explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1141: Two Years

2021-07-19T20:46:53Z

162.158.74.237:

There are no words to convey how awesome you guys are. Thank you.

Also, great Portal reference.

[[Special:Contributions/81.32.87.159|81.32.87.159]] 07:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Flip cancer. Lost my mother-in-law to it and now my dad is undergoing chemo for stage IV lung cancer.
:Seconded. This strip hits close to home, even years after the fact. And given that of my parents and grandparents only one grandmother was not yet diagnosed with any type of cancer, both frequentist and Bayesian statisticians probably agree I should be cautious myself. [[Special:Contributions/46.142.57.253|46.142.57.253]] 20:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC) madd

Did anyone else think the second to last panel was a couple who were sitting close to ground zero of a nuclear bomb? It took several glances to finally see a tree instead of a mushroom cloud. [[User:Sayno2quat|Sayno2quat]] ([[User talk:Sayno2quat|talk]]) 15:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

:When I first saw that panel from my peripheral vision, I also thought it was a mushroom cloud.[[User:CityZen|CityZen]] ([[User talk:CityZen|talk]]) 17:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

:Now that you mention it - on my monitor, before scrolling, I only swa the upper half of what looked indeed like a mushroom cloud. [[Special:Contributions/46.142.57.253|46.142.57.253]] 19:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC) madd

: Agreed; the mushroom cloud was my first impression, too. And I hazard the guess that it was intentional: it's an apt metaphor of how your world seems to explode... -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 14:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The language of referring to Randall's girlfriend as "wife" before they were married is awkward.[[User:CityZen|CityZen]] ([[User talk:CityZen|talk]]) 17:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

:Ok, "partner" is slightly less awkward, but I think using "Cueball/Megan" instead of "Randall/Randall's partner" would be most consistent.[[User:CityZen|CityZen]] ([[User talk:CityZen|talk]]) 21:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

:: +1 on '''s/Randall/Cueball/g''' (and '''s/(girlfriend|partner|wife)/Megan/gi''') with an explanation that the comic very likely depicts real-world events in Randall's and (real-world) Megan's life. Though it might be tributary to make the inferential leap, I think would be entirely "unscientific" to do so (which is so ''un''Randall...) It also reinforces the notion that this happens to many, many more couples: Randall and Megan are not unique in what they are experiencing, though Randall does an excellent job of illustrating just what they're going through. (And yes, I could just go and change it myself, but wanted to discuss beforehand.) -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 14:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

:::Wikis lack democracy. Somebody puts their foot down, and that's that. In any case, I think if someone is going to insist that these characters can only represent Randall and his wife Megan, it's odd and slightly disrespectful to never use her proper name.[[User:CityZen|CityZen]] ([[User talk:CityZen|talk]]) 01:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

::::Crying out about social injustice is the adult version of screaming "Ouch!" when a parent grabs a child's arm to get their attention. Democracy is not do-what-you-want-to. Democracy is having a discussion and then acting upon the results of that discussion. There have been [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Randall_in_Comics|many]] [[Talk:1117:_My_Sky|discussions]] about having Randall in comics. The result was that whenever Randall decides to place himself in a comic, that we should honor that. So, instead of using a generic character he put himself and his wife into the comic. So, we honor that. We do not know the name of his wife, Randall is a very private person, we respect his privacy and only go by the information he gives out, and we don't make wild speculations, this is why we don't refer to her by (any) name; it's the most respectful thing we can do.

::::To prevent vigilante edit warring I've locked the page. Now, if you think that the site should not recognize when Randall specifically puts himself in comics, then there is a reason to bring this discussion back to the table. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 05:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

:::::So why is this comic different from [[881]], [[931]], [[933]], and [[996]]? There was consistency until [[1141]]. Consistency is what's wanted in a Wiki.[[User:CityZen|CityZen]] ([[User talk:CityZen|talk]]) 05:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

::::::I believe those other comic is rather general, where this particular one has enough set of facts that specific to Randall's case. That said, I agree with you that consistency is good, having the character called Cueball and Megan and explicitly said that those represent Randall and his wife probably better. [[User:Arifsaha|Arifsaha]] ([[User talk:Arifsaha|talk]]) 16:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

::::::My two cents: As [[User:Arifsaha|Arifsaha]] said, those other comics are general. Each is ''one'' scene demonstrating ''one'' situation or discussion, so Cueball/Megan could be any couple going through cancer treatments. In this case, quantity ''does'' matter in determining the significance of "evidence that this is Randall". There are so many scenes here that it's clear a very specific and personal story is being shared.
::::::Also, the title text usually is from Randall's perspective (obviously there are exceptions, but when the text is realistic, it's a safe assumption). Here it says "she", not "my wife", indicating that the person being referenced has already been introduced (i.e. is in the comic). Further linking the Randall text with the characters is the fact that it directly references the panel 5 scene, rather than: "related ideas that are not in the comic" ([[933]]/[[996]]), simple objective explanation ([[931]]), or a reference to a previous strip ([[881]]). So unless you want to argue that the title text is intended to be ''Cueball'' addressing the readers and not Randall, it seems like this is all about Randall & his wife. [[User:Jerodast|- jerodast]] ([[User talk:Jerodast|talk]]) 16:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

:::::As [[User:CityZen|CityZen]] said above, consistency is good. It is not that we don't want to recognize Randall in the comic, but we probably want to recognize it in the way where we said that in this comic Cueball and Megan represent Randall and his wife. I imagine it is possible that a reader see other comic and start questioning why the characters were called Cueball and Megan in the other comic but called Randall and his wife in this comic. I believe it will be easier to simply consistently label the character Cueball and Megan, then explicitly and clearly said and explain that in this particular comic, Cueball and Megan represent Randall and his wife. [[User:Arifsaha|Arifsaha]] ([[User talk:Arifsaha|talk]]) 16:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

::::::Cueball and Megan do not represent Randall and his wife. Cueball and Megan are the everyman/woman (and usually not even that but the geekiest kind of every(wo)man). Now, if Randall were building a story arc that spanned 1000 comics I would believe that this was Cueball and Megan, in character, standing in for Randall's real life experience. But the fact is, Randall clearly marks when he intentionally has multiple comics that build directly upon each other, see [[:Category:Comic series]]. If xkcd were a story driven web comic we'd have to point out that Cueball and Megan have been married several times, as well as been flirtatious with other characters, had children both in and out of wedlock. It's much more easily explained that this comic is Randall and his wife merely drawn "in the style of". Ignoring an unusually personal comic for the sake of consistent character naming seems absurd to me. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 17:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

::::::Also there is an established precedent for [[:Category:Comics featuring Randall Munroe|Randall's appearance in comics]] - he appears as an unadorned stick figure in all of them, despite clearly being Randall. Just because he looks like Cueball doesn't mean we need to call Randall "Cueball but really he's Randall this time". If anything that's even more confusing. Randall and Cueball both appear in (different) comics, and they're drawn the same. I'm sure people can handle that. [[User:Jerodast|- jerodast]] ([[User talk:Jerodast|talk]]) 16:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Panel 3 is possible reference/inspiration for comic [[1024: Error Code]]--[[User:Shine|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine|talk]]) 18:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

:Given what we know from Randall's past two years, I would rather infer that comic 1024 was inspired by one of these activities as seen in panels 3 and 8. [[Special:Contributions/46.142.57.253|46.142.57.253]] 19:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC) madd

::I was leaning towards the trip in panel 3 inspiring comic 1024 rather than referencing it as well. [[User:Shine|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine|talk]]) 20:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sooo... Because the clipboard-holding character in the first panel is a woman, we assume she's a nurse instead of a doctor?

:Seriously the clipboard-holding character is much more likely to be a doctor than a nurse if they are communicating actual results of medical tests.--[[Special:Contributions/71.251.30.68|71.251.30.68]] 03:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Anonymous

::I agree, although, Randall went out of his way to draw a garment on her that has short sleeves, unlike a lab coat. However, doctors wear scrubs too. I'm changing it. [[User:Jerodast|- jerodast]] ([[User talk:Jerodast|talk]]) 15:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask questions, but I don't really get why the waiter says eww at the end? Thanks in advance! Love this site! {{unsigned|169.229.101.43|12:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)}}

:The waiter says "eww" at the end because, instead of celebrating a wedding anniversary (or similar) which is what he is expecting, the couple are celebrating a "biopsy-versary". It's the contrast between the mental image of what happens in a biopsy with the emotions of what is normally expected when celebrating an anniversary (eg wedding anniversary as opposed to cutting-a-hole-in-you anniversary).[[Special:Contributions/203.1.252.5|203.1.252.5]] 03:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

:It's the equivalent of "yuck" and similar expressions of moderate gross-out. [[Special:Contributions/109.154.103.101|109.154.103.101]] 09:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we get a Cancer series tag on some of these comics? There have been a lot of them, after all. --[[User:Castriff|Jimmy C]] ([[User talk:Castriff|talk]]) 14:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

:Down at the bottom, there's a section that lists the categories this page is in. The Cancer category has been there since this page was created. Also, please add comments in chronological order. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 14:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Since my mother has just made her 27th ''biopsy-versary'', my sympathies, prayers and best hopes are with anyone who has won someone from, lost someone to, is fighting or is fighting with someone, any form of Cancer.

Which is, pretty much everyone; is this forum, with Randall in particular.

Paulo Sedrez [[Special:Contributions/139.82.111.111|139.82.111.111]] 20:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

the first few frames got me... ;_; [[Special:Contributions/50.4.66.122|50.4.66.122]] 03:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not know if this is a Scary Thought, but, in IV machines, a long beep repeating itself (for example, the 2nd panel here) means that either the IV machine had finished its infusion or there in an occlusion (which means that the flow from the bag to the vein was cut off somehow, a problem that can be inflicted by simply moving the tube in a way that bends or even folds the tube). If an occlusion occurs, a nurse would need to fix the problem (in my example case: re-'straighten' the tube) and very painfully push the fluid into the vein until the gap caused the occlusion disappears into the vein. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 20:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would assume panel 8 depicts their honeymoon since it follows directly after the wedding panel. -j [[Special:Contributions/96.242.254.65|96.242.254.65]] 14:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
:Yeah. I added it.–[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 23:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been four years since I first read this comic. I still tear up a little each time I get to the "still alive" panel. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.81}}

Is it just me, or does Randall appear to be performing a biopsy on his dinner in panel 11? Anonymous 03:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

in the last panel, she looks like a male megan[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.237|162.158.74.237]] 20:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2478: Alien Visitors 2

2021-06-19T14:41:09Z

162.158.74.237:

Sorry for intruding, I am just delighted that I am early [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.161|162.158.166.161]] 14:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"Maybe we shouldn't stand right under it." This line might (inadvertently?) reference the common alien-movie fail in which massive spacecraft hover at low altitude over human populations without obliterating them and their infrastructure. It might also be bathroom humor. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.134|172.68.129.134]] 15:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
:I'm with the original explanation. The aliens just don't seem very advanced, so they're worried that the spaceships are poorly constructed and pieces might fall off, or the entire ship might just drop. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
:You are probably correct with respect to Randall's intentions. The situation, though, brings to my mind Turtledove's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwar_series Worldwar series], in which "The Race" had very advanced technology (hence little risk of spaceships crashing on their own) but had, at least initially, a poor opinion about human technologies and their advancement. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.132|172.68.129.132]] 18:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

To the individual who made a callback to Capri Sun--bless you. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.83|172.70.130.83]] 19:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

:Need a category for this recurring comic: [[:Category:Alien Visitors]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.65|172.69.35.65]] 00:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Doesn’t the United States still add lead to gasoline used for piston airplane engines, and also high octane race car fuel?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.55|162.158.62.55]] 03:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
:Very limited niche use remains, phased out of major applications. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.206|141.101.98.206]] 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

An honorary mention might be made to {{w|Thomas Midgley Jr.}}, who helped to make both TEL and CFCs widely used. (Though didn't get the chance to widely promote his bed-lift before it also proved unsafe.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.206|141.101.98.206]] 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the Hindenburg exploded. It just burned.

1800: Chess Notation

2017-02-28T21:51:24Z

162.158.74.237: /* Explanation */ Alternate explanation for scoring at all being a blunder.

{{comic
| number = 1800
| date = February 17, 2017
| title = Chess Notation
| image = chess_notation.png
| titletext = I've decided to score all my conversations using chess win-loss notation. (??)
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Please change this comment when editing this page and not remove it too fast.}}

[[Cueball]] begins a conversation with [[White Hat]] with the declaration that he will be scoring his conversations using chess notation. White Hat is not interested, so the conversation dies out, with both Cueball and White Hat saying "Fine". And just as promised, Cueball has scored this particular conversation, giving it a '''½-½''', as he believes that this is a drawn conversation. The reasons for the draw, as explained below too, may be due to a stalemate (the conversation isn't going anywhere), draw by repetition (both players have played the same moves over and over again, and cannot improve their position - probably if "Fine" had been repeated more times), 50-move rule (the conversation has been going on fruitlessly for too long - unlikely here since it is only 4 dialogues long) or something else.

The title text contains the same assertion that Cueball is scoring all his conversations in chess notation, followed by a (??). In chess notation, (??) means the move in question was a very bad, or losing, move - a blunder. Cueball scores this part of the conversation as a blunder, which is understandable as it immediately turned the conversation against him. (Or alternatively is scoring his idea to score all conversations in chess win-loss notation as a blunder.) If Cueball is treating his conversation itself like a chess game (memorizing openings, using tactics, and evaluating various possible things to say), then he will avoid ever opening a conversation with this statement again. If he was scoring his idea to score his conversations as a blunder, then that itself may yet be another blunder. Either way, quite a ?? indeed!!

The (??) may also be interpreted not as chess notation, but as regular interpunction, in which case it would denote a confused reaction by someone who doesn't know what chess notation is (like White Hat in the comic). This makes it a double entendre, covering both the case when either the conversation party or the reader doesn't understand what chess notation is (and thus reacts with confusion to Cueball's announcement), and the case when chess notation is understood, and actually used to comment on the soundness of Cueball's move as being a blunder.

=== Chess notation (and annotation) ===

{{w|Chess}} players and critics use certain {{w|chess notation|notations}} to write down chess games in a very short fashion (for example the {{w|Forsyth–Edwards Notation}}, which is both computer- and human-readable). In addition, ''{{w|chess annotation symbols}}'' like ! and !? help to comment certain moves in a similarly short fashion. That way it is possible to print or discuss a chess game (or a chess opening) in a limited space, for example in printed reference manuals.

A short synopsis about common chess annotation symbols:

!! – brilliant move: Very strong and counter-intuitive move. A sound sacrifice. 
! – good move: A surprisingly good move. 
!? – interesting move: Risky, or worthy of attention and analysis. 
?! – dubious move: Designates a move that may be bad, but it is hard to explain why. 
? – mistake: Poor move that should not be played. 
'''??''' – {{w|blunder (chess)|blunder}}: Exceptionally bad move, usually designates a move that turns a winning position into a draw, or a draw into a losing position. 

The score of the "white" player is always given first, followed by the score of the "black" player. Possible {{w|Chess tournament#Scoring|notations}} for the game outcome are: 

1-0 – a win (for white) 
0-1 – a loss (for white) 
'''½-½''' – a draw 

Because every chess game begins by moving a white piece, the following can be observed: When Cueball ends a conversation with 1-0,
* he either began the conversation, and won it;
* or he responded to a communication request, and lost the conversation.

=== Draws in chess ===
A chess game can be won (and lost for the other party) or {{w|draw (chess)|drawn}}. It should be noted that draws most commonly occur by {{w|Draw by agreement|agreement}}, or very rarely by {{w|stalemate}}. A stalemate is a situation where the opponent's king is not in check, but none of the opponent's pieces can be moved in a legal way. In a human conversation, what amounts to a draw, and what amounts to a stalemate?

If agreed draws should be allowed (and under which circumstances) is a matter of some discussion among chess players, thus adding another point to Randall's comic. For example, some tournament rules (e.g. the so-called "{{w|Draw by agreement#Only theoretical draws allowed (Sofia Rules)|Sofia Rules}}") do not allow a draw to be offered directly - any player has first to announce the intention of drawing to the arbiter (referee), who then decides if the position should be played out further or not.

The official chess rules offer some ways the concept of a "draw" could be applied to a human conversation. According to the {{w|World Chess Federation}} (FIDE) rules, a draw can occur:
#by agreement. Any player can offer a draw when it is his turn to move.
#by stalemate. As explained above: The king is not in check, but no legal moves are available.
#when the same position (with the same possible legal moves) occurs at least three times, with the same player having the same possibilities of moving his pieces. This draw must be requested by the player. According to the FIDE rule 9.6, the arbiter himself declares the game drawn when the same position occurs five times.
#when 50 moves have passed without a capture or a pawn move. Again, the draw occurs only upon request. According to the same FIDE rule 9.6, the arbiter declares the game drawn when 75 moves have passed, without a request by either player.
#when one of the players has used up his time, but his opponent has not enough material to mate. For example, king and pawn mate against a king in certain situations, while king against king leads to a draw by the 50-move-rule.
#when both players have used up their time, but the arbiter cannot determine who did so first. This is impossible with modern electronic chess clocks, though.
#upon request, when the opponent does not play seriously and attempts to win the game by timeout.

=== So, what's a "draw" in a conversation? ===
*Draw agreed: As pointed out by Randall in his cartoon, a drawn conversation is one where all participants agree.
*50-move-rule: Conversation is drawn, based on the excessive duration of the talk.
*Draw by repetition: Both participants have talked in circles, arriving at the same conclusions all over again. No progress has been made.
*Draw by stalemate: When A cannot convince B, but B doesn't have any legal argument left, and would have to resort to lies or logical fallacies in order to continue.

=== Chess games and conversations ===
The notion of applying chess scores to conversations raises the question if and how chess play and conversations can be compared.

Chess games and human conversations do have some things in common:
*The outcome fully depends on the behavior of the partner/opponent.
*As in chess, there is no certainty that a certain statement will have the desired effect. The opponent can always react in a surprising way.
*Chess players, like conversation partners, do not "calculate" the opponent's next move(s). They don't compute anything. They are not cold-blooded machines. They do, however, similar to conversation partners in a job interview or a televised debate:
**create a plan, and revise and refine it as necessary
**try to get a good feel of the situation, and try to remember how they dealt with a similar situation in the past
**try to identify the opponent's weaknesses, and try to remedy one's own weaknesses. Prepare against surprises and pitfalls.
**focus on a few promising moves, and quickly spot if they're easily refutable. "You see, I spent 8 years programming {{w|BANCStar programming language|BANCStar}} applications at..." - "Anybody with that experience is dangerous and should be locked up." - "Oh."
*The question of what is considered a good move (or statement) can only be answered in a subjective way. Chess engines though use algorithms to assess the position, and they can calculate the value of different possible moves. In human conversations, social norms help avoid making bad moves.
*It is difficult to win against an experienced, alert partner or opponent. Competent exploitation of the opponent's errors is often the only way to win.
*In both, you will try to find moves that make your win more probable, while avoiding deleterious moves. Due to inadequate computing power, it is hitherto impossible to calculate all possible ways a chess game (or a conversation) could play out. See also [[1002: Game AIs]]. Therefore it is impossible to design a path that leads to a guaranteed outcome - except when the situation has been simplified enough. There are handbooks to play endgames, explaining how to secure either a win or a draw, no matter the capability of the opponent. Nowadays, computer-generated {{w|endgame tablebase}}s exist for six-piece and seven-piece endgames. Those for six pieces are freely available and are about 1 terabyte large.

Differences:
*Chess games are inherently competitive, zero-sum ventures; if one player wins, the other loses. In contrast, conversations aren't usually competitive, so there isn't really a concept of a winner and loser unless the conversation was an argument or debate. Often, both people in a ''friendly'' conversation will benefit ("win") from having had the conversation.
*Both chess games and conversations are turn-based, but lacking time controls, people's statements sometimes go on and on and on ...
*Especially in disputes, (agreed) draws are extremely rare.
*It is difficult to judge the winner of a conversation.
*In chess, every position of the pieces can be analyzed completely independent of the previous moves. It does not matter how the situation evolved. After 1.e4 e5 and 1.e3 e6 2.e4 e5, there is an identical situation. Due to human emotions, though, this is not the case for conversations. No situation is ever exactly the same.
*Chess games are extremely constrained by a set of rules. Players are expected to behave gentlemanly, and arbiters can hand out punishments for any behavior that brings the game into disrepute.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and White Hat facing each other.]
:Cueball: I've decided to score all my conversations using chess win-loss notation.
:White Hat: I don't know or care what that means.
:Cueball: Fine.
:White Hat: Fine.

:[Caption below the frame:]
:½–½

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Chess]]

Talk:928: Mimic Octopus

2017-02-18T03:26:08Z

162.158.74.237:

How does the mimic octopus manage to mimic multiple fish? Does it split it's own body up or something? '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 13:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
:"When under attack, some octopuses can perform arm autotomy, in a similar manner to the way skinks and other lizards detach their tails. The crawling arm serves as a distraction to would-be predators. Such severed arms remain sensitive to stimuli and move away from unpleasant sensations.[23]"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus#Defense] {{unsigned ip|173.245.48.113}}
::Fine, but in the SCUBA diver depiction, would it really need to rip parts out of itself to mimic bubbles? I don't think that that is quite necessary. {{unsigned ip|108.162.241.131}}
:::It could also hypothetically mimic bubbles by *actually blowing bubbles*. (No word on how it does this.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.30|108.162.216.30]] 02:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Anon
::::Simple: This is a 2D {{w|Tomography|cut-out}} of the octopus mimicking the fishes or the scuba '''in 3D'''. It assumes a very complex figure, so that in the cut-out we only see the 2D pictures above. {{unsigned ip|162.158.83.144}}

For the record, octopus is from the Greek ὀκτάπους, a compound of ὀκτά (eight) and πούς (foot); πούς is a third declension masculine noun, whose plural is πόδες. Therefore, the etymologically correct plural of octopus should be octopodes, not (as Orson Scott Card suggests) octopoda, since πούς is not a neuter.
:Actually, it would be "octopuses", as it showed up ''after'' the regularization of English plurals to a final -s. As the video in the explanation explains, someone in the Victorian Grammarian Era "realized" it was "Latin" and pluralized it as such. This caught on and still haunts us to this day. "Octopdes" was coined around the same time by a more observant someone, who realized it was actually Greek. Personally, I avoid the whole trichotomy by saying "octopods". Unrelated etymologically, but has the same meaning and is unequivocally regular. Anonymous 08:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone checked to see if the title text is true? Whether it is or not, this should be added to the description. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.18|108.162.212.18]] 11:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is the pun here? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.78|199.27.133.78]] 00:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
:I don't know, either!?! "''Too many'' octopuses"??? {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.172}}

I had a very different impression of this comic when I first read it. I had never heard of a mimic octopus, and I assumed that the comic was making fun of calling a food dish "octopus" when it really wasn't. As in, a restaurant might feed you whatever they caught in a net and call it octopus, no matter how absurd it was. And if they ever did catch an octopus, they split it in two. Very cynical, but not nearly as cool. {{unsigned ip|108.162.246.115}}

I believe the third fish silhouette is actually a [https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjo1rua25jSAhWJ1IMKHU3XCUUQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGrouper&usg=AFQjCNGCdz2_bYFBDimJvFpFdG8sju4ljw&sig2=2D3silMR1tstIRSBihTGPA grouper], not a tuna. Sorry, Charlie.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.237|162.158.74.237]] 03:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

1775: Things You Learn

2017-02-06T17:13:57Z

162.158.74.237: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1775
| date = December 21, 2016
| title = Things You Learn
| image = things_you_learn.png
| titletext = Guess who has two thumbs and spent the night in an ER after trying to rescue a kitten that ran under his car at a stoplight and climbed up into the engine compartment? And, thanks to antibiotics, will continue having two thumbs? THIS GUY. (P.S. kitten is safe!)
}}

==Explanation==
This graph shows various items of information plotted by two criteria: a horizontal "How Bad Is It If You Don't Know [THING]" axis and a vertical "How Easy It Is To Grow Up Without Learning [THING]" axis. Specifically, the vertical axis measures roughly how likely the average person is to remain ignorant of a particular item. The horizontal axis measures the likelihood and severity of bad consequences arising from such ignorance.

The title text describes an encounter Randall had where a cat climbed into the engine compartment of his car. It probably serves as an explanation for the seemingly out of place point on the graph about how serious cat bites are. The "two thumbs" is a reference to a well known type of jokes among English speakers. One of the most frequent forms is one person interrupting another mid-speech and asking "what has two thumbs and doesn't give a f*ck? THIS GUY!", before pointing to themselves with their thumbs. The idea is that you only direct the attention to your thumbs so that they can point back to you, though mentioning the thumbs was not actually required except as a topic change. Randall plays on an inversion of this joke as he might not have been able to make it at all without the intervention of the ER people. So here the "who has two thumbs", is not a deceiving distraction out of a boring conversation, and the thumbs are actually the focus of the phrase.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Ignorance is Bad !! Ignorance is Easy !! Information !! Comments
|-
| not bad || (very, very) easy || 100 digits of {{w|pi}} || Most people know pi to only a few digits (3.14 or 3.1416). The latter is accurate to almost one part in half a million, which is close enough for almost any practical purpose.
|-
| not bad || (very) easy || Lyrics to "{{w|We Didn't Start the Fire}}" || "We Didn't Start the Fire" is a 1989 hit song by Billy Joel. Its lyrics include brief, rapid-fire allusions to more than 100 headline events between 1949, the year of Joel's birth, and 1989. While the chorus is memorable, the verses of the song are just a list of people, events and random things from popular culture. The average person is somewhat more likely to know the lyrics to Billy Joel's 1989 hit song than 100 digits of pi, but not knowing them doesn't really have any serious consequences. This song was again the pun in the title text of [[1794: Fire]], which was a follow up to comic #4 in [[821: Five-Minute Comics: Part 3]].
|-
| (very) bad || (very) easy || That cat bites are really serious and if bitten you need to wash the bite and call a doctor immediately || Most people assume that a cat bite is just a minor injury. In fact, it carries a fairly high risk of infection, which can be dangerous if not treated (by cleaning the bite to reduce the risk, and having a doctor examine the bite victim and apply additional treatments such as antibiotics if needed). At the same time, cat bites are quite rare, as cats default to their claws rather than their teeth when they need to attack something (not that cat claws are bacteria-free zones either, quite the opposite).
|-
| (very, very) bad || (very) easy || The red flags for an abusive relationship || It is fairly easy for someone to fall into a pattern of accepting abuse (particularly if the abuser is skilled at emotional manipulation) without realizing it, and the consequences can be mentally and physically devastating.
|-
| (very, very) bad || easy || The {{w|Stroke#Signs_and_symptoms|signs of a stroke}} || The symptoms of a {{w|stroke}} are somewhat variable, including facial drooping, arm weakness and slurred speech, depending on what areas of the brain are affected, and can be mistaken for other conditions. Identifying a stroke quickly and seeking treatment can make the difference between life and death, or between full recovery and permanent impairment.
|-
| bad || easy || Cough into your elbow, not your hand || Covering a cough with the inside of your elbow helps prevent spreading airborne germs and is generally recommended by medical organisations. Coughing into your hand deposits them onto your hand, where they are much more likely to be spread to another person (via handshake, food preparation, shared objects, etc)
|-
| not (too) bad || hard || How to ride a bike || Most children, especially in the United States[http://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/category/participation-statistics#youth], learn to ride a bike at a fairly young age. While this is a useful skill to know for both entertainment and transportation, it would generally not be terrible to not learn this skill, particularly if other forms of transporation are readily available.
|-
| not bad (at all) || hard || How to escape movie {{w|quicksand}} || Quicksand in movies is a common trope, and while its physics often differ from real quicksand, escaping from it is commonly done using similar methods (e.g., not struggling, which increases the quicksand's viscosity). Knowing how to escape from quicksand is important if you sink into it, which is a situation most people are very unlikely to encounter in real life. It is much more likely for characters in movies and TV shows, especially in the 1960s, to encounter and become mired in quicksand than for a real individual to do so as real quicksand is a rare occurrence in most climates on Earth.
|-
| not bad (at all) || (very) hard || Lyrics to "{{w|The Twelve Days of Christmas (song)|12 Days of Christmas}}" || Hearing the same Christmas songs over and over each year makes it hard not to learn the lyrics over time. However, the consequences of not doing so are minimal; at most, ignorance of popular culture may leave your friends [[1769|a bit surprised and dismayed]]. Note that this only refers to learning the lyrics of the "Twelve Days of Christmas," not learning all the lyrics. Most people do not know many of the combination once one gets substantially past five. It is very hard to avoid learning some of the lyrics (especially One and Five), but easy to not know many of the later random ones (such as Eight or Eleven).
|-
| not bad (at all) || (very, very) hard || {{w|Theme music|TV theme songs}} || Most children in developed countries grow up watching at least some television. Many of these television shows play the same theme song before the show starts, and many of these have catchy lyrics. Therefore, by repetition, most children will learn at least one of these growing up, and often many.
|-
| bad || hard || That you have to empty the dryer lint trap || A {{w|clothes dryer}} resembles a washing machine, using hot air to heat clothes so that the water evaporates more quickly.

The dryer's air exhaust and air filter get gradually covered with {{w|lint (material)|lint}} (a kind of dust composed mainly of fiber) and must be cleaned regularly. Failing to remove the lint can cause the dryer to stop working effectively, introduce lint back onto your clothes, or (in extreme cases) start a fire.
|-
| (very) bad || (very) hard || {{w|Stop, drop and roll}} || This is a technique to extinguish a fire on one's own clothing, and is frequently taught to children for safety. Not knowing it (or forgetting it in a panic when the situation arises) can result in severe burns that could have been avoided by following the recommendation.
|-
| (very) bad || (very) hard || That you have to pay taxes || Most residents of most countries are legally obligated to pay taxes to their government. Penalties for not doing so often include large fines, and possibly prison sentences. Fortunately, it is something that children hear about quite a bit so it is very difficult to grow up without learning that it must be done.
|-
|}

==Rankings==

100% not bad: not bad at all . . . 100%>not-badness≥50%: not bad . . . 50%>not-badness≥0%: not too bad

100% very bad: very, very bad . . . 100%>very badness≥50%: very bad . . . 50%>very badness>0%: bad

100% hard: very, very hard . . . 100%>hardness≥50%: very hard . . . 50%>hardness>0%: hard

100% easy: very, very easy . . . 100%>easiness≥50%: very easy . . . 50%>easiness≥0%: easy

==Transcript==
[A simple x and y graph, with the X labeled "how bad it is if you don't know {thing}", and you labeled "how easy it is to grow up without learning {thing}]

Points on graph from top to bottom on the left side of the x axis:

> 100 digits of pi
> Lyrics to ''We Didn't Start the Fire''
> How to ride a bike
> How to escape movie quicksand
> Lyrics to ''12 Days of Christmas''
> TV theme songs

Points on graph from top to bottom on the right side of the y axis:

> That cat bites are really serious and if bitten you should wash the bite and call a doctor immediately
> Red flags for an abusive relationship
> Signs for a stroke
> Cough into your elbow, not your hand
> That you have to empty the dryer lint trap
> Stop, drop, and roll
> That you have to pay taxes

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]