explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1735: Fashion Police and Grammar Police

2016-09-19T16:17:23Z

172.68.35.71: Title Text joke?

I added a basic explanation to this comic. I also changed the incomplete to say "Needs more on the explanation". Maybe you guys can help connect the dots and extend the explanation? --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 14:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that he uses literally wrong, just to anger the grammar police he's mocking, it's a nice touch.[[User:Trives|Trives]] ([[User talk:Trives|talk]]) 14:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

In my eyes the 2 groups are not standing together in this comic. --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
: Yeah I'd have said they were just being presented graphically, the intention isn't to display them as protesting alongside each other. [[User:Xseo|Xseo]] ([[User talk:Xseo|talk]]) 15:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there an extra joke in the Title Text, "* Mad about jorts"? If it's something which both Grammar Police and Fashion Police would find distasteful, it would add an extra layer to the assertion that they are the same people.

Incidentally, I find it ironic and probably unintentional that the Title Text demonstrates the importance of grammar and undermines Randall's own assertions that Grammar Police are superfluous and annoying. Is he saying that he really likes jorts, or is he saying that he is really angered by them? If only there was some formal ruleset which allowed meaning to be more effectively conveyed, rather than being a system of glorious chaos... https://xkcd.com/1576/

Talk:1717: Pyramid Honey

2016-08-08T18:58:54Z

172.68.35.71: https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/4wq6pf/xkcd_1717_pyramid_honey/d690yct

Seems like this could be the [http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-science-behind-honeys-eternal-shelf-life-1218690/ Smithsonian reference]! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone know what the counter source or argument is?

This looks like it could be the source that inspired the strip:

http://irna.lautre.net/Honey-in-the-pyramids.html

Looks like a place to start digging for references: http://bumblehive.com/honey-was-not-found-in-pharaohs-tombs/ 

Did Randall draw the wrong colored hat?? [[User:Jameslucas|jameslucas]] <small>([[User talk:Jameslucas|" "]] / [[Special:Contributions/Jameslucas|+]])</small> 15:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
: Nah, I think it's just IRL trolling. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.80|173.245.54.80]] 15:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Could this be the ned of Black Hat? The end of ''xkcd?!'' [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.51|173.245.54.51]] 16:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Correction: this doesn't put "Megan unwillingly into the same camp as conspiracy theorists" it puts Black Hat there.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/4wq6pf/xkcd_1717_pyramid_honey/d690yct This Reddit thread] cites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey#Preservation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey#Ancient_times [[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.71|172.68.35.71]] 18:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1711: Snapchat

2016-07-27T06:21:49Z

172.68.35.71:

"No, it's because I'm ignorant." Is Snapchat the one where photos last ten seconds only, then they're gone? And the Pulitzer prize is some American thing, right? (As opposed to Pulletzer prize, some chicken thing.) [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.32|198.41.238.32]] 11:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
:Pulitzer prize is a worldwide prize for Journalism (amongst which Photography is a category) and arts (drama, etc). {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.92}}
::Its for published items from the U.S., not worldwide.~d {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.96}}

Should there be some level of explanation that in spite of Snaps "self destructing" people often save screenshots of Snaps meaning that the picture is probably out there somewhere? Possibly even saved by the Pulitzer committee? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.242|108.162.237.242]] 15:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
:Probably should somehow work in the reference to the fact that you can permanently save screenshots, as a counter to the title text. Also, it's not a few seconds but 24 hours. {{unsigned|Trlkly}}
::That has been done. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure in the title text ("...while it's still fresh in the committee's memory") the "it" is referring to the picture, not the name of the person who took it, as stated in the above explanation. I'm not sure though, and do not like to change these things, so if someone else could look it over and, if necessary, change it, it would be much appreciated.--[[User:Snewmark|Snewmark]] ([[User talk:Snewmark|talk]]) 18:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
:I agree with your assessment. I've changed the text to only refer to forgetting what the picture looked like; after all, the winner's name can simply be written down, whereas few committee members likely have the skill to sketch a decent reproduction of the snap from the memory of 10 seconds or less of viewing it. [[User:Dansiman|Dansiman]] ([[User talk:Dansiman|talk]]) 21:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
::For sure, great that it was corrected. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

There's some hole in the logic here. Cueball has not yet viewed the picture, so a limit of a few seconds view for each viewer would not prevent him seeing it. His few seconds hasn't started running yet. (Quite apart from the issue of honouring that on the client side.) His reaction implies that he's missed all chance of seeing the picture, which would require there to be some other restriction, such as the picture only being available for a very limited time from when it was posted, or there being no way to select a specific picture to view. The Wikipedia article on Snapchat doesn't mention any overall restriction of those kinds, but does describe the harsh per-viewer time restriction on actual viewing. What am I missing? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.74|141.101.98.74]] 06:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
:You're missing the time lag for a committee to make a decision and release a press release on it. They may not have looked at the photo before 23 hours were up. Normally this takes months. Possibly this has taken just under 24 hours and by the time Cueball has looked, it's gone forever [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 06:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
::So there *is* an expiration a limited time after the picture was posted? In addition to the ten-seconds-of-viewing limit? If there is, that would be what I missed, not decision-making lag. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.74|141.101.98.74]] 08:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
:::I have tried to include more content on the function of Snapchat. Having never used it myself but just read on wiki someone might improve. But it was some valid points made in this thread and it needed to be addressed in the explanation, and now it is. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"The awards were always intended to include the Arts, as well as reportage, but not so many people may realise that Poetry, Drama and Music also get rewarded" -- does this imply that poetry, drama, and music aren't part of the arts? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.40|141.101.98.40]] 14:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
:No I think this implies that many people did not realize that arts like drama poetry and music gets award. I personally only knew that it was for writing, for sure journalism. Did also not know they awarded Snapchat :-p --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Snapchat is a stupid piece of garbage and the only people that use it are brainless idiots who can't convey what the fuck they're trying to talk about in words so instead they have to take shitty pictures like pretentious douchebags who wave around plastic crap everywhere. I make it a hobby to paintball iphones in public because fuck that noise. Fight me, internet. {{unsigned ip|162.158.214.150}}
:No thanks, we're good here Donald. No need for your darkness here [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 21:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The article shouldn't so authoritatively assign political commentary to the comic. We know as fact that Randall often does things for no other reason than that he found it funny. Modal verbs to the rescue!!![[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.71|172.68.35.71]] 06:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

1711: Snapchat

2016-07-27T06:17:24Z

172.68.35.71: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1711
| date = July 25, 2016
| title = Snapchat
| image = snapchat.png
| titletext = For obvious reasons, the prize is awarded at a different time of year from the others, while it's still fresh in the committee's memory.
}}

==Explanation==
''{{w|Snapchat}}'' is a photo-sending app that allows the receiving user to only view the photo (known as a "snap") for a few seconds before it is deleted. The {{w|Pulitzer Prize}} is famously awarded for exceptional journalism and photojournalism (there are many categories; see {{w|Pulitzer Prize#Categories|here}}).

[[Cueball]] reads that the ''Snapchat Pulitzer Prize'' has just been awarded but then, when [[Megan]] states that she heard the picture was really good, Cueball becomes disappointed because he realizes he has already missed out on the chance to see the prize winning entry due to the temporary nature of Snapchat. Note that Megan also missed the opportunity to see the snap.

A given snap can be send to a semi-public "Story" and the user decides how long any user can see the snap in a range from {{w|Snapchat#Core_functionality|1-10 s}}. Any specific snap is only accessible for {{w|Snapchat#Stories_and_Discover|24 hours}} even if it is a story. Cueball would thus have more than 10 seconds to access the snap, also after the first user views it (in the committee). Given the time, however, it takes for the committee to decide which snap wins the prize, it is realistic that Cueball learns about the prize after the 24 hours is up, and so even though every user who can follow the snaps of the winner, will still not be able to see it after that time. In principle it is possible to circumvent the Snapchat rule and {{w|Snapchat#Screenshots_and_FTC|take a screen shot}} or in other ways save the content of the snap. In the case of a Pulitzer Prize winning photo, someone would probably have saved it, if it was in real life. On the other hand, the only way for the photo to be recognized as a snap, that could win the prize, was if no one could see it for more than 10 seconds. So the a ruling could be that any picture that was saved would not be able to win the prize.

The title text extends this ephemeral nature of Snapchat's content to the prize awarded for it: The other Pulitzer prizes are announced annually in April and awarded in May (except for 2016, the centennial year, when an awards dinner will be held in October). The Snapchat Pulitzer Prize alone must be awarded as quickly as possible after the winner has been decided, before the prize committee forgets what the winning picture looked like. This of course underlines how silly this idea is, because only images seen during the assembly of the prize committee can be seen and remembered, and it is not possible to arrange this based on any knowledge of when a Pulitzer Prize "worthy" snap will be released.

[[Randall]] could be making fun of Snapchat (see the title), and the idea that you cannot save the images for later (although as mentioned with screenshots, it is possible - to many's regret after having send something very personal, like naked pictures of them selves). The comic could also be seen as mocking the Pulitzer Prize for having too broad a spectrum of categories. Alongside the journalistic and prose awards,the Pulitzers also honor a variety of artistic pursuits, including Photos, Poetry, Drama and Music.

The new medium of Snapchat is certainly a hybrid form of art and information/opinion dispersal, both at its best and at its worst, but too short lived to allow the awarding of any prizes whatsoever.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan standing together. He holds a smartphone in his left hand and looks at it.]
:Cueball: Oh, the Pulitzer Prize for Snapchat was just awarded.
:Megan: Yeah.
:Megan: I hear the photo was really good.
:Cueball: Aw, ''maaaan''...

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Smartphones]]
[[Category:Social networking]]

Talk:448: Good Morning

2016-07-14T22:56:17Z

172.68.35.71:

If you try to take the IDL into account, would he have time-traveled in his sleep? Gained 18 hrs? Or lost a day? [[User:Saibot84|Saibot84]] ([[User talk:Saibot84|talk]]) 14:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

:If you use sleeping as the only separation of days then for them time would probably go slower since due to pulling all-nighters they will probably sleep less often than normal. Meaning that from an outside observer he has traveled back in time. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 19:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

If someone would make a website to compute this, just based on the time of waking, I would definitely use it before getting up each morning. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.7|108.162.219.7]] 00:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

:Randall has made just such a site! Xkcd.com/now [[User:Bbruzzo|Bbruzzo]] ([[User talk:Bbruzzo|talk]]) 13:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A few tiny scratches hint at what may be (one of?) the only instances of human eyes being drawn. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.71|172.68.35.71]] 22:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)