explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:483: Fiction Rule of Thumb

2015-12-23T21:48:11Z

108.162.228.41:

Also, you get minus points if you have to add a totally reading-flow rupturing explanation.
And if the words which supposedly come from one language have completely different linguistic structure.
And for random apostrophes.
And if you cannot read the book without a wordlist for constant reference next to you.
Rule of thumb #2: if it's not clear from the context or from a smooth, unobtrusive explanation* and/or if the reader has to go back the second time it is mentioned to remember what it was, don't use it.
:Exception to this: Terry Prachett. How the hell can that guy make funny literature out of annoyingly large footnotes?? [[Special:Contributions/132.187.20.160|132.187.20.160]] 09:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I know an author who made up words and still turned out well! His name is Andrew Hussie, creator of Homestuck. Captchalogue, Sylladex, Alchemiter, Cruxite, Respiteblock, Recuperacoon, Cookalizer, Fenestrated Wall, you name it! {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.47}}
:Well one, that's a webcomic, not a book. Two, most of these words are portamntus (Captcha + Catalogue = Captchalogue, Recuperate + Cocoon = Recuperacoon). And while this is certainly a nice observation, it doesn't really contribute to the discussion since the page is not really about Homestuck.--[[User:Edrobot|Edrobot]] ([[User talk:Edrobot|talk]]) 19:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

''Dune'' comes to mind... [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.71|199.27.128.71]] 07:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that Randall omitted Shakespeare from the list of people allowed to make up words. Shakespeare used 17,677 different words in all of his known works. About 10% of those words are words that he made up and are now technically official English (includes changing parts of speech for existing words)[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.100|108.162.216.100]] 21:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
:What's the problem?
:If you can make up a story you should be able to make up words. A much worse problem is when an author thinks describing scenery is part of the story. And when women stop in mid paragraph to describe clothing... Feck that!
:Making up a word or two to get around shit like that is OK. It is only hand-waving a ghost out from the machine. Asimov was terrible for that crap in his early work. He grew out of it, in a manner of speaking, recognising there was a time and place.

there are many exceptions to this rule... Jhereg, for example.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.51.116|173.245.51.116]] 10:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised that {{w|A Clockwork Orange}} by Anthony Burgess hasn't been mentioned. It is regularly featured in 'Top 100 Books' lists, but features its own language, Nadsat. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 11:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a lot of comments here are based on missunderstanding. The CHANCE that the book is good is lower. It doesn't mean "more made up words" -> "worse book". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.228.41|108.162.228.41]] 21:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1603: Flashlights

2015-11-14T11:31:17Z

108.162.228.41:

Is that it? I swear there must be more to the joke than this explanation implies. It just describes what's going on in the comic. [[User:Enchantedsleeper|Enchantedsleeper]] ([[User talk:Enchantedsleeper|talk]]) 10:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

-- Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. [[User:Pete|Pete]] ([[User talk:Pete|talk]]) 11:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

---- but sometimes there is no spoon [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.62|108.162.221.62]] 06:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

::Ceci n'est pas une pipe. [[User:Sobsz|Sobsz]] ([[User talk:Sobsz|talk]]) 08:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"A typo", uh? Sure, sure, of course it was only a typo, Randall ;) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.57|108.162.221.57]] 10:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:I also think the type was that he searched on flashlight instead and found the flashlight enthusiast page from that ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's unfair to assume lack of detail in the explanation, the fact that research was obviously done on the meaning of fleshlight an it's association to the comic, is more than I would have original got from the comic by itself. However if you perceive additional meaning please share, the thing I love about 'This' website is for the ability for others to add their interpretations. --[[User:Igwarrender|Igwarrender]] ([[User talk:Igwarrender|talk]]) 10:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Quote:
<blockquote>When Cueball refers to classic Flashlights(torches) as dim and finnicky, this gives reason to assume that the flashlight he is holding is going to be ridiculously overengineered.</blockquote>
I disagree. In the generation of Randall (and me), the flashlights most of us had as kids really did suck and were dim and finnicky. That's not an exaggeration which, as is implied in the explanation, is used to prepare the joke. It's more of an explanation on why he is interested in modern flashlights in the first place. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.225|162.158.91.225]] 10:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
: AND they almost always had at least half flat batteries. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.239.32|198.41.239.32]] 11:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope...nothing to do with fleshlights. There are in fact multiple flashlight enthusiast forums that have nothing to to with sex toys. Use your favorites search engine to search "flashlight enthusiasts: [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.48|173.245.54.48]] 10:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's funny how "the explanation" has a need to point out that there were no prior knowledge about fleshlights. (according to Wikipedia) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.180.197|162.158.180.197]] 12:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I never leave for work without my trusty '''Lumapower EDC-LM31''' with its '''Cree XML(U2) LED''' and its '''3.7 volt size 14500 Lithium Ion cell.''' But I'm not a flashlight geek! Besides, 420 lumens is no where near enough power to set trees on fire. (Personally, I think this comic is an example of Rule 34. Randall was originally thinking about Fleshlights, typo'd into flashlights, and discovered a sort of geeky torch porn sort of thing out there. Also, the flashlight I describe is real, but has nothing on the stuff you'll see in Candlepower Forums.) [[User:Co149|Co149]] ([[User talk:Co149|talk]]) 12:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:The 100,000 lumen lamps (X-LED MRK72 or is that MKR72?) have to be water-cooled! That's plenty hot enough for me.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.147|162.158.34.147]] 14:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
::There are videos of flashlights that set things on fire, without lensens etc. One of them is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhdKnMlJ4H4 this] video of an ''Magic Scorpion'' flashlight, a halogen variant. But I've also seen video's of (custom-built) LED flashlight that set things to smolder. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.111|141.101.104.111]] 14:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
: It's not lumen that sets things on fire, it's lux. All you need is a good focus. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.235.101|198.41.235.101]] 17:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
: Also note [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkkU0UO3sek this] flashlight, which is just a bunch of ultra-bright LEDs crammed into a case that resembles an oversized flashlight and on full power drains its battery in about 15 minutes...and lights up a city street like it's day. --NXTangl [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.42|108.162.216.42]] 21:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It feels to me that "their highest-end models are ALSO capable of setting trees on fire." is some advertisement where the tree is a metaphore for one's organ. as such it is clear that "They're impossible to use without severe burns". which makes it really twisted that "some [people] swear it's worth it" {{unsigned ip|108.162.228.167}}

I think the burning trees joke comes from this [[http://www.wickedlasers.com/torch "...even fry and egg"]] thing. --[[User:Arturojain|Arturo Jain]] ([[User talk:Arturojain|talk]]) 14:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Should the explanation contain something about the prevalence of internet forums dedicated to enthusiasts of various activities or hobbies? [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 17:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Currently no (albeit indirect) link to https://what-if.xkcd.com/13/ or others like 119? Ok, so only going to be an incidental link, but... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.161|141.101.106.161]] 17:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

it is missimg reference to another comic where randall makes a joke about flashlight and fleshlight. The comic had a star wars setting with death vader and luke skywalker. https://xkcd.com/1397/ --anonymous [[Special:Contributions/162.158.153.41|162.158.153.41]] 15:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"Let's" appears to be missing an apostrophe. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.21|173.245.54.21]] 20:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Now, see, this is why we Brits call them 'torches'. Less risky with finger trouble. (Hint - don't google 'finger trouble') [[User:Jdluk|Jdluk]] ([[User talk:Jdluk|talk]]) 21:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

could it be referencing http://www.wickedlasers.com/torch ?

[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.38|173.245.54.38]] 17:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)an internet flashlight enthusiast

Why are there personal opinions like "maybe they're trying to trick you!" in the main body? Weird. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.140|162.158.142.140]] 02:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"Of course, a flashlight that cannot safely be pointed at things is fairly useless for the traditional purpose of a flashlight". Really now? A flashlight that set targets on fire is pretty useful - you only need to flash something once, and it'll stay illuminated without having to keep the flashlight on![[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.134|108.162.242.134]] 05:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC){{unsigned ip|192.0.189.206|12:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)}}

Just gonna leave this here https://youtu.be/MGANrd7u4o0
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.228.41|108.162.228.41]] 11:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1390: Research Ethics

2014-07-04T11:03:18Z

108.162.228.41:

I was expecting something else for a comic on July 4th. [[User:MrGameZone|0100011101100001011011010110010101011010011011110110111001100101]] ([[User talk:MrGameZone|talk page]]) 05:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
:Not every xkcd fan is from the US, Randall has to keep the comics global.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.242|108.162.210.242]] 06:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

''"Randall writes "what" twice, which is a classic optical illusion."'' So - did it he do this on purpose (I fail to see the connection with the subject), or is it just the explanation of why he missed the typo he made? [[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 07:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It's very deliberate. The illusion demonstrates what the brain chooses not to see. Facebook is making some content not visible to us as an experiment. There really is far less subtext to this than you think there is. There isn't some deep meaning. It was an experiment to see if we would see it. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.152|173.245.56.152]] 07:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Similarly, what the text is saying is we have no right to peer into the algorithms that do that snooping because it belongs to Facebook and it wouldn't be fair to them for us to see it." I think the title text is actually saying the opposite. "it's not like we could just demand to see the code that's governing our lives". It looks like it's being sarcastic, since anything that runs our lives should be our business by default. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 08:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
:Then again, it's not really supposed to be governing our lives, is it? Any impact it has your life is because you gave it the permissions and information to do so, which was voluntary (by sharing your selfies and rants under their terms) and not mandated by an overreaching government. I agree that the text is sarcastic, but in a different way than you mentioned. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 10:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I was reading the title text to be a reference to open source code and the more zealous belief that ALL code should be open source. Not necessarily making a comment on it, so much as trying to raise the point (almost as a troll) to compare privacy concerns with access to source code.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.91|108.162.216.91]] 08:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I read it and couldn't understand what what she was saying. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.50|108.162.222.50]] 08:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The title text is an oblique reference to the implications of recent SCOTUS ruling on corporations having similar rights as people (albeit to do with religion, as opposed to privacy), no?

Talk:1390: Research Ethics

2014-07-04T11:01:36Z

108.162.228.41: