explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1283: Headlines

2013-10-28T13:05:53Z

108.17.2.71:

"1912 is, of course, the year of the the sinking of the RMS Titanic."
I don't think this is such a given fact that people know when the Titanic sank. I'm removing the "of course". And someone should add an explanation for how these titles are supposed to get more clicks, and what "getting more clicks" even means or worth.
I'd do it myself, but I'm on my phone... on second thought, let me boot my laptop... [[Special:Contributions/95.35.58.162|95.35.58.162]] 06:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
: Okay, I added a short explanation for now. Someone should fix it, add mentions to NSFW photo articles and list articles (5 easy ways to add 10 years to your life expectancy!). I'm out. [[Special:Contributions/95.35.58.162|95.35.58.162]] 07:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Don’t you think the 1916 headline is a reference to the fatness of someone’s mom? [[User:Quoti|Quoti]] ([[User talk:Quoti|talk]]) 07:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Surely "1916 :'PHYSICIST DAD' TURNS HIS ATTENTION TO GRAVITY" is a second reference to Einstein?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_the_General_Theory]
[[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 07:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"1986 - This video of a terminally ill child watching the Challenger launch will break your heart" - Probably has something to do with the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown as well? {{unsigned ip|212.123.0.8}}
:I don't think so. The child is probably American. [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 12:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"Jan 1st 1990: 500 signs you're a 90s kid" - Can somebody explain this one? This is the only one I, and so far explainxkcd, cannot link to a specific historical event. Or is this supposed to be an example of an attention grabbing headline on a day nothing happened?--[[Special:Contributions/108.17.2.71|108.17.2.71]] 13:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1277: Ayn Random

2013-10-16T17:26:12Z

108.17.2.71:

I think that should be /(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}/i.

[[Special:Contributions/173.66.108.213|173.66.108.213]] 05:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I was confused for a while about what the b's were doing.

[[Special:Contributions/99.126.178.56|99.126.178.56]] 06:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to have an Ayn Rand category? --[[Special:Contributions/141.89.226.146|141.89.226.146]] 07:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain to the mathematically challenged *how* the list of names fits the regular expression? [[Special:Contributions/141.2.75.23|141.2.75.23]] 09:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
: Agreed, I would like to understand what the hell is going on with that. --[[User:Zagorath|Zagorath]] ([[User talk:Zagorath|talk]]) 09:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
: How specific do you want it? Basically it matches two words consisting of the letters plurandy. The list of names is just a random selection of two part names that only consists of these letters. More specifically it matches: Two groups ({2}), each consisting of a word boundary (\b), followed by a non-empty sequence of the letters plurandy ([plurandy]+), followed by a word boundary (\b), finally followed by an optional space ( ?). [[User:Pmakholm|Pmakholm]] ([[User talk:Pmakholm|talk]]) 09:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
::Also, the /'s on the end delimit the regex proper, and the `i` on the end denotes case insensitivity. --[[Special:Contributions/75.66.178.177|75.66.178.177]] 09:39, 14 October
2013 (UTC)
:::In the explanation of how the regex works after the explanation "'''the {2} on the end means to repeat the pattern, so it must match exactly twice'''" I think you need an explanation of how the optional space in the middle interacts with the word boundaries. I.e.
::::(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}
:::Expanding:
::::\b[plurandy]+\b ?\b[plurandy]+\b ?
:::Now the optional space at the end is redundant, and the space in the center is not optional, since if there is no space the word boundaries do not exist. If the space is present the word boundaries are redundent because letter space letter sequence always matches them.
::::\b[plurandy]+ [plurandy]+\b ?
:::And this now closely matches the text description "'''Overall, it matches two words separated by a space, composed entirely of the letters in [plurandy], which is what all the names listed have in common.'''" --[[Special:Contributions/108.17.2.71|108.17.2.71]] 17:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
:Some examples
:* "Ru Paul" would match, because it is two sequences, each containing only capital or lowercase versions of the listed letters.
:* "Randall Flagg" would not match, because the letters F and G are not in the bracketed list.
:* "Aura Anaya Adlar" would not match; even though the letters are all in the list, there are more than two sequences.
:Hope this helps!
:[[User:Swartzer|Swartzer]] ([[User talk:Swartzer|talk]]) 20:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/209.132.186.34|209.132.186.34]] 09:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not think Randal would make such mistake, he would probably use \< \> anyway... unless, he wants us
to think he did mistake, or that backslash was eliminated in html/javascript... thus poining ut to
source code of the page... is there something interesting?
: I skimmed over the source and didn't see anything unusual. The '\'s are absent from the source too. I think it's just that Randall (or a tool he's using) was so affraid of [[327|Bobby Tables]] that he stripped all backslashes from the alt text. {{unsigned|Jahvascriptmaniac}}
::The title text at xkcd.com now has the missing backslashes. Do you normally update the comic here to reflect updates?--[[Special:Contributions/108.17.2.71|108.17.2.71]] 16:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Already updated. You were saying?

Can someone explain to me where "In their view, if some humans are born more capable of satisfying their desires than other people, they deserve to reap greater rewards from life than others" comes from? I'm somewhat familiar with objectivist philosophy and I've never heard this put forward as an actual principle. [[Special:Contributions/50.90.39.56|50.90.39.56]] 14:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:Objectivism is the target for much scorn and ridicule in the intellectual world, for its being an inconsistent philosophy that has the sole objective of justifying selfishness and elevating it towards moral righteousness. It's used as the basis for libertarian thought and other radical capitalist economical theories and political stances which promote shameless exploitation (and this attracts further hatred). Randall is no exception to this trend of detractors, and I'd say rightfully so. Ayn Rand's writings are particularly awful, both aesthetically and content-wise, yet in the US a relatively large group of philosophers still adhere to her maxims and the debate continues.{{unsigned ip|37.221.160.203}}

Most people would write the regexp as /(\b[adlnpruy]+\b ?){2}/i. Using "plurandy" makes it look like a word, which is more confusing than using the letters' natural order. --[[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Would it be better to identify Alan Alda not for his role as Hawkeye Pierce in MASH, but for his role in The West Wing as Arnold Vinick, a fiscally-conservative Republican presidential candidate? [[Special:Contributions/193.67.17.36|193.67.17.36]] 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

:Depends, are we trying to remind him to general audience (I think MASH is more known) or find out why he was included in list? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There is probably an additional joke or three in that the regex is the minimum needed to capture the first three names together (hinted at by "plurandy" eg plural rand) , but also captures the others. on top of which all of the listed people are considered "intrinsically better" (by virtue of fame if nothing else)[[Special:Contributions/74.213.201.51|74.213.201.51]] 03:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Alan Ladd may have been a founding member of the Secret Council of /(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}/i. [[Special:Contributions/71.190.237.117|71.190.237.117]] 07:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably obvious to most programmers, but is it worth pointing out that part of the pun is that the random number generator function is called rand() in most C-family languages? [[Special:Contributions/130.60.156.183|130.60.156.183]] 14:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Another member of this secret society is Randall P [[Special:Contributions/79.182.178.53|79.182.178.53]] 16:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

From above: "Objectivism is the target for much scorn and ridicule in the intellectual world, for its being an inconsistent philosophy that has the sole objective of justifying selfishness and elevating it towards moral righteousness. It's used as the basis for libertarian thought and other radical capitalist economical theories and political stances which promote shameless exploitation (and this attracts further hatred). Randall is no exception to this trend of detractors, and I'd say rightfully so. Ayn Rand's writings are particularly awful, both aesthetically and content-wise, yet in the US a relatively large group of philosophers still adhere to her maxims and the debate continues." OK, but a few comments: All philosophies are inconsistent when looked at closely enough, refer Godel and others. Others do not see the inconsistency in Objectivism quite so plainly as in the quoted comment. Ayn Rand and Objectivism are not "the" basis of libertarian thought, there are far more highly thought of libertarian thinkers, a list of whom should come readily to mind to any of those occupying "the intellectual world" (sic), whether or not they have sympathy with libertarian ideas. It is also unfair to characterise Objectivism as having as its "sole" objective that as stated. Further, as a general principle, one ought not to take someone poking fun at a concept as *proof* that they are quite as opposed to it as you are. Now, whereas I would not categorise myself quite as a fellow traveller, a much fairer view of Objectivism is found at WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) [[Special:Contributions/81.135.136.159|81.135.136.159]] 11:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

:Other philosophies are no more consistent, agreed. But other philosophies do not claim perfect "objective" consistency as their fundamental principle. Attacking Objectivism/Objectivists for lack of internal consistency--or for not recognizing that at some, very fundamental, level it is all stacked on top of some assumptions (just like every other philosophy, and even the scientific method)--is the equivalent of attacking Christianity/Christians for lacking compassion and forgiveness. [[Special:Contributions/129.176.151.14|129.176.151.14]] 14:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

:Poking fun can indeed fall into the categories of self-irony or goodwill, but in this case Randall quite explicitly accuses the recipient of bias, making his disapproval pretty unequivocal.
[[Special:Contributions/199.48.147.40|199.48.147.40]] 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1277: Ayn Random

2013-10-14T16:14:53Z

108.17.2.71:

Talk:1149: Broomstick

2012-12-23T06:31:07Z

108.17.2.71:

Anyone have any thoughts on the title text? Is that intended to suggest that Toto was an annoyance that Dorothy was happy to be rid of? I'm not really sure why (if) it's supposed to be funny... [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 15:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

:I figured it was a kind of loophole closing. With a lot of movies, you have viewers that go "well if the protagonist had just done 'this', then they could have saved a lot of trouble." But in this "easier" scenario, what reason would the witch have to trust Dorothy? Collateral is often used to ensure that one party will keep up their end of a deal, so it helped to seal this one. [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 16:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

:I agree that the intention was to close a loophole, but I also was unable to fathom that Dorothy would leave Toto behind. It would be ''way'' out of character for her. If Dorothy had been a more self-centered character, then the title text would be a lot funnier. [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 11:38, 19 December 2012 (EST)

:Definitely to close a loophole. Dorothy has something the Witch wants that Dorothy doesn't need except the crazy witch wants to hurt her for them. The Wizard seems to have what she needs but won't give it except for what the witch wants. A trade seems much easier. But of course, who would trust the witch (and why would the untrusting witch start trusting)? All things considered, if you're in a strange land with freaky creatures and frighteningly perverse singalongs, you might consider a Scottish terrier a small price to pay to return to a Kansas farm which, while dull, is far superior to that crazy place. :) [[User:Chriss|Chriss]] ([[User talk:Chriss|talk]]) 16:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Chriss

:Cairn Terrier, original to the books and continued in the movie. Smaller and less feisty than a Scottie.A loyal breed, he probably escaped from the WWW after the trade, and is flying home with Dorothy and the Professor, unseen down in the bottom of the balloon basket.[[Special:Contributions/24.79.11.46|24.79.11.46]] 21:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

:Megan never struck me as much of a dog person. [[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 17:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

:Just wondering if Wizzard wants to see the broom, why not to show that to him, even let him touch that, than return it to the Witch, collect the pupy from her and merry on my way ? Kind of complicating the quest again, but retaining the all-for-friend appearance. [[User:prom|prom]] 1:13, 20.12.2012 (CET)

Since the book had {{w|Silver Shoes}} and the movie had {{w|Ruby Slippers}}, I think it's probably best to avoid discussion of the book... I've removed the reference to the Nome King - who doesn't appear in the movie or even that first Oz book. – ''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 18:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else notice Black Hat Guy in the balloon? How do you add the tag for "Comics with Black Hat Guy"?

:I dont think that is Black Hat Guy.. This guy's hat is taller. It also wouldn't fit into Black Hat Guy's character, as Megan is essentially tricking him into thinking she's killed the witch.

Due to the absence of lyrics, I assumed it was humming or whistling, not singing. --BigMal27 // [[Special:Contributions/192.136.15.178|192.136.15.178]] 12:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The irony here is her ruby slippers have the power to take her home, but she's trading them away for a broom, in the hopes that the wizard will take her home. She says "that was easy" although it was far more effort than just clicking her heels and repeating "there's no place like home".
[[User:Twifosp|Twifosp]] ([[User talk:Twifosp|talk]]) 02:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)twifosp

I'm still confused by this one - or maybe I just don't remember the movie well enough. She has the ruby slippers which would let her fly home by clicking them - so what has she gained by exchanging them indirectly for a flight home in a balloon? Has she traded her three companions and dog for the wizard's company? I feel I'm missing something. Also, to the person above saying it would be "out of character" for Dorothy to trade in this way, isn't that the point? That a sociopath version of Dorothy would resolve the problem completely differently? [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 23:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Which version of Dorothy is the sociopath? Can't WoO be summerized as "Young girl arrives in strange land, kills first person she sees, then sets out to kill again."?

Dorothy didn't know till near the end of the movie that the ruby slippers could get her home. I also want to point out that the Wizard never actually demanded the destruction of the witch. He just asked for her broomstick. The Tin Man suggested "But if we do that, we'd have to kill her to get it". The Wizard neither confirmed nor denied this, merely restating "Bring me her broomstick, and I'll grant your requests". So Dorothy trading for it without killing the witch is perfectly acceptable according to the terms outlined. {{unsigned|24.72.12.221}}
:Furthermore, the good witch was (likely) not going to tell her how to get home until she had learned some valuable lesson. This bypasses the whole ordeal. [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 05:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1133: Up Goer Five

2012-11-17T15:47:40Z

108.17.2.71: Basic English is not the source of the vocabulary

Isn't this comic essentially just saying 'rocket science: not actually as complicated as the phrase "it's not rocket science" would have us beleive'{{unsigned|203.211.80.97}}

This comic is also a celebration of what many people, presumably including former NASA employee Randall, consider the greatest technological achievement ever. {{unsigned|158.169.131.14}}

I'm surprised "ship" isn't among the most commonly used words in English. Where do these statistics come from? [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 12:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

:It makes sense that "capsule" and "spaceship" (as one word) are not in the "ten hundred" most-common words (Really, "thousand" isn't on this list either?), but not "fuel" and/or "tank"? People (context: US Midwesterner) talk about filling up their cars all the time! I'd like to see the original 1,000-word list. (Also: "Up Goer"? Well, it goes up -- that's about ALL it does. Makes sense, I guess.) --BigMal27 // [[Special:Contributions/192.136.15.149|192.136.15.149]] 13:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe is Randall referring to [[wikipedia:Simplified Technical English|Simplified Technical English]]? — [[User:Ethaniel|Ethaniel]] ([[User talk:Ethaniel|talk]]) 14:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
:There is an entry in the Simple English Wikipedia: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_English . The Simple English Wikipedia is interesting to browse, and challenging to write articles for. [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 14:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
:: Look up Basic English. It is the 850 most used words (or rather the 850 most used words when it was invented in 1930). According to Wikipedia it is still used in some countries as the basic vocabulary to first teach in English. The list of words is here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Basic_English_word_list . It looks like this could be what he used.i[[User:Carewolf|Carewolf]] ([[User talk:Carewolf|talk]]) 17:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
::: The 850 Basic English word list includes "liquid" and "second" but does not include "world", "five" and "third" so we're still looking for the vocabulary list.
I'm inclined to think this is also a nod to 1984's {{w|Newspeak}}, and the dumbing-down effect of an ''overly'' {{w|controlled language}}. It's good to simplify (linguistic) complexity, but with that simplification of text comes a simplification of capacity, too. We push back horizons by exploring unknowns, so restricting things to a small set of knowns may be counterproductive. -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 15:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
:This is the very point I am trying to make time and again. Some topics cannot be correctly explained to everyone. BTW XKCD #547 had a similar point.
The comic is almost certainly using http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Basic_English_word_list or another work list like it.[[Special:Contributions/82.16.27.115|82.16.27.115]] 16:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The phrase in the explanation "Helium is much less prone to catching fire" brought a smile to my lips as there is literally <SIC> nothing less prone to catching fire than Helium. [[Special:Contributions/90.208.12.4|90.208.12.4]] 23:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

:<s>Unfortunately some pedant has changed it to the technically correct, but much less smile-inducing "inflammable". Pitty, it made me smile too.</s> [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 23:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

:Edit: I've reverted it, because the whole edit was fraught with incorrect minor changes. 23:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

:Inflammable is '''wrong'''. It means the same as flammable. If you mean 'incapable of burning', the opposite of flammable/inflammable is ''nonflammable''. This is one of the subtleties of English which is avoided by using a greater number of simple words! [[Special:Contributions/87.252.61.205|87.252.61.205]] 13:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

::I wouldn't say Helium is least prone to catching fire. Sure, it's least prone to chemical reaction, but it is prone to nuclear fusion, which looks sort of like fire. On the other hand Iron, while it can be oxygenated, doesn't really catch fire doing that and I doubt it can chemically react in a way which would look that way. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

:::Fire is strictly defined as the rapid oxidation of a substance in the presence of heat - nuclear fusion is transmutation, not combustion. Iron can undergo a thermite reaction which makes spectacular flying flames. Youtube should have a billion videos of thermite reactions for your perusal. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]]

:::Fine steel wool (such as 0000 grade) burns exceedingly well. A survival technique is to use flashlight batteries to make a spark in the steel wool, which then becomes an excellent fire starter.

Since the comic can't use the actual words, it took me some time to find Wikipedia's articles that describe the actual "up goer." In case there's anybody like me who wanted to know more details, I found the {{w|Apollo (spacecraft)}} and {{w|Saturn V}} articles to be very interesting and relevant. BTW, "that stuff they burned in lights before houses had power" is {{w|RP-1|highly refined kerosene}}. [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 00:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

:Thanks for doing the research! I've incorporated this into the explanation. Feel free to add more if you think it needs more. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 01:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

::I like your additions. Much better than what I could come up with! [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 23:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be pretty nice for a day if everyone just spoke using the most used thousand words in his respective language. Just off hand, describing the band name "Led Zeppelin" would certainly be a treat--[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 18:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

:Anyone who will not be fired off trying to only speak the most used thousand words for workday is working manually or not at all. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

::Or is a school teacher, or working primarily with people who have language difficulties...

I think NASA should rebrand themselves "US Space Team" it's so much cooler than the "National Aeronautics and Space Administration"! --[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] ([[User talk:NHSavage|talk]]) 07:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not once heard the word "goer" before this. Thousand most common? [[Special:Contributions/67.52.144.154|67.52.144.154]] 16:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

:Randall used the verb "to go" and as it's a verb, any conjugation could be considered the same word. I think that's where he got "goer" from. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)