference in Go, but the general point stands. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.38}}<br /> : How about bearing one of the top players five times in a row and being scheduled to play against the world champion in March? http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/27/google-s-ai-is-the-first-to-defeat-a-go-champion/ [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 06:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)<br /> ::However DeepMind ranked AlphaGo close to Fan Hui 2P and the distributed version has being at the upper tier of Fan's level. Phttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7587/fig_tab/nature16961_F4.html <br /> The official games were 5-0 howver the unofficial were 3-2. Averaging to 8-2 in favor of AlphaGo.<br /> Looking at http://www.goratings.org/ Fan Hui is ranked 631, while Lee Sedol 9P, whom is playing in March, is in the top 5.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]]</div>

108.162.218.47 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1615:_Red_Car&diff=106819 Talk:1615: Red Car 2015-12-11T15:35:13Z

<p>108.162.218.47: </p> <hr /> <div>Penises: They're about ''this'' red. Now can we <u>please</u>, as a culture, move on? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.206|108.162.210.206]] 08:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Is this the first time, color is used in the comics? --[[User:Widescape|Robert]] ([[User talk:Widescape|talk]]) 09:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)<br /> :No, there are a lot more [[:Category:Comics with color|comics with color]] {{User:17jiangz1/signature|09:56, 11 December 2015}}<br /> <br /> I think the joke is that red has a longer wavelength than cyan (nanometers of difference). Not anything to do with colour theory. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.133.96|162.158.133.96]] 10:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)<br /> :I'll have you know that a few nanometres make ''all'' the difference, for some people. <u>Click here</u> for the miracle pill you must have!<br /> :(Seriously, as stated elsewhere, it's opposites. Big car, small equipment; RGB(100%,0%,0%) car, RGB(0%,100%,100%) equipment; pH>7 car, pH<7 equipment. Perhaps an annotated colour-wheel picture in the explanation, as a visual guide?) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.152.227|162.158.152.227]] 12:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)<br /> :It seems to me it could also be a reference Anaglyph 3D red-cyan glasses. Bigger color difference makes things look closer to the viewer and thus larger. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyph_3D#Interference_filter_systems Wikipedia]<br /> <br /> The mouse over text makes it fairly clear that it's a joke about opposites. If anything could be added to the explanation as it stands, I might clarify that red and cyan are specifically colors of light. When shone on a single area (and therefor mixed) these two colors will create white light. When these colors of light are represented on a color wheel, they are placed opposite each other. So cyan and red in this sense fit as opposites, like big and small, alkaline and acidic.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> For some reason, this made me laugh extremely hard. I've been up all night and maybe it's sleep deprivation, as it makes me do weird things, like bingewatch on several ISS videos simultaneously. [[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 10:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> There is also a common stereotype that a car's color reveals something about its owner's psychology (e.g. [https://www.thecaretrust.ie/colour-of-car-personality here]). So, I think Megan is not only generalizing one stereotype but rather mixing two stereotypes, as in other comics. Zetfr 11:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Is this the shortest complete explanation on this site?<br /> :[[3: Island (sketch)]] and [[28: Elefino]] are shorter. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.17|108.162.221.17]] 12:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> [[Wikipedia:Litmus|Litmus]] anyone? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.233|141.101.106.233]] 13:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.47 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Blue_Eyes&diff=104077 Talk:Blue Eyes 2015-10-28T13:20:52Z

<p>108.162.218.47: </p> <hr /> <div>Is it really incomplete on the grounds that Joel hasn't be identified? Explanations of comics 57-59 leave no more explanation of "Scott" than that he appears to be Randall's friend. The fact that we don't have a last name for him doesn't make either [[Scott]] or those comic explanations incomplete. Similarly, not have a full identifier for "Joel" in this one doesn't, in my opinion, warrant an incomplete tag. I'm removing the tag. If anyone object, revert it. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 19:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The proof for this puzzle is incomplete, if not wrong. The theorem is too weak, it should be: "Theorem: N blue eyed people with Nth order knowledge of all N people being logicians, N people having blue eyes, and any blue eyed person will leave as soon as possible after deducing they have blue eyes, will be able to leave on the Nth day." This may seem pedantic, but it really gets to the heart of the problem, which is trying to illustrate the use of orders of knowledge. In the theorem as stated, just N blue eyed people will leave on the Nth day, the proof for the inductive steps does not hold. You need to further assume that the person is able to deduce the hypothesis (which should be proven). In other words, you say X-1 people would leave on the (X-1)th day by hypothesis, so the Xth person knows he can leave on the Xth day. But you did not prove that the Xth person can actually deduce this, namely that he has all the information necessary to do so. In the correctly stated hypothesis, you then need to show that N + 1 people with (N+1)th order knowledge of all those things can deduce that the N people would leave if it was just them, and further that N+1 people have (N+1)th order knowledge of all these things. This is very important, and holds true (Since N+1th order knowledge is equivalent to knowing the N people have the Nth order knowledge necessary to fulfill the hypothesis, and by symmetry if the N logicians can figure it out the (N+1)th can too. Also, they have (N+1)th order knowledge of people leaving as soon as they can and everyone being a logician since in the proper statement of the puzzle it should be noted this is common knowledge, and the guru makes the knowledge of someone having blue eyes common knowledge.). Then you have a full proof, since you have now included that they can actually deduce the inductive step. Again, this may seem pedantic, but is really necessary both to be correct and as it illustrates the key of the puzzle, namely the guru gives 100th order knowledge of someone having blue eyes (this is the main problem people have, realizing the concrete piece of information the guru gives). [[User:Jlangy|Jlangy]] ([[User talk:Jlangy|talk]]) 00:29, 9 July 2015<br /> <br /> <br /> What I don't follow here is that there's no clarification that the Guru is talking about someone different each time. Just because she says "I see someone with blue eyes" N times doesn't mean that there are N people with blue eyes; she could be talking about the same person every time, or each of two people half the time, etc. Can anyone clarify this?<br /> Thanks - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]] 13:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.47 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1576:_I_Could_Care_Less&diff=101634 Talk:1576: I Could Care Less 2015-09-13T03:58:20Z

<p>108.162.218.47: </p> <hr /> <div>Another excellent comic by Randall. In case of interest to anyone a different perspective, David Mitchell did a wonder rant on this... "Dear America... | David Mitchell's SoapBox" <br /> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw {{unsigned ip|‎141.101.98.100}}<br /> <br /> The only people who complain about this phrase are pedantic morons who have never heard such things as "head over heels". <br /> <br /> Here, I've composed a list of common vernacular/slang idioms which are valid, clear, and diametrically opposed to their original meaning:<br /> * "Head over heels"<br /> * "Break a leg"<br /> * "It's the shit"<br /> * "That's bad"<br /> * "She's phat"<br /> * "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"<br /> * "Irregardless"{{unsigned|Cwallenpoole}}<br /> : "Diametrically opposed" is redundant. The words mean the same thing. Sorry, when the topic of conversation is pedanticism I couldn't resist :P [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.170|108.162.221.170]] 22:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> :The reason I dislike "I could care less" is because it just grates me. It disrupts the flow of parsing language in my brain, throwing up a "wait, what?" exception that I have to expend far more mental energy than usual to correctly interpret the meaning of something in my head. I'm not being pedantic for the sake of uptight rule adherence and feeling superior (I play around with language and use it in non-standard forms all the time), I'm pedantic because it causes my brain real difficulties in processing the meaning of what a person's said. I mean I'm a woman with Asperger's (and a British one at that) so maybe things are a little different for me, but that's just why I personally strongly dislike this usage. The things on your list though are all different in some way to "I could care less", at least for me, for example:<br /> :* "Head over heels" - How is this an opposite meaning, exactly? Doesn't it give a rather nice metaphor for being giddy about something? Being hyperbolic and metaphorical doesn't make it an opposite meaning.<br /> ::*Because your head is ''normally'' over your heels. Nothing special about it. Heels over head would be much more interesting...[[User:Silverpie|Silverpie]] ([[User talk:Silverpie|talk]]) 17:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> :::*Personally I always think of it as your head being bowled over your heels - not the sort of "over" as in "higher gravitational potential energy", but in the same "around" sense of being "turned over" or "starting over". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]] 03:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> :* "Break a leg" - This is closer to being an opposite, but the exact opposite to wishing an actor good luck would be to wish them bad luck. The mutation to a slightly absurdist statement marks it out as having a different meaning, especially as "break a leg" isn't really used in any other context than to wish a person good luck. While it may be the case that "I could care less" is rarely (if at all) used in its literal form, there's still nothing to mutate it and obviously mark it out as a linguistic special usage case. It's also still how I'd expect someone to phrase it if they were actually telling me they could care less about something.<br /> ::: The "Vaudeville theory" on this page is where I got my understanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break_a_leg --EE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.135|108.162.216.135]] 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> :* "It's the shit" - Again, this is mutated. People aren't saying "it's shit", the word "the" handily tags it for my brain parser to handle differently.<br /> :* "That's bad" - Well, you've got me here actually. I mean, context (and tone) makes the meaning obvious but I can't objectively understand why this phrase doesn't cause me the same sort of difficulties at all. Perhaps because I grew up in the 80s, and a big part of my musical upbringing was Michael Jackson. ''♬ A-hee-hee! Hoo! ♬''<br /> :* "She's phat" - This is completely literal, "phat" is a slang term meaning excellent or attractive. It may be a mutation of the word "fat" or not, its etymology is uncertain, but it is indisputably a very different word now (much like how "orchids" means a species of flower rather than testicles, and "sinister" hasn't meant left in centuries).<br /> ::: I understand it's an acronym: Pretty Hot And Tempting. --EE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.135|108.162.216.135]] 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> :* "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" - This is also completely literal, Freud meant that while he believed many things ''could'' have hidden, psychosexual meanings... that while sometimes a person might be puffing on a cigar due to some suppressed phallic desires... they could also just be puffing on a cigar because they're enjoying a nice cigar. That is to say, not everything has a hidden subconscious meaning, and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, not a substitute object to fellate.<br /> :* "Irregardless" - Well yes, the suffix added to "regardless" here would usually invert its meaning, but "irregardless" isn't actually a word that existed before it came into use with its current meaning so it's not like saying a previously established and defined word (or phrase).<br /> : Anyway, while I do believe language is flexible and mutable, this particular phrase fails the easily interpretable test for my brain. I try not to be too uptight about it, but it really does irritate me in a way I can't help. Obviously my opinion is not the only one, so that's just my 1.29587 British pence on the matter :D [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.195|141.101.98.195]] 12:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> ::(In response to Cwallenpoole, not 141.101.98.195, who makes good points that I didn't actually read first!) "Head over heels" is of course "head over (and down), heels (upwards) (...and continue this rotation to its logical conclusion)"; "Break a leg" has {{w|Break_a_leg|a number of possible origins}} (I always assumed wishing luck was unlucky, thus the inverse, but several "the leg not being yours" versions also ring true); "It's the shit" is using a somewhat unfortunate object (certainly if you miss out the "the") that is a short-cut off-colour superlative like "the dog's bollocks"; "bad==good" I always assumed was "what's bad to the establishment is good for our own clique"; "phat" is far too modern for me, but probably arises a similar positive superlative with some counter-culture anti-standard spelling; Cigars being cigars don't sound diametrically opposed, to me, although who knows ''what'' went on in Freud's head!; "Irregardless" is an obvious portmanteau/malapropism blend that is so easy to create. - Or so I would personally explain these.<br /> :: Here's an additional one, though, if you care for it: "Cheap at half the price". It sounds wrong if you dig deep and work out that it must mean "It is not more than or equal to twice the actually fair price you should have been asking" (i.e. it's less than double the price). But I've always internally rationalised it as really saying "If this figure you mention actually were only half of the full price you are ''truly'' asking for, the real price would still be considered cheap" (i.e. it's less than half price). Or it could just be obfuscated salesman patter, i.e. telling the truth (still making a profit, but less than a 100% mark-up) but using weasel-words and terminology that create misleading imagery in the listener's mind. i.e. No crime, no foul, should Trading Standards happen to come-a-visiting, one day... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.32|141.101.98.32]] 13:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> :::''Actually'', to follow-up on myself: "It's cheap(, it being in this instance) at half the price (I would normally charge)" works best. Why has that only just occured to me? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.32|141.101.98.32]] 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :::Attempting to interpret "head over heels" to somehow mean "head down, heels up" isn't etymologically accurate; it's simply a reversal of the original expression, which was "heels over head." There's a similar expression in German ("Hals über Kopf") and Scandinavian (Norwegian "hals over hode", Swedish "hals över huvud") literally "neck over head," which means "in great hurry or disarray, without thinking" and is also sometimes (particularly in Norwegian) reversed for no particular reason: perhaps it's just the "mouth feel" that makes it tempting. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.19|162.158.92.19]] 10:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> 'I couldn't care less' is the standard formulation in the UK, for one. I always assumed that the US version was originally a variant on this which was later contracted, eg 'I could care less, but not much'.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.106|141.101.99.106]] 07:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Given that xkcd is so pro-science, I don't think the analysis here should endorse the peeve that there's anything wrong with "I could care less" (or use of "literally" as an intensifier), since most actual linguists, experts on how language works, think it's fine. See for example the list of posts dealing with the question here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=21170#more-21170 And of course, the comic itself points out how petty an besides the point this kind of "correction" is. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.19|162.158.92.19]] 07:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> : As a linguist, regarding the claim that most actual linguists think it's fine, I'd have to respectfully say HELL NO! There is a difference between acknowledging the pragmatic implementation of the phrase, that is, its use in common parlance and the general acceptance and understanding of it, and the question wether or not it is "fine". The comic exemplifies a rather extreme version of the idea "Whatever people use is proper language" - in other words, as long as everybody involved in a conversation gets what is meant, there is no point in arguing semantics, grammer, etc. This is, however, neither the only, nor the dominant approach to language and linguistics. For exapmle, it doesn't answer the question how such an ostensibly paradox use of this phrase came to happen, where (geographically, socially, etc.) the phrase might have originated, and other puzzless regarding the origin of the phrase; this attitude also dismisses any inquiry into how humans process (or ignore) such discrepancies between literal meaning and actual use, and in general, how humans organise, structure, and conecptualise language. Additionally, this comic adds a radical deconstructional (and maybe existential) twist to this perspective by basically saying, "We're all alone, and can never really know or understand anybody else".<br /> : Such an attitude of total relativism ("Every experience ist entirely subjective and unique") makes my skin crawl. It is by far more presumptious than being a little pedantic about grammar and the use of expressions.<br /> [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.176|162.158.114.176]] 11:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> :: Agreed. Words have meanings and reducing the amount of trust you can place in those meanings decreases the value of the language. "You could never understand me, so I might as well not even try to make myself understood" is a cop-out. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.23|108.162.219.23]] 15:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :: I stand by my comment that most linguists would argue that the phrase does not warrant censure, on the grounds that it is (1) in very common use, probably about 5 times as common as "couldn't care less" in American speech, including educated speech, and about half as common in writing, (2) long established, with the OED's first reference back in 1966, only twenty years after it first notes "I couldn't care less" (and with Google Book Search, we can push this back to the 1940s: it occurs repeatedly in the official transcript of a House Congressional Hearing in 1947, for example), (3) idiomatic, so that logical analysis of its strict literal content is not helpful, and (4) analogous to other constructions (in English and other languages) that don't raise any eyebrows or hackles. That does not mean that they don't consider it interesting and worthy of explanation, of course. Indeed, almost all the work of actually trying to explain how "could care less" arose has been done by people who are at pain to point out that they find the phrase unobjectionable (while those who disapprove of it don't seem to get much further than calling it "an ignorant substitution" or a result of "sloppy speech and sloppy writing"). It's of course hard to prove that this is the majority view in academic circles, but I refer to Lawler, Liberman, Pullum, Okrent [http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/03/18/why_i_could_care_less_is_not_as_irrational_or_ungrammatical_as_you_might.html], Pinker, the various dictionaries that list it without deprecation (e.g. RH Webster's: "usage: could care less, the apparent opposite of couldn't care less, is actually used interchangeably with it to express indifference. Both versions occur mainly in informal speech."), and linguistic popularizers such as Grammarist [http://grammarist.com/usage/could-care-less/]. This clearly reflects the descriptivist paradigm that seeks to understand language as it actually occurs, and looks skeptically on attempts to impose "rules" that are often demonstrably wrong. In other words, treating linguistics as an empirical science. The version of this position that Megan argues in the comic is obviously heightened for comic effect (she's also using a sort of mock-Gricean analysis to impute a possible helpful intent to Ponytail). You can find most of these points endorsed in a very reasonable [http://blog.dictionary.com/could-care-less/ blog post by dictionary.com]. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.152|141.101.105.152]] 09:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'<br /> 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'<br /> 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'<br /> [[http://www.linkedin.com/in/Comet Comet]] 23:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> As it's currently written, the explanation seems to suggest that "I could care less" is the American form and "I couldn't care less" British. In fact, both forms are in use in the US, and it wouldn't surprise me if "I could care less" occurs occasionally in British English as well. There are also other English-speaking countries in the world. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.19|162.158.92.19]] 07:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> :As a Brit, I can't think of any time I've heard a fellow Briton say "I could care less", it's always seemed very much an American phenomenon. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.195|141.101.98.195]] 12:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Another American chiming in here to say that I never, ever, ever say "I could care less" when I mean "I couldn't care less". Characterizing it as "*the* American form" is incorrect. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.167|173.245.56.167]] 15:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> As for the title text, I'd disagree with "The sentence is also ambiguous, as it may mean that literally or figuratively, the speaker could or couldn't care less." I think that Randall is pretty clear here: he ''should'' ('could' as in polite request) care less about irrational idioms instead of wasting time drawing comics about it. But he just can't resist. And without him doing so, we wouldn't be here. So in fact, it is nonsense for Randall to care less, and this contradiction is the point of the title text joke. But then again, I'm not native English speaker, and even less of a thought reader to understand what was on his mind. -- kavol, [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.224|141.101.96.224]] 08:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> :I had an alternate take on the title text. Since I could care less literally means I care some but could stand not to care as much, I took it to mean that for all the comic says about the true spirit and nature of communication and the evils of forcing linguistic absolutism onto other people, at the end of the day Randall still does care about people using correct phraseology. Yes, language is so much more than words and sounds but without clear grammatical usage rules communication could descend into chaos. This is actually one of the pivotal points in Jet Li's movie Hero which is a great commentary on this comic's profundity. The deep resonating pools of meaning that communication stores is only useful for peace and coexistence if we can all understand each other and come together as one. --[[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 15:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm solidly with the IP. Randall is saying that, evidently, this is something which is important to him, and something he's put a lot of thought into. [[User:FourViolas|FourViolas]] ([[User talk:FourViolas|talk]]) 17:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I think "I could care less" is completely unheard of in Britain - I had to come here to find out what this was all about! In the UK the correction wouldn't be seen as pedantic, but rather that you had said something really rather odd, possibly for effect. I'm guessing in the US this doesn't stand out, and the phrase is "familiar" so the brain will run with it, but it just sounds really weird and jarring to me. That's not being pedantic, we toss double negatives around all over the place. Randall's point is that it how you interpret the words, rather than exact rules. So if ponytail is British then she is genuinely just trying to check that it wasn't a slip of the tongue and not meant for effect. To experience how odd it sounds its like a similar phrase "I don't give a s**t", but someone saying "I do give a s**t" (unless you guy's say that as well?!). {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.205}}<br /> <br /> : You're right, the British National Corpus has essentially no hits for "could care less" [http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/]. However, Ponytail's "correction" doesn't sound like she's unfamiliar with the expression, but more like the common pedantic objection to it, so I doubt that she's intended to be British, or that it's anything other than "showing off how well she knows some mental checklist." The Lawler link above ([http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/giveadamn.html]) discusses the example "They could give a damn about Whitewater" (as in they '''don't''' actually give a damn about it). I think you could get away with "I give a shit?" or "[Like] I give a shit!" (with the "like" elided) as implicitly negative, but no, you can't put in an affirmative "do." [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.19|162.158.92.19]] 10:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I'm fighting a long lost battle, I know, but can I mention my fight against the (long-standing) misuse of Decimation when the speaker/writer probably means Devastation? These days it's often assumed to be its own mathematical complement (around ~10% survival, rather than the intended ~10% depletion). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.32|141.101.98.32]] 13:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I am right with you on this one. Although I don't think the users are mistaking the Dev- for the Dec-, they have just forgotten or never learned that "decimate" had anything to with percentages. Heck, many English speakers don't grasp that percent has anything to do with percentages. [[User:NoniMausa|NoniMausa]] ([[User talk:NoniMausa|talk]]) 15:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Either one works, depending on how the sentence is finished:<br /> * I could care less...about this than other things.<br /> * I couldn't care less...about this than I already do.<br /> --EE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.135|108.162.216.135]] 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> :Indeed, but "I could..." also begs the question "...but will I?" and so does not actually affirms that "I ''will'' care less (than with other things)", whilst "I couldn't..." is more imperative as in "...and therefore I wouldn't". (Unless you want to read the latter as "I couldn't care less because I actually care quite a lot already and I know that this will never change", I suppose! Oh dear, we uregently need to start using one of those totally-umambiguous ConLangs based upon predicate logic!) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.32|141.101.98.32]] 15:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> On a different note: The way the panels are set up is pretty interesting. Anyone a idea, why he set it up like that? Does he want to tell us something? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.196|162.158.92.196]] 17:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> :The panels seem to form a logical story progression: introduction / development / conclusion, each on 3 lines. The panel on solitude and darkness is inverted -- it's literally dark -- which is a common comics idiom to emphasize a specific panel and break monotony {{Citation needed}}. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 20:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> This is starting to feel like the [http://english.stackexchange.com/ English Language & Usage Stack Exchange] :-)<br /> <br /> It's quite amusing as most of the discussion here is about the pedantic usage solely focused on how the listener perceives the expression irregardless (;-p) of what the speaker tried to express, which is is exactly what the comic is ranting about.<br /> If we want to be all pedantic, I'd offer the alternative that "I could care less" is a literally (;-p) perfectly sound form in itself. It's all about expressing the emotional value that someone attaches to a concept or thing -- think of it as an emotional energy or charge. Since everything is inter-dependent, there is no such thing as an absolute zero, it's the relation to other things that matters. The expression "I don't care" would imply the speaker devotes a neutral emotional energy value to the subject. Since it's a relative value, there are no boundaries in either direction and consequently "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" are perfectly valid. It's all relative, as used to say Frank. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 20:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> 'I know what you're thinking about,' said Tweedledum; 'but it isn't so, nohow.'<br /> 'Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'<br /> [[http://www.linkedin.com/in/Comet Comet]] 23:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> <br /> "I could care less, but I would have to try" is the phrase as I have always known it (shortened to "I could care less...). I always took this to mean that someone was indifferent to a thing. It is a bit of an oxymoron since to try would mean you care more when your goal is to care less. My assumption has always been that the way someone feels about something generally exists on a scale from love to hate with the dead center being indifference. To care more from an indifferent standpoint is too move towards one of the poles (love or hate) and thus the oxymoron.--[[User:The elusive pickle|The elusive pickle]] ([[User talk:The elusive pickle|talk]]) 22:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br /> Is it proper to use citations or should we just link to the source? {{User:17jiangz1/signature|10:44, 12 September 2015}}<br /> <br /> ;Negation by association in French<br /> <br /> The [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/giveadamn.html assertion] that ''could care less'', or ''give a damn'', is "negative in its own right" in the same way as ''pas'' in French sounds dubious to me to say the least, if not downright bovine excrement. In French, the original word for negation is ''ne'', it came to be associated with ''pas'', so that there was a perceived redundancy. Dropping ''ne'' when ''pas'' is used clearly conserves the negative meaning (it is only usual in oral French though, and frowned upon in written French). The same applies with adverbs that have a negative meaning, like ''jamais'' (never). But this is a very generic process, and thus completely different from very specific cases like ''could care less''. [[User:Zoyd|Zoyd]] ([[User talk:Zoyd|talk]]) 17:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.47 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:642:_Creepy&diff=68774 Talk:642: Creepy 2014-06-03T22:59:25Z

<p>108.162.218.47: </p> <hr /> <div>Is the real-life example unwarranted? [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 15:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Admirably done. I like the link. In future, though, the wiki-engine doesn't know what single returns means, so if you want a paragraph break hit enter twice. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)<br /> <br /> A hint for girls, we all have the SAME fears, don't be afraid to find out who we are on the inside :) - [[User:E-inspired|E-inspired]] ([[User talk:E-inspired|talk]]) 04:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Uh...men typically don't have to worry about getting harassed, assaulted, or killed like women do. At least not to the same degree. Your nervousness about being turned down is not the same as the woman's fear of being attacked. [[Special:Contributions/15.211.201.83|15.211.201.83]] 20:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::Thank you for making this comment. It perfectly outlines the exact type of conceited, one sided views that are being used by tumblr feminists in their crusade for "safety" and "equality". The idea that men are all some sort of all powerful being, incapable of being abused or raped is not only factually wrong, but actually perpetuates the abuses against them as more and more men stop coming forward for fear of looking weak. You speak as if you have knowledge in this field, but that just can't be the case. If you did, you would be much better educated as to the real breakdowns of sexual violence per gender, and know just how ridiculous your claims are. [[Special:Contributions/205.211.113.69|205.211.113.69]] 20:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :What girl wants to be with a guy who is so introspective and nervous that he can't talk to girls? A hint for guys, grow a pair. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 02:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> It seems pretty obvious to me that the comic intends to point out the paralyzing paranoia men can have about interacting with women, and the description as it is seems to refuse to explain the comic out of sheer disagreement. {{unsigned ip|207.98.247.127}}<br /> <br /> The comments here, with the call for men to "grow a pair" combined with the (false) claim that women are at greater danger of being attacked than men (seemingly offered as justification for unreasonable female caution or hostility toward men), are a perfect illustration of why this anomie exists.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.71|173.245.50.71]] 03:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ...What? The claim that women are in greater danger of being attacked than men is NOT false. In 2010, Women were 21 times more likely to be the victim of sexual crimes than men, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (0.1 cases per 1000 males, and 2.1 cases per 1000 females per year). Not only that, but the vast majority of cases of male sexual assault victims were assaulted by another male. Debate on the subject is fine, but let's at least get our facts straight. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.63|173.245.55.63]] 03:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Greg<br /> :You are right, but this comic is more about women using this fact to cover their own capabilities to talk to a "interesting" man. And because your facts are correct it must be mentioned at this explain. But this comic is also about the "strange" behave done by women to men; hard to understand by a man. And because this comic is still even more complicated this gets an incomplete tag with your mentions. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)<br /> :I agree with Greg. Let us indeed 'get our facts straight'. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html| More men are raped in the US than women, figures on prison assaults reveal] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]] 22:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.47 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:642:_Creepy&diff=68771 Talk:642: Creepy 2014-06-03T22:50:00Z

<p>108.162.218.47: </p> <hr /> <div>Is the real-life example unwarranted? [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 15:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Admirably done. I like the link. In future, though, the wiki-engine doesn't know what single returns means, so if you want a paragraph break hit enter twice. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)<br /> <br /> A hint for girls, we all have the SAME fears, don't be afraid to find out who we are on the inside :) - [[User:E-inspired|E-inspired]] ([[User talk:E-inspired|talk]]) 04:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Uh...men typically don't have to worry about getting harassed, assaulted, or killed like women do. At least not to the same degree. Your nervousness about being turned down is not the same as the woman's fear of being attacked. [[Special:Contributions/15.211.201.83|15.211.201.83]] 20:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::Thank you for making this comment. It perfectly outlines the exact type of conceited, one sided views that are being used by tumblr feminists in their crusade for "safety" and "equality". The idea that men are all some sort of all powerful being, incapable of being abused or raped is not only factually wrong, but actually perpetuates the abuses against them as more and more men stop coming forward for fear of looking weak. You speak as if you have knowledge in this field, but that just can't be the case. If you did, you would be much better educated as to the real breakdowns of sexual violence per gender, and know just how ridiculous your claims are. [[Special:Contributions/205.211.113.69|205.211.113.69]] 20:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :What girl wants to be with a guy who is so introspective and nervous that he can't talk to girls? A hint for guys, grow a pair. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 02:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> It seems pretty obvious to me that the comic intends to point out the paralyzing paranoia men can have about interacting with women, and the description as it is seems to refuse to explain the comic out of sheer disagreement. {{unsigned ip|207.98.247.127}}<br /> <br /> The comments here, with the call for men to "grow a pair" combined with the (false) claim that women are at greater danger of being attacked than men (seemingly offered as justification for unreasonable female caution or hostility toward men), are a perfect illustration of why this anomie exists.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.71|173.245.50.71]] 03:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ...What? The claim that women are in greater danger of being attacked than men is NOT false. In 2010, Women were 21 times more likely to be the victim of sexual crimes than men, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (0.1 cases per 1000 males, and 2.1 cases per 1000 females per year). Not only that, but the vast majority of cases of male sexual assault victims were assaulted by another male. Debate on the subject is fine, but let's at least get our facts straight. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.63|173.245.55.63]] 03:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Greg<br /> :You are right, but this comic is more about women using this fact to cover their own capabilities to talk to a "interesting" man. And because your facts are correct it must be mentioned at this explain. But this comic is also about the "strange" behave done by women to men; hard to understand by a man. And because this comic is still even more complicated this gets an incomplete tag with your mentions. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)<br /> :I agree with (UTC)Greg. Let us indeed 'get our facts straight'. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html| More men are raped in the US than women, figures on prison assaults reveal] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]] 22:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.47 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1322:_Winter&diff=68696 Talk:1322: Winter 2014-06-02T21:59:39Z

<p>108.162.218.47: Possible song?</p> <hr /> <div>There is a reason we have correct and precise words for just about every item. "Flappy planes" could refer to birds, or it could refer to the impractical early attempt at a flying machine known as an ornithopter; and in the same manner "stick towers" could also refer to telephone poles or the piers from an old-time wooden railroad trestle.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.30|173.245.54.30]] 17:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> :I think the main reason we like to have so many words is so we can belittle people that don't know as many as we do. The German way is more sensible, if less poetic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 02:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I feel like he's referencing a song but I can't make the things fit anything. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.53|108.162.219.53]] 06:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> :I thought this may be a shot at media's coverage of the "polar vortex"[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.31|108.162.219.31]] 14:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> :Sounds a bit like Let it Snow to me [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]] 21:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Amusingly, I feel, the German for gloves is "Handschuh" (plural "Handschuhe)" as in<br /> hand shoe(s). [[Special:Contributions/173.245.49.72|173.245.49.72]] 09:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I still think that's whitehat, he is again making an argument that is getting beaten [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 09:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> How does the title text build up on the romeo&juliet's rose idea? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.74|108.162.229.74]] 12:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Maybe "build up" is the wrong phrase. It certainly continues on the same train of thought. [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 15:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> "Monosyllabic" doesn't quite seem like a fitting description of "water", "flappy", or "towers", especially in contrast to "pond", "birds", and "trees". --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.207|108.162.238.207]] 13:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I've added [Birds chirping] to the transcript, but I can't really see what else is missing. I'm open to suggestions. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> :This was something I was trying to grasp when I added the "Birds Chirping" - to what detail do we describe the events going on in any given panel? A transcript is supposed to be a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcript_(law) written record of the spoken word] and while some actions do bear significant meaning to the "record" of the strip as a whole, the question remains - to what detail? [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 20:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> ::To the musical notes that appear in the upper right corner of the relevant panels. [[User:Sciepsilon|Sciepsilon]] ([[User talk:Sciepsilon|talk]]) 05:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> :::Yes, I agree - the musical notes should be transcribed (or notated, lol). But should we be transcribing physical acts, such as characters walking on/off panel, setting up the scene, etc. It would seem that we're moving from Transcript to Script. In any case, I'm going to move this discussion to the [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Coordination|Coordination]] page as I can't seem to find any real guideline on this.[[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> It almost scans right for "These Are a Few of My Favorite Things" and a lot of the lines could be taken as references to that song. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 17:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> :If you say so. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 02:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The stickman with the antennated headwool is right. [[User:Sten|'''S<small>TEN</small>''']] <small>([[User talk:Sten|talk]])</small> 21:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Might "little flappers" refer to fruit bats, instead of birds, since flappy planes is already used for birds? Most of the replacements so far were logical, and since birds mainly generate lift using Bernoulli's Principle (like planes), wouldn't bats more more accurate when only refering to "flappers"? [[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 23:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> :No, I think "little flappers" is definately birds - specifically wrens, sparrows, warblers, etc - all of which are both small and commonly called "songbirds", hence the indication of musical birdsong. {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.46}}<br /> <br /> It feels like there is some special significance to the last panel. Either the birds' chirping indicates offense at being called flappy planes, indicating that somebody does in fact care, or they are continuing to chirp happilly because they don't care. Or it could just be that Cueball/White Hat sees Beret Guy's point, as seems to be the consensus. [[User:Sciepsilon|Sciepsilon]] ([[User talk:Sciepsilon|talk]]) 05:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> :I'm pretty sure this isn't a comic about sentient birds. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 02:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Is "spacelight" meant to be "the illumination from space" i.e. "sunlight", or "the lamp in space" i.e. "sun"? I thought the latter. {{unsigned ip|173.245.49.67}}<br /> ::I don't think it matters that much, as long as white hat is warm enough. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.86|108.162.229.86]] 19:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> ::Do you get confused when people say "The sun is warm today" ? This is the same thing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]]<br /> <br /> I have referenced Feynman's "Difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something" to the explanation as the reference would be obvious to someone like Munroe. [[User:Tardyon|Tardyon]] ([[User talk:Tardyon|talk]]) 22:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> "Floor water" was referenced in the latest What-If. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 05:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> No baby birds in winter? Could they be crossbill's? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.84|108.162.254.84]] 15:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)<br /> :He is only saying "little flappers" to create a certain tone in his statement. He simply means the songbirds. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 02:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I have always liked Feynman's parable about knowing something vs knowing the name of something. I especially like it in context of those students and intellectual wannabes that spew out names and jargon without actually knowing, understanding or appreciating the how (and perhaps why) behind what they are spouting off.<br /> On the other hand, a shared nomenclature is absolutely essential to communication, especially effective and unambiguous communication, as the discussions herein (above) make clear.<br /> For instance, although "beret guy" may have a deep understanding and appreciation of what he observes, he is failing to communicate this (if that indeed was his intention) to "cueball", and indeed it could be said to the readers. For instance the "little flappers" are birds to some, bats to others. "Lamp in space" is not very unambiguous as well.<br /> People create names and words with specific meaning in order to shorten communication time, and to create a shared mental picture that helps further understanding. An argument could be made that "cueball" has a point about "wrong words for those things" in that if one really wants to communicate ones understanding or appreciation for something, one had better learn the nomenclature. [[User:Tardyon|Tardyon]] ([[User talk:Tardyon|talk]]) 15:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)</div>

108.162.218.47 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1064:_Front_Door&diff=65300 Talk:1064: Front Door 2014-04-12T10:56:18Z

<p>108.162.218.47: </p> <hr /> <div>What kind of place does Randall live in, to be so afraid of being outside at night? '''[[User:Davidy22|<span title="I want you."><u><font color="purple" size="2px">David</font><font color="green" size="3px">y</font></u><sup><font color="indigo" size="1px">22</font></sup></span>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 13:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Legal professionals take note of potential suspect or scapegoat. [[User:DruidDriver|DruidDriver]] ([[User talk:DruidDriver|talk]]) 02:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> It is possible that Randall's fear at his door is from [[87|Velociraptors]] --[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 21:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC) --[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 21:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> I don't think the lack of embarressment relates to being eaten by the wolf, but rather the fact that since a wolf being in your yard is a legitimate concern due to Randall releasing one in the next 30 years. Therefore any fear as you approach your front door would be reasonable as there may be a wolf, and you shouldn't feel embarressed about it.</div>

108.162.218.47