explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1589: Frankenstein

2015-10-12T23:31:31Z

108.162.249.183: Kevin

I get all that—I came here to find out what the moon landing reference is all about. Any ideas? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.191|108.162.249.191]] 04:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
: xkcd has referred to "moon landing hoax" theories and their proponents (whom xkcd disparages) a few times, including [http://xkcd.com/202/ 202 "YouTube"], [http://xkcd.com/258/ 258 "Conspiracy Theories"], and [http://xkcd.com/1074/ 1074 "Moon Landing"]; this is (at least) the 4th such reference. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 05:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
: He says that, because he is a MONSTER, and has a damaged brain from a complete moron instead of from a famous scientist. You know - the plot of the movie ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.115.22|162.158.115.22]] 08:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:: You think that because you're damaged by watching Young Frankenstein where they used a girl called Abbie Normal's brain. [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Frankenstein A.K.A Elvis. Judging by that hairstyle [[User:Prack|Prack]] ([[User talk:Prack|talk]])
: I suggest the moon landing reference is simply Randall's monster subverting the attempt to redefine the canon. If Randall succeeds in redefining the monster's name, then it also becomes canonical that the moon landings were faked. Randall is unlikely to agree with the canon he has just created.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.127|141.101.98.127]] 10:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:: That was my thought too (just not formulated quite as clearly). [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.33|198.41.238.33]] 11:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
::: I respectfully disagree. The monster saying that the moon landings were faked does not make anything surrounding the moon landings canon. It just makes it canon that the monster Frankenstein now holds this belief. Alternatively, in the story, The Doctor's creation was seen by the populace as an abomination amalgamated from human corpses. In the same vein, moon landing conspiracies are also amalgamated from several different sources each contributing their own theories to support the believer's general consensus, the moon landings were faked, and in the eyes of the populace this idea is an abomination. I'm surprised he didn't go for the low-hanging ''climate change is a hoax'' reference that would have been more recent for readers. In either case, it is fairly common for adherents of theories that run contrary to the scientific community to be labeled and name called by supporters of the scientific community. Especially in matters of religion.--[[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 16:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:::: These are good points. It makes sense that Frankenstein was made with the brain of a conspiracy theorist. I don't think Frankenstein is trying to subvert The Doctor's or the comic author's canon-forming efforts, or anything so sophisticated. I ''do'' think these thoughts, in some form, should be in the article. It was not at all obvious why a moon landing hoax reference is in the comic, to me it was irrelevant noise. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 16:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
::::: In Randall's version, claiming the moon landing fake is what makes Frankenstein an abomination, instead of being hideous and committing murder (note Randall's Frankenstein doesn't seem to have much of a bad look, and the story ends immediately). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.66.23|141.101.66.23]] 18:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::: I appreciate the more succinct explanation. I added this as an additional explanation above after the bit about the derivative works. I've never read the original story so I referenced the wiki for accuracy. My apologies if I made a mistake or didn't take the analogy far enough. --[[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 20:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
::::Re "Climate change is a hoax": Except for the small detail that a significant percentage of the population does, indeed, believe climate change is a hoax. I'm not one of them, but still. Anonymous 21:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
"The doctor" is a joke in itself because it's analog to "The monster" of the original, so it's likely to start the same discussions the other way around. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.212|162.158.90.212]] 09:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
: While it is also likely a direct callback to the Doctor Who naming issue by capitalizing the word "doctor", I agree that the alt-text is intended to make both "Doctor Frankenstein" or "The Doctor" correct, like the comic makes both "Frankenstein" and "the monster" both now canonically correct. "The Doctor" naming issue is also fairly commonly corrected, but for a different reason and is extremely specific to people who grew up watching the original show. For quite a while during the Classic era, The Doctor's actor at the time was credited as "Dr. Who" or "Doctor Who", despite often being introduced (by himself or his companions) as "The Doctor" during the actual dialogue of the show. So, I'm guessing that Randall's saying that either name in all three of these cases (the monster/Frankenstein, the doctor/Dr. Frankenstein, and The Doctor/Doctor Who) would be the correct name to use. {{unsigned|PopeChris}}
::The credits issue isn't just specific to people who grew up watching the classic show. The Ninth Doctor in 2005 was also credited as "Doctor Who", and Eccleston and Piper regularly referred to the character that way. Capaldi now does so as well (probably because he grew up in the era when the character was credited that way). Just as producer John Nathan-Turner went on a crusade in 1981 to get everyone to start calling the character "The Doctor", actor David Tennant did the same thing in 2006. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52|162.158.255.52]] 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Am I the only one thinking that the mouse over text is a matter of intentionally misunderstanding that the question wasn't about Dr. Who? --some guy[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.175|108.162.238.175]] 13:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:Or you can intentionally misunderstand it even further—if you accept this comic as your canon, The Doctor, as in the character from Doctor Who, created Frankenstein, as in the monster. And he also probably wrote the story too. Why not? He started Nero's fire, wrote half of Shakespeare's plays (and one of his companions inspired half of the rest), manipulated someone into killing JFK… --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52|162.158.255.52]] 22:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the monster's "real" name, I thought either Dr. Frankenstein or the monster himself named him "Adam", as in "Adam and Eve". Anonymous 21:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:The monster uses that name, but only metaphorically. Early on, he calls himself "the Adam of your labors", and later he says that he would have been "your Adam" but instead became "your fallen angel". Meanwhile, the fact that Dr. Frankenstein refuses to give the monster a name is an intentional symbol of his rejection of his creation, which the monster picks up on, which is a big part of what he struggles with. So, to say that "his name is Adam" would be a big stretch, and missing the point of the story.

:While nobody ever explicitly calls him "Frankenstein's monster", Dr. Frankenstein calls him "the monster" once, and a few others refer to him as "your monster" or "the monster". The doctor calls him "the creature" far more often, and uses other descriptions like "the demon", "you vile insect", etc., but "Frankenstein's monster" seems like the best name for the character.

:Finally, calling him "Frankenstein" isn't that silly. Why shouldn't he have the same last name as his father? James Whale's movie called him Frankenstein, and almost everything that's come since has been based far more on Whale's movie than Shelley's book. (If you think electricity was involved in bringing him to life, or that he was made of an amalgam of parts from different people, you're no thinking of the book.) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52|162.158.255.52]] 22:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

When Cueball says "Frankenstein is alive! I am a modern Prometheus!" he is confusing things more. The original book's title is "Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus" but now the Modern Prometheus and Frankenstein are different entities. [[User:Bartash|Bartash]] ([[User talk:Bartash|talk]]) 22:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

So basically there's nothing stopping me from renaming the monster "Kevin" if I want.

Talk:1581: Birthday

2015-09-24T22:41:26Z

108.162.249.183: Rob vs Cueball

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/23/happy-birthday-song-now-in-public-domain.html [[User:Mwburden|mwburden]] ([[User talk:Mwburden|talk]]) 11:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

https://ia601904.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.564772/gov.uscourts.cacd.564772.docket.html [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.245|162.158.92.245]] 11:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is there a <nowiki><code></nowiki> box around the transcript? {{User:17jiangz1/signature|12:51, 23 September 2015}}
:Because someone wrote the text with a space between each line instead of beginning each line with ":"
Like this
:Instead of like this --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

There are nine musical notes, not six.
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.92|173.245.50.92]] 13:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"Some might claim" seems wishy-washy to me. Perhaps it would be better to say "calling the cops in such situations is neither socially appropriate nor beneficial: this is the source of the humor in this comment." [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 14:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be one of the few comics with both Black Hat and White Hat. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.116|199.27.133.116]] 15:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a sub to law360, nor do I wish to bother giving them my throwaway email. What was the basis of the ruling? Why is this public domain now? {{unsigned|NotLock}}
:It's not, text updated. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.161|108.162.250.161]] 06:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The third line implies that "xkcd" should be pronounced as having two syllables. {{unsigned ip|108.162.250.163}}

:Clearly you have never heard "Happy Birthday" sung to someone with a really long name. It doesn't matter if it's two syllables, you just stretch it out. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.123|173.245.48.123]] 04:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

:The song can accommodate names of different lengths, consider the following https://youtu.be/vWs3035D69k?t=1m23s [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.180|108.162.250.180]] 08:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK The ruling only applies to the lyrics, they still have a valid copyright to the music, so if you sing the song you had better make sure it's to a suitable tune that is out of copyright! {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.80}}

:it was ruled that their copyright only covers a specific piano arrangement which is not the tune in use today, so sing your heart out: [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.7|173.245.54.7]] 14:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

One in 366 xkcd fans turned to the page today and initially thought that Randall had used a code not dissimilar to what Google uses to change the banner to a birthday greeting on the users' birthday. I was one of those fans... :-) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.23|141.101.99.23]] 09:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
:You mean one in 365,25... ;-) Happy Birthday with yesterday! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

On the cake most of the characters are separated by space and a dot, except beret guy and cueball who are separated by space and a heart, any thoughts? --Cris

:the explanation says that is Rob to the right of the heart, and that Cueball is in the top layer. Personally I can't tell the difference between those two stick figures in this cartoon. --Martin

Talk:1576: I Could Care Less

2015-09-13T23:41:06Z

108.162.249.183: Bechdel test

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"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw {{unsigned ip|‎141.101.98.100}}

The only people who complain about this phrase are pedantic morons who have never heard such things as "head over heels".

Here, I've composed a list of common vernacular/slang idioms which are valid, clear, and diametrically opposed to their original meaning:
* "Head over heels"
* "Break a leg"
* "It's the shit"
* "That's bad"
* "She's phat"
* "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"
* "Irregardless"{{unsigned|Cwallenpoole}}
: "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)
: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:
:* "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.
::*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)
:::*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)
:* "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.
::: 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)
:* "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.
:* "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! ♬''
:* "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).
::: 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)
:* "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.
:* "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).
: 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)
::(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.
:: 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)
:::''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)

:::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)

'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)

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)

: 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".
: 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.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.176|162.158.114.176]] 11:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
:: 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)

:: 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)

'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.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
[[http://www.linkedin.com/in/Comet Comet]] 23:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

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)
: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)

: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)

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)
: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)
::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)

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}}

: 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)

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)

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)

Either one works, depending on how the sentence is finished:
* I could care less...about this than other things.
* I couldn't care less...about this than I already do.
--EE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.135|108.162.216.135]] 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
: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)

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)
: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)

This is starting to feel like the [http://english.stackexchange.com/ English Language & Usage Stack Exchange] :-)

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.
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)

'I know what you're thinking about,' said Tweedledum; 'but it isn't so, nohow.'
'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.'
[[http://www.linkedin.com/in/Comet Comet]] 23:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

"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)
Is it proper to use citations or should we just link to the source? {{User:17jiangz1/signature|10:44, 12 September 2015}}

;Negation by association in French

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)

It's a shame we don't know Ponytail's name. If we did, this would pass the Bechdel test. Out of interest, are there any xkcds which pass the Bechdel test?

Talk:399: Travelling Salesman Problem

2015-09-02T11:21:22Z

108.162.249.183: More on O(n!)

Does anyone remember if the Brown Hat appears in any other comics?
: I'm not sure, so I created a category and page for him, let's see if that catches any others. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 22:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
::According to the transcript we have two different Brown Hat Guys here. I'm working on this.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
:::I'm inclined to think that Brown Hat is specific to this comic, the brown hat being the 50's style homburg or fedora common to salesmen trying to look respectable... Randall likely added the hats to depict folks from a bygone era, (one of whom has caught up with the trend.) -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 01:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
::The second Brown Hat Guy seems similar to Black Hat both in personality and hat shape. Could he be the same character? [[User:Richmond tudor|Richmond tudor]] ([[User talk:Richmond tudor|talk]]) 03:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It's probably not in the least important, but the network appears to be a collection of key cities in the US arranged by geographical location. [[Special:Contributions/130.160.145.185|130.160.145.185]] 23:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

added a better explanation of the title text. -- Nick,5 Oct 2013 {{unsigned ip|69.193.7.67}}

Has anyone answered the question in the title text? --[[User:Ricketybridge|Ricketybridge]] ([[User talk:Ricketybridge|talk]]) 23:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
:"it is bitter news that in the forty years since Held and Karp no better guarantee <nowiki>[than n^2.2^n]</nowiki> has been found for the problem" [http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/tsp/methods/progress/progress.htm]. So whereas linear programming techinques tend to be quicker than other algorithms, they have not been shown to be better than O(n^2.2^n).[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.55|141.101.98.55]] 17:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't someone at ebay still have to solve the TSP? I guess that's the entire point though. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.85.223|141.101.85.223]] 08:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
:No because you can send your sales information to all customers at once because they come to you, electronically. It takes no longer for you to be viewed by 100 people than by one person. Thus O(1). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.55|141.101.98.55]] 17:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
::I never used ebay so I don't know how it works and I'm probably missing something obvious. (Maybe it should be explained at the explanation?) If you wanted to personally sell about 17 items to 17 cities like the guy on the left, you have to visit each city by car or something. How does ebay visit the 17 cities to send the items?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.85.199|141.101.85.199]] 06:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
:::You don't have to personally visit each buyer. You put a description of the item(s) you are selling online on eBay, and then people can decide to buy or not. If they do buy, they pay you online, any communication is done online, and you send them the item(s) in the mail. I don't think its necessary to have an explanation of how eBay works, as the majority of people would know. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 16:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh god, wish I could vote this up... somehow... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.108|108.162.219.108]] 15:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It is curious that nobody here appears to have noticed that O(n!) is equivalent to O(n log(n)). Last time I checked, I seem to recall finding that O(n log(n)) was under O(n^2), and therefore under O(n^2.2^n). Or have I missed something? Certainly the worst-case can't be over O(n log(n)), as this is the class of the number of ways to sort a list of the cities. So, then, the O(n^2.2^n) must be better by some other multiplier. Come to that, O(n^2.2^n) seems to be within O(2^n). What am I missing here?
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.134|108.162.250.134]] 22:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
:I find it more curious that you think O(n!) is equivalent to O(n log(n))… it most certainly isn’t. O(n log(n)) is (provably) the optimal complexity of a {{w|Comparison sort}}; O(n!) is the complexity of {{w|Bogosort}}, one of the stupidest sorting algorithms imaginable. —[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.162|162.158.90.162]] 21:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
::This is so, but when one examines the theory of big O notation, one finds that they are mathemticaly equivalent. The point, therefore, is that the difference is purely in form. To illustrate: A list has O(n!) permutations possible. A sorting algorithm can therefore never sort a worst-case random list with less than O(n!) comparisons, as this is the minimum required to get the list in the correct order for the best case, when we assume the worst possible list for the algorithm. It is possible to prove that O(n!) is O(n log(n)) re-expressed. Therefore the difference seems merely to exist to highlight the general behaviour to humans. Agreed, however, that until the advent of the wavefunction-based "quantum" computer, the bogosort is as bad as it gets. This does not change the fact that any comparison sort must distinguish between O(n!) lists, and therefore can never do that with less than O(n! -1)=O(n!) comparisons. The proof of the n log n barrier rests on this, and n log n is merely a nicer-looking way of writing n! here. Unless I have encountered a flawed proof, this should hold, and even then, the number of possibilities that must be distinguished should bound it... Provided of course that this idea, too, is not logically flawed. If so, how, and if not, then why the notation? Is this somehow applying the same logic that distinguishes a binary sort from a linear one to the set of possible orderings? If so, it must be functionally pre-sorted, by some logic... Where have I erred, if I have erred, and, should I have erred, how might the correct solution be explained?
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.183|108.162.249.183]] 11:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

1572: xkcd Survey

2015-09-02T10:47:19Z

108.162.249.183: /* Explanation */ Explanation begun, with a somewhat mediocre quality level.

{{comic
| number = 1572
| date = September 2, 2015
| title = xkcd Survey
| image = xkcd_survey.png
| titletext = The xkcd Survey: Big Data for a Big Planet
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|First attempt. There is probably more to come.}}

As the comic says, it links to a survey page containing unusual questions.

A strange data set is a ripe opportunity for a sampling of readers.

There appears to be, so far, no motivation for this other than that shown on the comic itself.

What more is there to say?

This will doubtless expand when the data comes in.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript}}

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:15: Just Alerting You

2015-08-13T22:51:17Z

108.162.249.183: Brontosaurus vs. Apatosaurus

I think you mean an Apatosaurus. See {{xkcd|636}} for the difference.

The comic is funny because she is telling you she is strange but it should have been very ovious that she is strange because while most people travel by car or walking she rides a dinosaur which is not very common. ''Unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.38.90.50|72.38.90.50]].''
:She could be telling the dinosaur that she's strange. OTOH, since she seems to be riding it, she probably isn't introducing herself to it. [[User:gijobarts|gijobarts]] ([[User Talk:gijobarts|talk]]) 00:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
She must be Eve.22:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As of 2015 it is now generally accepted that Brontosaurus was a valid genus in its own right, separate and distinct from Apatosaurus. Given that Brontosaurus has long been more popular than Apatosaurus, perhaps the explanation should be updated to stated that Megan(?) is riding a Brontosaurus.

1532: New Horizons

2015-07-24T04:52:47Z

108.162.249.183: Added reference to relevant "What If?" article.

{{comic
| number = 1532
| date = June 1, 2015
| title = New Horizons
| image = new_horizons.png
| titletext = Last-minute course change: Let's see if we can hit Steve's house.
}}

==Explanation==
''{{w|New Horizons}}'' is a NASA mission launched in 2006 to study the dwarf planet {{w|Pluto}} and its moons. Its closest approach to Pluto will be on July 14, 2015 ([http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html NASA countdown clock]). In April and May 2015, it captured the first images of Pluto with enough resolution to see some details on Pluto's surface ([http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-new-horizons-sees-more-detail-as-it-draws-closer-to-pluto NASA photos from 12 April to 12 May]). These images are similar to the second pane of the comic, with Pluto shown as a gray dot only a few pixels wide.

''{{w|Dawn (spacecraft)|Dawn}}'' is a NASA mission launched in September 2007 to study the asteroid {{w|4 Vesta|Vesta}} and dwarf planet {{w|Ceres (dwarf planet)|Ceres}}. Its closest approach to Vesta began on July 16, 2011 by the {{w|Dawn (spacecraft)#Vesta_approach|Vesta approach}}, and entered orbit around Ceres on 6 March 2015. And in fact the pictures of Ceres are still in a much better resolution like in this comic [[1476: Ceres]], but these images are also still mysterious.

On the day this comic was published, ''New Horizons'' was at 0.34 AU from Pluto and 32.55 AU from the Sun ([http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Mission/Where-is-New-Horizons/index.php Johns Hopkins University's New Horizons page]). One {{w|Astronomical unit|Astronomical unit (AU)}} is the approximate distance of Earth from the Sun, or about 150 million kilometers.

Distances from the Sun by {{w|semi-major axis}}: Vesta 2.36 AU; Ceres 2.77 AU; Jupiter 5.20 AU; Pluto 39.26 AU.

A {{w|Gravity assist|slingshot manoeuvre}} is a technique where a spacecraft is maneuvered or accelerated with the help of a gravitational field. In the comic, presumably someone named Steve made the calculations for the New Horizons spacecraft to accelerate toward Pluto using {{w|Jupiter}}'s gravity.

In the first panel we see [[Cueball]] and [[Ponytail]] standing in front of a computer monitor and observing a series of images sent back from ''New Horizons'' as it approaches the planet. As the image resolution increases, it's obvious that the spacecraft is in fact approaching Earth, not Pluto. They blame this unexpected result on Steve, who apparently miscalculated the Jupiter slingshot maneuver, leading the probe to slingshot back on an incorrect trajectory towards Earth instead of towards Pluto.

Because the spacecraft carries 10.9 kg (24 lb) of radioactive plutonium-238, a crash on earth is extremely dangerous. It was estimated that a worst-case scenario of total dispersal of on-board plutonium during the launch would spread the equivalent radiation of 80% the average annual dosage in North America from background radiation over an area with a radius of 105 km (65 miles) ([http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Mission/Spacecraft/docs/NH_DEIS_Full.pdf Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the New Horizons Mission]). Because of decay during the flight, the situation would be slightly less dire if it crashed years later, but still a major disaster.

Less importantly, this is a huge embarrassment, especially in front of the successful ''Dawn'' team, who were the first to get a probe to visit a dwarf planet. Part of the joke is the utter implausibility of such an error being made, and then not being detected.

The title text suggests the team is considering crashing the probe into Steve's house as punishment for his errors. However, doing so would expose Steve's neighbors to potentially lethal levels of radiation. Therefore, the team would most likely have to crash the probe into an unpopulated area or the sea, to minimize human exposure. Randall described what might happen if ''New Horizons'' crashed into one's car in his [[what if?]] blog [http://what-if.xkcd.com/137/], and assuming the car was parked in the driveway the house would be similarly affected by the blast.

Randall has used a character 'Steve' in a similar context in [[809: Los Alamos]] (set in 1945). If this is the same person, then 'Steve' would be at least 90 years old in 2015.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Ponytail are standing in front of a large computer console. Cueball's hands are on the keyboard; both are looking at the screen.]
:Cueball: We made it! After all these years, ''New Horizons'' is finally revealing the surface of Pluto!
:Ponytail: Take ''that'', ''Dawn'' team.

:[In the next four frames, we see photos, entirely black except for a circle in the middle. The circle is initially small, indistinct and appears in shades of grey. Successive circles are larger showing more color and shade variation. In the last, we see a blurry but recognizable outline of Africa, the Middle East and part of Western Asia, along with some clouds. The lighting pattern suggests that it is daytime in Africa, sometime in the northern summer.]

:[A close-up of the two at the console.]
:Cueball: OK, who did the calculations for the Jupiter slingshot maneuver?
:Ponytail: (facing away from the computer console) Dammit, Steve...

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Space]]