explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2799: Frankenstein Claim Permutations

2023-07-08T11:19:41Z

172.69.62.28:

Expanding on [[1589: Frankenstein]], clearly. [[User:Trimeta|Trimeta]] ([[User talk:Trimeta|talk]]) 03:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The last permutation is a garden path sentence that starts off talking about the TV show ''Doctor Who''. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.175|162.158.62.175]] 03:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

:The title text seems straightforward enough to me, anyways: "No, the doctor (who creates Mary Shelley (in Frankenstein's novel)) doesn't have a name." Not much of a garden path sentence at all. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.34.187|172.70.34.187]] 03:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The best part of this comic is that every last one of these claims is wrong. In the original novel, Victor Frankenstein is an obsessive undergrad, notably with no medical degree. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.35|172.71.151.35]] 03:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

You could argue rather that Walton and Saville were the names of the authors. The monster Shelly created was named Victor von Frankenstein. The tragic hero was unnamed. [[User:EebstertheGreat|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat|talk]]) 04:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure that Randall saw the image of the misprinted book where the title is Mary Shelly, and the author is Frankenstein. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.35|172.71.151.35]] 06:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

:See here: https://twitter.com/MedCrisis/status/1511644464544104452?t=B23sq4iftXXWPdSKYCqOyg&s=19
[[User:Svízel přítula|Svízel přítula]] ([[User talk:Svízel přítula|talk]]) 08:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

No, Frankenstein is the name of the novel created by the monster (according to her sleepless readers) Mary Shelley. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.38|172.68.34.38]] 08:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The second permutation could be read in the "the scientist who abandoned his creation is the ''real'' monster" sense. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.28|172.69.62.28]] 11:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2259: Networking Problems

2020-02-07T15:47:14Z

172.69.62.28: just adding a funny comment

I just had an issue the other day with copying disk images to a network drive using <code>smbclient</code> on Linux Mint. The transfer would only run at 1 to 2 MB/s. Then I discovered that if I opened the mounted drive in the GUI file explorer and refreshed the directory where I was copying the image to, it would consistently cause the copy operation to jump to 40 to 60 MB/s and stay there for the rest of the operation. I concluded that <code>smbclient</code> must run on actual sorcery. [[User:Aaron Rotenberg|Aaron Rotenberg]] ([[User talk:Aaron Rotenberg|talk]]) 18:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

:Sounds like the explorer is able to create some sort of cache that the transfer is able to use but not create. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

::I forgot to mention the part where this turned out to be filename dependent. I determined that the trick always worked if the filename on the destination network drive was <code>test.stuff</code>, but most other filenames didn't work. So I had to start a copy operation to <code>/mnt/xdrive/test.stuff</code>, refresh <code>/mnt/xdrive</code> in the GUI explorer so that the speed would jump up, wait for the copy to finish, then rename the file inside <code>/mnt/xdrive</code> to the name I actually wanted. [[User:Aaron Rotenberg|Aaron Rotenberg]] ([[User talk:Aaron Rotenberg|talk]]) 20:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

:The original <code>smbclient</code> implementation turned out to be virtually impossible, so the programmers gave up and used <code>import_ai()</code>. Unfortunately they then used <code>ai_solve(network.problems,0,0)</code> to set the maliciousness and capriciousness variables to zero, but a combination of off-by-one and roll-over errors mean that these two variables are maximized. True story. [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 09:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, can confirm that even the high end of 'normal computer problems' can result in belief in the occult and/or paranormal operation of computers. I now attempt to moderate my brainwaves into positive only flow to make sure I do not negatively effect the computer through quantum effects on the bits and operation. If i get frustrated or confused by the computer for an extended time, i put it down and walk away until I have more of a 'can do' attitude. Then of coarse there was that time that.... it may be too late for me, but there are puzzling computer problems to explore so I... remember me as I was. ~Litppunk 18:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
: Yeah. Life changed, memory lost. Still trying to fix bugs. Are you available to connect over this? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.72|172.68.133.72]] 22:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

"Ghosts generally are not concerned with expressions of belief, but there are some religious traditions that include group clapping and chanting." - I don't think the hover text is related to the ghosts. They seem just like two separate unbelievable things. "Perhaps the ghost in question is the Holy Ghost." - I doubt that is what he is referring to, especially since it is plural 'ghosts' and the Holy Ghost is singular. [[User:Curtobi4|Curtobi4]] ([[User talk:Curtobi4|talk]]) 18:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Clearly seems related to 1457, albeit with much more advanced tech issues. --[[User:GoldNinja|GoldNinja]] ([[User talk:GoldNinja|talk]]) 19:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Clapping hands and saying you believe in fairys is how you prevent Tinkerbell from Dying when you watch Peter Pan.{{unsigned|108.162.241.32}}
:Yeah, the interactive part of the play/movie/comix. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

: '''Pareidolia''' (one of my least favorite words because I can't spell it well enough to google for the correct spelling) is a definite problem for the human brain - we habitually spot patterns where they don't exist. But the problem for software engineers is that spotting patterns that '''DO''' exist is how you find bugs. So distinguishing between real patterns and pareidolia ('i' before 'e' except after 'c'...and 'r'...sometimes...) is a vital part of the job. Clearly Cueball has that problem here. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 20:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I know it's hyperbole, but are there any actual networking problems that could cause every other packet to be laggy? [[User:Blacksilver|Blacksilver]] ([[User talk:Blacksilver|talk]]) 21:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

:Nothing I can think of you'd ever do in a production setup on purpose, but with some really crazy port-channel settings, with the right kind of tiny packets like a SYN, and a downstream bridge or repeater to add in some intentional delay, I think you could. Never underestimate the power of a sufficiently motivated netadmin. [[User:DevAudio|DevAudio]] ([[User talk:DevAudio|talk]]) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

:Theoretically, yes. But it would require some malicious/stupid/buggy configuration. For example, some stupid packet scheduler on a misconfigured bonded link or having two same-metric routes to some destination that are not equal in fact. It may not even be an error in any ''local'' configuration, but a collective effect of multiple sub-optimal configurations or just a lack of knowledge of the whole picture of the network. In essence, if there are multiple connections leading to some destination, someone may want to utilize them all to 'sum' the bandwidth of them. A network device would then 'share' traffic between those multiple (in Cueball's case: two) connections, mostly sending every N-th packet on any particular connection. Normally there won't be ideal division of packets to connections unless there are some pathological conditions. If one of these connections is actually slower than the others, this could generate the effect seen by Cueball. The network administrator may not be aware of the asymmetry - the links connected directly to his device may be in fact identical, but the slowness can be induced somewhere along the path by a device not under his control. Similarly, Cueball, even if very competent, may not be aware that some device not under his control along the path uses such configuration and causes unintentional delays in (mostly) every other packet. -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.23.109|162.158.23.109]] 09:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The classic 500-mile bug: "We can't send mail more than 500 miles" http://web.mit.edu/jemorris/humor/500-miles

: I'm legally required to link [http://catb.org/jargon/html/story-of-mel.html The Story Of Mel] and [http://catb.org/jargon/html/magic-story.html A story about 'magic'] [[User:Blacksilver|Blacksilver]] ([[User talk:Blacksilver|talk]]) 12:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

: The effect of travel time over media is central to the plot in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hummingbird_Project The Humming Bird Project]. It's also a key factor in high frequency trading, as [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=d8BcCLLX4N4&feature=emb_logo Tom Scott explains in his video].[[User:Vfp15|Vfp15]] ([[User talk:Vfp15|talk]]) 14:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

While I don't believe that ghosts have power over computers, I do believe that many of the seemingly random "hiccups" in my computer programs are caused by sunspots. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 22:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Disagree strongly that this has anything to do with seeing patterns where they don't exist. Modern network troubleshooting tools will show you exactly the order that packets were received, and the time they were received at. Although it would be hard to induce the problem described, if it '''were''' induced, you could indeed see it quite clearly and objectively in a packet capture. This comic is more about some of the brain-breakingly twisted ways networking can go awry and all the impossible things it can make you want to believe in the quest to make sense of what we are seeing. [[User:DevAudio|DevAudio]] ([[User talk:DevAudio|talk]]) 23:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

: I will correct myself slightly - it would seem from the mouseover text that he is finding a false pattern, but it's not impossible for what he said to be true, it would just require laboratory conditions and someone playing a prank. He could also be seeing a real pattern with some kind of crazy cause involving a sound transducer and either EMI or some intentional sabotage. Yeah, that's waaaay off in left field, but so is the network data Cueball may be actually be seeing. On the whole, I would not fight someone who chose to believe Cueball is seeing a false pattern with the clapping. It's a reasonable interpretation for anyone who hasn't seen the insane things I have when troubleshooting networks. I HAVE seen ghost packets. (It was a weird glitch causing a switch to replay packets from hosts that weren't even connected anymore, not actual paranormal activity.) [[User:DevAudio|DevAudio]] ([[User talk:DevAudio|talk]]) 23:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I don't think lag is about how long transmission of a packet takes, which is instead referred to as {{w|network delay}}. Furthermore, from the referenced Wikipedia page, network delay is experienced in each "hop" of the data packet from node to node and includes the following delays: processing delay (time to process the packet header), queuing delay (time packet spends in routing queue), transmission delay (time to push the packet onto the link), and propagation delay (time to travel to destination based on the speed of the link). IMHO, a laggy network connection is one where the network delay is longer than normal due to a temporary problem in one or more of these areas. A connection that is always slow because of low link bandwidth is not laggy, it's just slow. Others may disagree with me. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 03:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
: Lag is an application-layer concept (being the time from a user doing something to trigger an action to when the effects of that action start to be observed). The network-layer equivalent is ''latency'' and it is one of the fundamental limits on what you can do with remote resources (and the one that is very hard to do anything about, unlike bandwidth where you can just get more by spending money). --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.53|141.101.99.53]] 02:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
:: I don't disagree with anything you stated. However, in this instance, Randall's use of the word "laggy" is clearly not related to bandwidth because the odd and even packets are not seeing the same latency. This suggests the "laggy" packet transfers are suffering due to something else that is related to one of the other three causes of latency in my original comment. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 13:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Isn't Randall using the scale in the wrong direction? I mean "normal problems" make your brain stop working if you debug them "none" to "some" while "Networking problems" only make your brain stop working if you debug them "a lot". If I am wrong. In what way should I read the axis? thx [[User:OK-Randall|OK-Randall]] ([[User talk:OK-Randall|talk]]) 09:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
: It's not a measure of "how much debugging" causes your brain to stop working, but instead is a measure of "how much your brain stops working" when debugging them. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 14:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
::Ah yes, I get it now, it's another example of Randall's ambiguous wording (after [https://www.explainxkcd.com/2258 someone who knows Jupiter is within earshot]). I initially read it as "(how much debugging them) (makes your brain stop working)", whereas Randall probably meant "(how much) (debugging them makes your brain stop working)".[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.91|162.158.154.91]] 13:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
:::Same here, and also after reading your replies - i still don't really get my head around the intended axis. But thankfully i am not alone ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.79|141.101.69.79]] 18:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
::::It really should have been done as a bar chart. The measurement is how much your brain stops working. There would then be bars for different types of problems. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I was having some bad problems with my wifi a little while back. Would be super slow randomly. I taped a piece of alumium foil to the wall behind my computer and it fixed it. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.28|172.69.62.28]] 15:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

1484: Apollo Speeches

2018-07-09T04:58:52Z

172.69.62.28: carrier collision

{{comic
| number = 1484
| date = February 9, 2015
| title = Apollo Speeches
| image = apollo_speeches.png
| titletext = While our commitment to recycling initiatives has been unwavering, this is not a cost any of us should be expected to pay.
}}

==Explanation==
As explained in the comic, {{w|Richard Nixon|Nixon}} staffer {{w|William Safire}} wrote [http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/11/in-event-of-moon-disaster.html two speeches] for the United States President to deliver, depending on whether or not the {{w|Apollo 11}} return launch was successful. When the outcome of an event (moon landing, military actions, etc.) can't be predicted with sufficient certainty, it is a common practice for "[http://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/events/centennials/nixon/exhibit/nixon-online-exhibit-disaster.html contingency speeches]" to be prepared.

The rest of the comic runs with this theme, making the false claim that Safire had written several other such contingency speeches for increasingly unlikely possibilities. First listed are a couple pages from the real contingency speech to be delivered in the event that the astronauts were left stranded on the Moon. Lying on top of that is a speech to be delivered in the case that the spacecraft went missing altogether, which was relatively unlikely. The speeches after that deal with the following highly unlikely or impossible contingencies:
*The astronauts had stolen the ship and piloted it towards Mars, which was clearly not feasible: while the crew could have redirected the ship while sending insulting messages to Earth, the spacecraft lacked the power to fly to Mars within any reasonable period of time by several orders of magnitude or the supplies for the astronauts to survive such an extended trip.
**At the time of production for this strip in 2015, several governments and private companies have designs on Martian colonization.
*More astronauts than expected were found in the recovered ship;
**The appearance of three additional astronauts ventures into the realm of possibility normally reserved for science fiction and Twilight Zone episodes.
*The ship had hit the {{w|USS Hornet (CV-12)|USS ''Hornet''}} and crushed Nixon;
**The U.S.S. Hornet was the ship that recovered the Apollo 11 astronauts after they completed their return mission by landing their command module in the Pacific Ocean; President Nixon himself was on board to greet them upon their return. Apollo 11 famously landed in the Pacific Ocean, and the single ship tasked with its recovery would be a very small target to hit for the technology even if that had been the intent, which it was of course not. Spiro Agnew was, in 1969, Vice President of the United States, and thus next in line for the presidency. This joke plays off the extreme improbability of the ship, and indeed President, being hit and triggering a succession, causing "President Agnew" to address the world.
***This is not as implausible as it sounds. The re-entry guidance had become good enough by Apollo 11 that the destination point of the capsule was moved several hundred yards from the carrier's position for exactly this reason. Such a collision had been the subject of jokes at NASA, until one day an engineer came to Gene Kranz and said,"the more I think about it, the less I think it is a joke".
*The re-entry craft had been sold for scrap and crushed along with the astronauts inside.
**Apollo 11 observed a strict quarantine procedure after landing. This possibility requires extraordinary incompetence and unholy zeal for recycling programs. The command module was historically recovered, examined, and is now on permanent display in the {{w|National Air and Space Museum}}. Primary sources state that the astronauts were allowed to leave the craft before it was put on display.{{Citation needed}}

The title text builds upon this last contingency speech, delving into the pathos of the horror of the spacecraft's recycling and its passengers' resulting deaths despite the U.S.'s commitment to recycling initiatives.

Shortly after this comic was released, in that week's ''What if?'', ''those speeches'' are referenced with a link to this comic. (see [http://what-if.xkcd.com/129/ Black Hole Moon]).

This comic was referenced again in another ''What If?'', [https://what-if.xkcd.com/146/ Stop Jupiter].

==Transcript==
:[Commentary above the speeches.]
:In 1969, Nixon staffer William Safire wrote a speech for the president to deliver if the Apollo 11 return launch failed, stranding the doomed astronauts on the Moon.
:Uncovered in 1999, it is often called the greatest speech never given.
:Today, the ''full'' set of Safire's contingency speeches has been found.

:'''In event astronauts stranded on Moon'''
:Fate has ordained that the men who went to the Moon to explore in peace will stay on the Moon to rest in peace.
:[Here, several lines from the original speech are cut.]
:In ancient days, men looked at stars and saw their heroes in the constellations. In modern times, we do much the same, but our heroes are epic men of flesh and blood.
:Others will follow, and surely find their way home. Man’s search will not be denied. But these men were the first, and they will remain the foremost in our hearts. For every human being who looks up at the Moon in the nights to come will know that there is some corner of another world that is forever

:'''In event spacecraft goes missing'''
:Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin, and Michael Collins went to the Moon as ambassadors of peace for all mankind, and all mankind prays that they may yet return safely home.
:We are separated from the Moon by a vast gulf of space, against which their tiny vessel appeared as but a drifting speck. For a few brief seconds, we took our eye off them, and despite days of desperate searching, never again was their vessel sighted from Earth.
:While these men are lost, they are not forgotten, and their sacrifice will not

:'''In even astronauts abscond with spacecraft'''
:We do not know what led Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins to betray the trust we placed in them, abandon their mission, and steer their vessel toward Mars. Nor do we know what compelled them to transmit such hurtful messages back to Earth, heaping contempt on their onetime home.
:But whatever the cause of their dereliction, I call upon the United States to commit itself, before this year is out, to launching a mission to chase down Apollo 11 and return its crew to earth to face justice. We must not rest until

:'''In event spacecraft returns with extra astronauts'''
:While there is much we do not understand, tonight all of earth is united in celebrating the safe return of our brave explorers.
:We of course have many questions, and in the days and weeks to come we will demand answers. How many souls were truly aboard Apollo 11 when it launched? Who are the six men now in quarantine aboard the USS Hornet? What happened

:'''In event spacecraft hits U.S.S. Hornet, crushing Nixon'''
:'''President Agnew''': Tonight, we have experienced a great national triumph and a great national loss. We take joy in the safe return from the Moon of Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin, and Michael Collins, but that joy is tempered with sorrow as we mourn our president’s tragic death beneath their wayward capsule.
:Richard Nixon wholeheartedly supported our courageous astronauts as they carried the hopes and prayers of Earth to the heavens, and in the moment of their homecoming, he himself has departed on that ultimate voyage. As we grieve, we must rededicate ourselves to the cause for which our president

:'''In event spacecraft accidentally sold for scrap and crushed with astronauts inside'''
:My fellow Americans, I am as shocked and appalled as you at this stunning and

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Space]]

1978: Congressional Testimony

2018-04-09T21:58:21Z

172.69.62.28: /* Explanation */ words

{{comic
| number = 1978
| date = April 9, 2018
| title = Congressional Testimony
| image = congressional_testimony.png
| titletext = James Cameron's Terminator 3 was the REALLY prophetic one. That's why Skynet sent a robot back to the 1990s to prevent him from ever making it, ultimately handing the franchise over to other directors.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created in the future by the director of "Terminator 17, he is back and he is pissed". What did Randall mean by the comic...? Do NOT delete this tag too soon or in the past.}}

[[Megan]] and [[Cueball]] are discussing {{w|Mark Zuckerberg|Mark Zuckerberg's}} upcoming {{w|United States congressional hearing|testimony before Congress}}. The prepared testimony was released on the day this comic was released (after?). See ''[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/congress-released-mark-zuckerbergs-prepared-testimony-ahead-of-wednesdays-hearing.html Congress releases Mark Zuckerberg's prepared testimony ahead of Wednesday's hearing]''.

Megan then starts talking about re-watching ''{{w|The Terminator}}'', a movie about a killer robot send back in time by {{w|Skynet (Terminator)|Skynet}}, a computer system that went sentinel (AI) and tried to kill off humans. The robot was send back to try to kill the mother of the leader of the resistance before he was born by her. In the movie the killer robot, i.e. The Terminator played by {{w|Arnold Schwarzenegger}}, looked up the mothers name, Sarah Connor, in the {{w|phone book}} of a {{w|phone booth}} to find her address. It turned out there were three Sarah Connor in the city, and he choose the two wrong Sarahs first...

Megan notices that it was weird, how in the movie it was a nuclear launch system that turned on humans, and build humanoid robots to hunt humans down, and then today it turned out that it was rather the modern version of said phone book that turned into our version of Skynet, {{w|Facebook}}. Cueball can only agree with her how funny things always turns out in retrospect.

It is unclear if [[Randall]] is:
*1. Commenting on his lack of interest in the news regarding yet another internet tool being used for purposes it was not intended for by comparing it to the much more interesting movie "Terminator".
*2. Pointing out that using programs in ways they are not originally designed for is actually quite common in both reality and fiction.
*3. Pointing out that Facebook stores names and phone numbers and could thus be considered to have a phone book database...
*4. All of the above

The title text makes the claim that {{w|James Cameron}}, who directed the first two films, was planning to make a third movie in the 1990s, which would have been the really prophetic one, i.e. the one that would have destroyed Skynet for good. So in the future Skynet, having seen the result of this movie, wished to prevent the movie from ever being made, so it send back, yet another, robot which prevented Cameron from directing it. Instead {{w|Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines}} was first released in 2003 and directed by {{w|Jonathan Mostow}}. Although Cameron is credited for writing it, it was only for creating the characters. Since then two other movies have been made and a third is planned for 2019, all with different directors.

In a [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181852/trivia?item=tr0744921 trivia on IMDb] it states that the studios had long wanted to make a sequel, thus this was already a plan in the 1990s, the second movie, {{w|Terminator 2: Judgment Day}}, had been released in 1991. But Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to do it unless James Cameron was directing. Cameron eventually told his friend to "take the money and run"... Maybe because a Schwarzenegger terminator was blackmailing him to sell out his greatest franchise.

This comment is reminiscent of the last row in the comic [[566: Matrix Revisited]], released 9 years before this, where Randall makes it clear that he would have wished that the {{w|The Matrix}} had not had any sequels to take the original down to a lower level. Seems like he has the same feelings for the first two Terminator movies, compared to the third and later movies in the franchise. And would rather fantasize about how great Terminator 3 would have been had it been directed by Cameron.

==Transcript==
:[Megan and Cueball sitting against a leafless tree; they are on opposite sides.]
:Megan: Mark Zuckerberg is testifying before Congress this week.
:Cueball: Should be interesting.

:[Beat panel.]

:Megan: I recently re-watched ''Terminator''.
:Cueball: Yeah?

:Megan: It's weird that the thing that evolved into Skynet wasn't our nuclear launch systems '''''or''''' our humanoid robots.
:Megan: It was the phone book where the Terminator looked up Sarah Connor's address.
:Cueball: Funny how things turn out.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]