explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:490: Morning Routine

2026-01-29T10:53:59Z

176.199.209.149:

And by dint of being being far more convent to use in bed, tablets are weirder still. [[User:Compro01|Compro01]] ([[User talk:Compro01|talk]]) 20:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
: Or smartphones... [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
::Guys, consider that this was posted in 2008... [[User:CsBlastoise|CsBlastoise]] ([[User talk:CsBlastoise|talk]]) 18:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
::: Or cortical implants... [[User:SevenOfNine|SevenOfNine]] ([[User talk:SevenOfNine|talk]]) 11:52, 30 June 2375 (UTC)
What's silly is that the whole premise is flawed. Long before laptops, some people would call a friend from bed, via land line, and get caught up on their circle. Not to mention those of us who had a BBS with the keyboard in reach of the bed in the early nineties.
— [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 18:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
:Nonsense, nobody ever did that. [[User:The Cat Lady|-- The Cat Lady]] ([[User talk:The Cat Lady|talk]]) 15:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

So, for a while there, another comic "fell down a vent" and landed here. Interesting. {{unsigned ip|103.22.200.150|10:50}} 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Comic 490 is displaying correctly now, but I don't have the self-confidence to edit the page. Can someone do that for me? {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.54|15:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)}}

Yup! It's done! {{unsigned ip|172.68.132.161|21:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)}}

Talk:2696: Precision vs Accuracy

2025-12-21T16:17:24Z

176.199.209.149:

87.532% of all statistics are just made up. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.220|172.70.178.220]] 11:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is 'Barack Obama is 6'1"' and 'Barack Obama has 4 legs' medium precision? It seems to give exact value, so high precision. [[User:Tkopec|Tkopec]] ([[User talk:Tkopec|talk]]) 11:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
: OK, I get it. 6'1" means something between 6'0.50" and 6'1.49". For height it's OK, but when counting legs, it seems like a stretch. [[User:Tkopec|Tkopec]] ([[User talk:Tkopec|talk]]) 12:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:: The four legs are probably considered to be only medium precise, not because of the number but because of the imprecise term "leg". While humans can walk on all four extremities, thereby using them as legs, the upper two are commonly referred to as arms. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 14:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:: (ECed by Bischoff) Plus a person's height (excluding differences to footwear and perhaps hairstyle) varies by an inch or so over the course of a day, as the spine compresses whilst mostly upright (would depend a bit upon your daily activities, but "an inch" or 2-3cm is the typical quoted value, with all the questions about precision ''as well as'' accuracy). Within an inch of such a foot-and-inch value is basically between slightly over a percentage point of drift across a continuum of ultimately non-integer values.
:: The number of legs is ''generally'' a whole number (perhaps lower-limb amputees could claim "half a leg", but is that for above the knee or below or... that's beyond my wish to define, I would leave it up to the individual amputee to finesse to their own liking) and assigning decimals, even .000(recurring), would be ''over-''precise. A definite plain figure (however inaccurate) being the happy and acceptable medium between that and the vague imprecision (never mind inaccuracy) of the kind in the cell below. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.137|172.71.178.137]] 15:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:::The medium is because it says most, and not all! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
::::It says "most cats", indeed, but the above was about Obama, singular. Though I think it's covered anyway... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.25|172.70.85.25]] 09:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::All the statements about 'Barack Obama' ought to be medium precision at best, because there could be more than one Barack Obama, and it doesn't give any further contextualisation to identify, for example 'the Barack Obama who was president of the United States of America'. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.157|141.101.107.157]] 09:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
: Compare with 6'1"1/50 or 4.0000 legs, both of which would imply a higher degree of certainty.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.204|162.158.126.204]] 08:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Someone should add an explanation of the difference between precision and accuracy. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 13:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:Tried it myself. Maybe made it too compact, but I often go on too long so I tried made it as brief and snappy as I felt I could. Over to other editors to rewrite or replace. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.137|172.71.178.137]] 15:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
::That there is confusion over this was a bit of a surprise to me, about 20 years ago, when I worked (as I did for many years) in the outdoor pursuits trade. GPS units would give a 12-character grid reference (1m2), but couldn't be relied upon to that level. I would tell people they're more precise than they are accurate, until it became apparent that they were waiting for me to complete the joke they thought I'd begun, as I was so clearly contradicting myself, what with the two words meaning identical things.
::Having gone on to explain the difference between the words, the neat brevity I'd sought was lost.
::Obviously they can be used sort of interchangeably in casual conversation, but I thought the difference was well enough known that, when talking about a navigational instrument, it would be obvious what was meant.
::Nope. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 20:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I deal with OS Grid References a lot, in a similar context, and a number of people who give 10-digits or more (2x5, for 1m res) from devices that typically don't ever settle down to less than 3m, and provably can be tens of metres off if there happens to be a small tree or shrub nearby.
:::(In fact, the other day I was geohashing myself, and my device was insisting I was in a totally different bit of the open field, 50m or so, no matter how much I sat it down at the provably correct point and wandered away so that even ''I'' wasn't obscuring its view of the sky. But it was good enough for me, which was all I do it for, so after giving it 5 minutes I counted it as done.)
:::And, in yet another activity, the publicised information for an event included a 12ish-DP reference for the starting area (vaguer than that), but just the ''postcode'' for the HQ (a very definite building that you could bullseye on a map), in a rural area where it covered half the valley! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.12|172.70.86.12]] 22:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

How is 17.082 palindromic? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:My error, I meant an anagram! (Was going for "anagramic", and my brain clearly rebelled.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.137|172.71.178.137]] 15:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

High Precision High accuracy, Randall Munroe misses when Obama was president. Low precision Medium-rare accuracy, so do we, Randall, so do we. {{unsigned ip|172.70.130.154 }}

It is so annoying that the US uses . and , to mean the opposite of what most European countries (including Denmark where I live). So when I read this it states that Obama was president less than 3 days (70 hours) but it more than 70000 feet tall. :-) Of course I now the difference but I have to think about it more than if everyone used the same standard. Also height should use SI units as everyone should ;-) (weight given in number of cats is the new SI unit as far as I know, but don't use inches and feet ;-D ) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:Well, as a UKian, I was happy enough. Tell you what, though, let's develop a [[927: Standards|new and mutually-acceptable standard notation]]... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.25|172.70.85.25]] 09:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
::Good idea. Lets meet on [[2562|11/12/22]] to discuss the details. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I think Randall missed an opportunity to clarify how high precision can make something inaccurate. He could have said that Obama is 6’ 1.02173” tall, which would clearly be very precise, and also clearly inaccurate, simply because of the excessive precision. [[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 15:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:Saying 6'1.0278 would have been more in theme, there. And it would be not really more inaccurate (might even be closer to the truth...) but would convey a false precision.
:Interstingly, when Andrew Waugh measured Mount Everest (before it was so named) he got a diffraction-adjusted figure of 29,000 feet, but decided to announced that it was 29,002 so that it didn't just like a rough figure rounded to the nearest hundred or even thousand feet. This made him the first person to put two feet on the top of Everest!
:(...The actual error was not bad, given his measurements had to be made from hundreds of miles away. Current official measurements with on-the-spot modern GPS say 29,031.7 feet (for the snow-peak, which is all that Waugh could mention), after 170ish years of (by some estimates, but contested) about a foot of extra height per decade through the continuing techtonic raising of the Himalaya. And any unknown differences in snow-depth. Certainly it was within tens of feet, i.e. a dozen or so metres. With a bit of an error-bar, but not really that big when you consider it...)
: So, arguably, that case was a deliberately false accuracy to help convey the true precision. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.3|172.70.90.3]] 16:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:I don't get your point? Unless you just made up everything after the decimal point: How would it be less acurate? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
::The only thing I can imagine is, that these kinds of numbers happen due to conversions. E.g. 6ft1in would be 185.42cm (according to the first calculator I found), but it is unlikely that 6ft1in was as precise as a cm-value with 2 digits after the decimal point would be. And in the other direction 185cm (which would be the usual precision of a height in m or cm - while 186cm could still be correct as it would be 6ft1in in the "usual precision") would calculate as 6ft and 0.83in --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 10:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
::If Obama's height is provided with this much precision, you can assume that the numbers are made up. 0.0278 inches are - in real measure units ;-) - 0.07mm. That's the diameter of a strain of hair. Nobody's height gets measured to that kind of precision. [[User:Kimmerin|Kimmerin]] ([[User talk:Kimmerin|talk]]) 08:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the current explanation's claim that 'being too precise usually decreases accuracy' is, er, accurate (or perhaps it's just imprecise). It might be reasonable to claim that increasing precision tends to decrease accuracy relative to the level of precision, but not so much in absolute terms, or even necessarily relative to the size of the thing being measured.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.156|141.101.107.156]] 09:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
:I think it's badly phrased. The assumed accuracy can be degraded and disadvantageous.
:For example, to use someone's figures from just above, looking for an individual with a height of 185.42cm might seem to rule out the one that you find is 185.57cm tall, though they are indeed the one initially measured/estimated at 6'1" and would definitely be within an inch or so in this latest attempt to match them.
:An old phrase that I grew up with is "don't try to be accurate over inaccurate details" (courtesy of a chemistry teacher, where we frequently used mmol-like measurements in analyses like titrations). The number of articles that say "the probe flew past the asteroid at a distance of about 20 miles (32.187 kilometres) ...", where clearly the accuracy is misleading, especially if the conversion ends up being back-converted by someone else with no idea ("...which is 20.0000746 miles"), and may have come from an ''original'' figure actually deliberately pegged at 35km (21.748 miles!), within a few metres or less.
:Really, you should be taking the level of precision/accuracy inherent in the initial values, preserving the awkward fractions throughout the intermediate steps ''and'' converting the inherent ranges by the same process then clearly presenting the final figure to no more exactitude than the initial smudge of "all actual values that would be given by this type of input value", and maybe less. The write-up might be then be realistically "...of around 21¾ miles (35km)", if using a better primary source, or "20 miles (~30km)" in a case of the detail already being likely lost by intermediate chinese-whispers.
:But this is what confuses people. And how even those that are not confused can confuse others... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.10|172.70.86.10]] 12:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
::It gets even better when different units also use different 0s. So for a persons height we can assume that as 0ft0in and 0cm is the same, 185cm is one order of magnitude more precise than 6ft1in, as it is 3 significant digits vs 2 at the same height. However a persons body temperature in 38°C with 2 significant digits and 311K with 3 is the same level of precision and only .15°C (Or .15K) apart, while 100°F (37.77...°C) is also very close but a bit more precise. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 14:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
:::One of many reasons that Celsius and Fahrenheit are not considered as true units - their connection to kelvins is affine, not linear. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.75|172.71.142.75]] 05:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Acknowledging that Celsius degrees equal Kelvin degrees, which remains a useful equivalence, even though degrees Celsius does not equal degrees Kelvin. (Ditto with Fahrenheit and Rankine.)
::::...and I'm partial to Delisle, anyway. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.134|172.70.162.134]] 11:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I was expecting maybe a reference to Schrödinger's President when I first read the comic - but later realized that this could have been misconstrued as a threat. Oops!

As far as I recall, isn't the transcript supposed to avoid tables? I understand blind people with text reading programs use the transcripts to follow this comic, and thus it should avoid visual elements wherever possible? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
:Generally, yes, though some useful additional description went in before I might have 'flattened' the description again, and there are ther extant table-transcripts
:Best practice would be to not rely on screen-readers to say nice informative things about tabulation and instead say it all explicitly (like they can't be relied on parsing MathML stuff), but there's good manual description and bad, too. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.25|172.70.85.25]] 13:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

In the fewer-legs-than-your-cat category, any interest in adding a link to the "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?" riddle often attributed to Lincoln? The best link I found is https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/11/15/legs/ which makes it clear the riddle was already in circulation by 1825, well before Lincoln's usage. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.163|108.162.246.163]] 05:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

If you only look at the squares that mention cats, the resulting shape resembles a basic glider from Conway's Game of Life. I don't know how much this has to do with the comic but it feels like the sort of nerd shit that is worth mentioning. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.60|108.162.221.60]] 13:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
:I came to this page to mention the fact only to find that I already did. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.79|141.101.104.79]] 13:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

most obamas have hundreds of legs in their cat [[User:Squishmallow fan|Squishmallow fan]] ([[User talk:Squishmallow fan|talk]]) 21:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
:'''INSANELY LOW PRECISION'''/'''UNFATHOMABLY LOW ACCURACY''' [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 21:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
:: cat leg is hundreds of obama [[User:Squishmallow fan|Squishmallow fan]] ([[User talk:Squishmallow fan|talk]]) 19:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

A little aside: In information science, "precision" has a very different meaning. So if you hear precision and accuracy for example with regards to some kind of medical test, precision is the fraction of true positives among predicted positives. Together with recall, which measures true positives among real positives, precision and recall are two aspects of accuracy, where accuracy is then the fraction of correct predictions (positive or negative) among all predictions. In terms of an example: Precision is the chance that when you get a positive pregnancy test you are actually pregnant. Recall is the chance that when you are actually pregnant and take a test, the test will show positive. Accuracy is the chance that the result you see on your test (whether it's positive or negative) is correct.--[[Special:Contributions/176.199.209.149|176.199.209.149]] 16:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:1216: Sticks and Stones

2025-12-12T11:00:27Z

176.199.209.149:

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will hurt forever. --[[User:Buggz|Buggz]] ([[User talk:Buggz|talk]]) 06:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Noone can appreciate the difference between broken bones and someone namecalling him without experience with the first. The things childs do to each other is basically the worst they ever experienced - because if those wouldn't, they would do worse. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
:No one write 'no one' as 'noone'. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] ([[User talk:Beanie|talk]]) 13:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Is it really a rhyme if it doesn't rhyme? --[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 15:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
:The rhyming of "stones" and "bones" probably counts as the big feature, and then the 'uhr' sound of "words" and "hurt" echo this resonance, and I've never heard the "harm" version that wouldn't have this. Although it's certainly a non-standard rhyming scheme (if it's AABC) and scan (7+7 syllables, or (3+4)+(2+5) or however you want to split it). It's pithy, which probably trumps strict adherence to anything like iambic pentameter. Maybe there's an argument that it's more musical, with a rythm of 4 groups of 4 beats ("sticks" and "words" extending over two of them, each, the way I'd say it). But musical lyrics and spoken verse are easily interchangable, and as long as it isn't totally 'blank' verse I'd accept it as a rhyme. (Not an authority, though ->) [[Special:Contributions/31.109.101.73|31.109.101.73]] 19:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
::{{w|Assonance}} dominates, definitely, and an irregular pace to fit the beat. e.g. "stI¹cks... andstO²nes / wI¹llbreak mybO²nes // ...-bU³t wO⁴rdswI⁵ll / ne-vE³r hU⁴rtmE⁵". May depend upon diction/dialect as to how well this matches ''your'' rendition... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.101|172.70.90.101]] 14:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Citation: http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/27/in-the-brain-broken-hearts-hurt-like-broken-bones/ and http://www.pnas.org/content/108/15/6270.full?sid=758b38cc-b399-4d22-9c37-3c074cf321be [[User:Woliveirajr|Woliveirajr]] ([[User talk:Woliveirajr|talk]]) 16:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

My dear departed mother-in-law put it much more memorably - Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will break my heart. [[Special:Contributions/131.107.147.231|131.107.147.231]] 17:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I can easily disregard words. It's not as easy to disregard a broken bone. After my fourth day at my new job, my knees are killing me, and that's not even close. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87|76.106.251.87]] 01:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

So was this comic copied from here? http://thegentlemansarmchair.com/post/50907218931/sticks-and-stones-http-i-imgur-com-sowwlir-jpg
[[User:Bryced|Bryced]] ([[User talk:Bryced|talk]]) 07:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
:Nice find, looks similar but the child doesn't talk. That's the point here. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the last panel isn't so much implying that Cueball thinks THE WORLD is horrific, but that the RHYME (and the fact that it's something regularly promoted to children) is horrific.--[[Special:Contributions/68.230.167.173|68.230.167.173]] 07:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
:Definitely. The horrific part is that we have a children's rhyme about a bone-breaking beating with clubs or rocks. That kind of thing curdles my stomach a little when I even read it in the paper (sorry, internet), so yes it does seem out of place here! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 19:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::I disagree. Cueball's first line in that panel is saying that the world is not bad. When asked to explain why the rhyme involves sticks and stones breaking bones, he concedes that (it) is horrific. If the it refers to the rhyme, then the child was naïvely asking for an explanation. If the it refers to the world, then the child was trying to press a point, as he did in the second panel. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.211|108.162.246.211]] 03:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Or lack of words. It can be disappointing when someone is upset with you and won't talk to you and you just want them to open up so you can facilitate communication again. {{unsigned ip|108.162.250.223}}

The stoics say that it's not things that hurt us, but our judgement of things. Words can't hurt you unless you allow them to. Sticks and stones will hurt you either way, at least for a while. --[[Special:Contributions/176.199.209.149|176.199.209.149]] 10:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:1216: Sticks and Stones

2025-12-12T10:59:47Z

176.199.209.149:

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will hurt forever. --[[User:Buggz|Buggz]] ([[User talk:Buggz|talk]]) 06:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Noone can appreciate the difference between broken bones and someone namecalling him without experience with the first. The things childs do to each other is basically the worst they ever experienced - because if those wouldn't, they would do worse. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
:No one write 'no one' as 'noone'. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] ([[User talk:Beanie|talk]]) 13:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Is it really a rhyme if it doesn't rhyme? --[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 15:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
:The rhyming of "stones" and "bones" probably counts as the big feature, and then the 'uhr' sound of "words" and "hurt" echo this resonance, and I've never heard the "harm" version that wouldn't have this. Although it's certainly a non-standard rhyming scheme (if it's AABC) and scan (7+7 syllables, or (3+4)+(2+5) or however you want to split it). It's pithy, which probably trumps strict adherence to anything like iambic pentameter. Maybe there's an argument that it's more musical, with a rythm of 4 groups of 4 beats ("sticks" and "words" extending over two of them, each, the way I'd say it). But musical lyrics and spoken verse are easily interchangable, and as long as it isn't totally 'blank' verse I'd accept it as a rhyme. (Not an authority, though ->) [[Special:Contributions/31.109.101.73|31.109.101.73]] 19:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
::{{w|Assonance}} dominates, definitely, and an irregular pace to fit the beat. e.g. "stI¹cks... andstO²nes / wI¹llbreak mybO²nes // ...-bU³t wO⁴rdswI⁵ll / ne-vE³r hU⁴rtmE⁵". May depend upon diction/dialect as to how well this matches ''your'' rendition... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.101|172.70.90.101]] 14:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Citation: http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/27/in-the-brain-broken-hearts-hurt-like-broken-bones/ and http://www.pnas.org/content/108/15/6270.full?sid=758b38cc-b399-4d22-9c37-3c074cf321be [[User:Woliveirajr|Woliveirajr]] ([[User talk:Woliveirajr|talk]]) 16:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

My dear departed mother-in-law put it much more memorably - Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will break my heart. [[Special:Contributions/131.107.147.231|131.107.147.231]] 17:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I can easily disregard words. It's not as easy to disregard a broken bone. After my fourth day at my new job, my knees are killing me, and that's not even close. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87|76.106.251.87]] 01:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

So was this comic copied from here? http://thegentlemansarmchair.com/post/50907218931/sticks-and-stones-http-i-imgur-com-sowwlir-jpg
[[User:Bryced|Bryced]] ([[User talk:Bryced|talk]]) 07:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
:Nice find, looks similar but the child doesn't talk. That's the point here. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the last panel isn't so much implying that Cueball thinks THE WORLD is horrific, but that the RHYME (and the fact that it's something regularly promoted to children) is horrific.--[[Special:Contributions/68.230.167.173|68.230.167.173]] 07:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
:Definitely. The horrific part is that we have a children's rhyme about a bone-breaking beating with clubs or rocks. That kind of thing curdles my stomach a little when I even read it in the paper (sorry, internet), so yes it does seem out of place here! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 19:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::I disagree. Cueball's first line in that panel is saying that the world is not bad. When asked to explain why the rhyme involves sticks and stones breaking bones, he concedes that (it) is horrific. If the it refers to the rhyme, then the child was naïvely asking for an explanation. If the it refers to the world, then the child was trying to press a point, as he did in the second panel. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.211|108.162.246.211]] 03:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Or lack of words. It can be disappointing when someone is upset with you and won't talk to you and you just want them to open up so you can facilitate communication again. {{unsigned ip|108.162.250.223}}

The stoics say that's it's not things that hurt us, but our judgement of things. Words can't hurt you unless you allow them to. Sticks and stones will hurt you either way, at least for a while. --[[Special:Contributions/176.199.209.149|176.199.209.149]] 10:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:892: Null Hypothesis

2025-11-13T05:15:48Z

176.199.209.149:

If you get a 50% discount at two shops and buy stuff from both of them, you have a 100% discount. Math. That's how it works, bitches. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|purple|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 10:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
:I would feel entirely justified punching someone who said that unironically. Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.205|108.162.249.205]] 00:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:I mean, if the two items cost the same, then you would technically get a 100% discount on one. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] ([[User talk:Beanie|talk]]) 13:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a misleading thing about percentages. Like this:
Prices of coffee increase by 2% this year, then by 3% next year. That's a 1% increase between years, or a 50% increase between years (from 2 to 3). So which is it? 1 or 50?
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.240|141.101.98.240]] 08:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
:It's a 50% increase and an increase of 1 percentage point. There's a difference between the two. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.235|162.158.158.235]] 16:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

That's why they've invented the "base points" in financials, to denote the percentages of percentages. It's 1% absolute but 50bpp (base point percentage). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.11|108.162.246.11]] 18:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh really. If you say it increased by 2% this year, then by 3% next year. It increased 3%. Unless you mean it will increase by 3% from LAST YEAR to NEXT YEAR. Then it really increased by 2% then .97%. But for this purpose let's throw that out and make it simple. It increased by 2% this year, and will increase by 3% next year. 50% isn't how much it increased, but how much the increase increased. That's called acceleration. The rate of increase per year is always 2 or 3%. So, 1% doesn't factor into this equation at all no matter how you do the math. The answer is 1.02*1.03. It increased by 5.06% over the last two years. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.114|108.162.216.114]] 14:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't these discussion points belong in a different comic? Or perhaps the garbage? Except (1), he lol'd me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 21:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

:They should be on [[985: Percentage Points]] or [[1102: Fastest-Growing]] --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 11:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Every time I learn what the null hypothesis is, I forget about it by the next day. I guess my brain is trying to organize the information and it thinks the /dev/null/ folder would be a good place for it. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.152|172.69.58.152]] 21:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Note that the Null Hypothesis is typically not "disproven". By the very nature of the kind of experiments the term is typically used in, there is generally still a chance that the Null Hypothesis us true. When that chance (expressed by likelihood of observation) is very low, we say we **reject** the Null Hypothesis, but we didn't disprove it. --[[Special:Contributions/176.199.209.149|176.199.209.149]] 05:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2493: Dual USB-C

2025-10-16T19:15:55Z

176.199.209.149:

Is "USB-AC" in the title text a reference to the fact that this looks like an AC power plug, or is that a legitimate variant of USB-C? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.55.65|172.68.55.65]] 18:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
:I think it refers to the polarized version of the 1-15 plug, where one blade is bigger than the other. A USB version of that could have one blade as a USB-A and the other a USB-C. This then also invites the AC pun that you mention. ----PF

I guess this is how connector vendors maintain backwards compatibility for USB-C. ----DaveK

I would have thought it was cursed more from what would happen if you plugged it into a standard ac outlet. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.107|162.158.74.107]] 04:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
:Does USB C actually fit inside an outlet? (As I live in europe, I really have no clue...) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.7|141.101.105.7]] 07:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
:: i'm pretty sure it doesn't (should be wasy to test for any american who owns a USB-C plug), and the third point in the list mentions that currently, which actually renders the first two points immaterial. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.188|162.158.88.188]] 14:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
:::This does not fit into a standard AC outlet. However, I have seen plenty of outlets, especially on extension cords, which might allow one of the USB-C plugs to touch the live contact.[[User:Geek Prophet|Geek Prophet]] ([[User talk:Geek Prophet|talk]]) 18:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. But I'll obviously need a BS 1363/Type-G converter! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.211|141.101.99.211]] 09:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting, Dell already does this with the WD19DCS... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.211|141.101.99.211]] 09:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC) Gargravarr

Is it worth pointing out that "cursed X" is a meme, c.f. /r/cursedimages? I think this is the first time xkcd has referenced it. --[[User:Esogalt|Esogalt]] ([[User talk:Esogalt|talk]]) 14:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
:No I do not think so. That something is cursed is not special to a meme. This reminds more of the bad map projections series. Wonder if more will follow. Have added this similarity in title to the explanation. Starting with a very high number just like that series. In that series number 4 comic just came out, so interesting to see if he has planned more of these. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

This comic yet has no categories. And I cannot think of any suitable? Something with electronics that is not a category yet? I mean it can be used with smart phones and computers, but is not only used for one of these? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
:I was thinking something like 'Spurious Series(es?)'. It could encompass My Hobby and Map Projections as child-categories (they're self-categorised, I'm fairly sure without checking) but any lone "Something-Or-Other #xyz" like this is added as a direct example. And then if "Something-Or-Other #pqr" ever happens and is so categorised it ''highlights'' the need to create a Something-Or-Other category and reassign membership to this instead. If it never gets any direct companions, it can stand out as a spurious to the extent of never being partnered by up to ''xyz-1'' other later examples.
:Non-spurious serieses (xkcdphone, e.g.) that start with example #1 (or even un-numbered, but clearly item 1 in hindsight) might be better to be dealt with as is. But anything pretending to be just one of dozens/hundreds of as-yet-untold examples, especially out of index order (#1 is unlikely to be referenced, for reasons of refusing to establish a truly comprehensive catalogue that doesn't even exist, but would not necessarily disqualify such a leap-frogging/randomly-sampled series if it appeared anyway, after the original asynchro ous+gappy impressions) is probably an intentional Spurious Series.
:Or find an even better term. Or supercategorise Series with subcats of Storytelling/Chronicalling/Chronological (Journal), Upgrades/Revisiting (xkcdphone, also Internet Map?) and Spurious/Ad Hoc (as above), allowing room for future additions to revisit the true nature of the series concerned.
:Would need a proper editorial policy discussion, of course, especially to find better terminology (of whatever form of grouping(s) the final conclusion recommended). But perhaps you can see some glimmer of (a different?) solution in what I have just suggested. Putting it out there so at least it's there to be ignored or dismissed as overthinking the matter. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.183|141.101.99.183]] 16:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
:>This comic yet has no categories. And I cannot think of any suitable? Something with electronics that is not a category yet?
:Maybe we can create a (joke) category, "Category: Pages Not Belonging to Any Categories" :) Also, "List of pages that does not include itself as a list item"... Russell’s paradox is rather xkcd-ish. — [[User:Yosei|Yosei]] ([[User talk:Yosei|talk]]) 01:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I seem to recall at least one other xkcd strip that was "Cursed". I think it was cursed office chairs. That would make at least two comics in the "Cursed" category. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 14:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
:There is also the cursed store that beret guy gets all his stuff from, only to find out later that the item is cursed but when he goes back to the store it's gone. Maybe this is one of the items he recently purchased and couldn't return? [[Special:Contributions/127.0.0.1|127.0.0.1]] 21:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

:Not sure if you mean [[2332: Cursed Chair]] or [[2144: Adjusting a Chair]].
:--[[User:FrankHightower|FrankHightower]] ([[User talk:FrankHightower|talk]]) 19:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The need of dual plugs could also be a result of the increasing power consumption of some devices, as suggested with the Macbook-compatible high-performance dongles in the explanation. USB-C is limited to 100 W, what is not bad for this tiny pins - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB-C#Power_issues_with_cables Wiki USB-C power issues]. So crude soft- and hardware design, e.g of high performance laptops, leads to dual plugs or an additional power plug next to the dock connector. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.94|162.158.134.94]] 11:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

"Cursed Connectors #187" - Section 187 of the California Penal Code covers murder. [[User:ProfDigory|ProfDigory]] ([[User talk:ProfDigory|talk]]) 23:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

well https://twitter.com/NanoRaptor/status/1519341815773552641 [[Special:Contributions/172.70.222.17|172.70.222.17]] 05:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

My Dell Docking station actually comes with a Dual-USB-C plug that slots into both USB plugs on my notebook. The plugs are arranged side by side, though, not in top of each other like in the comic.--[[Special:Contributions/176.199.209.149|176.199.209.149]] 19:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:458: Regrets

2025-10-16T14:22:17Z

176.199.209.149:

Don't know how the original measure was made, but for curiosity's sake I just now checked the current raw Google search results for full-quoted "I should have kissed her" and its variants. That's "should" vs. "shouldn't" vs. "should not" (more imperative?), "have" vs. "...'ve" vs. "of" (to catch the ungrammatical) and of course "him" vs. "her" vs. "them" (plural/ungendered?) vs. "it" (..?).

Here are the figures reported (larger ones having been rounded to "About..." so many thousands). Some results (especially the main "should have kissed her" version) obviously were inclusive of the comic itself and direct references like this Wiki, and blogs from XKCD lovers and XKCD-haters alike who decided to make their own commentary.

{| class="wikitable"
! ..kissed !! Her !! Him !! Them !! It
|-
|Should have || align="right" | 1,120,000 || align="right" | 446,000 || align="right" | 310,000 || align="right" | 859,000
|-
|Shouldn't have || align="right" | 4,100,000 || align="right" | 1,110,000 || align="right" | 6 || align="right" | 1
|-
|Should not have || align="right" | 2,730,000 || align="right" | 542,000 || align="right" | 7 || ="shouldn't have"
|-
|colspan=3|
|-
! ..kissed !! Her !! Him !! Them !! It
|-
|Should've || align="right" | 799,900 || align="right" | 274,000 || align="right" | 94,000 || align="right" | 6
|-
|Shouldn't've || colspan="4" rowspan="2" | (Forced to "shouldn't have"... fair enough.)
|-
|Should not've
|-
|colspan=3|
|-
! ..kissed !! Her !! Him !! Them !! It
|-
|Should of || align="right" | 24,900 || align="right" | 18,500 || align="right" | 1,050 || align="right" | 411
|-
|Shouldn't of || align="right" | 6,840 || align="right" | 6,180 || align="right" | - || align="right" | -
|-
|Should not of || align="right" | 6,840 || align="right" | 6,180 || align="right" | - || align="right" | 1
|}

(Not everything is as intended. The lone "I should not of kissed it" result sends one to "...and i should not of kissed. it is the least i could do...", for example.)

Was going to try alternatives to "kissed", but might have gotten unwieldy. (And imagine the furore at Prism HQ for repeated searches using "killed"!)

I'll just leave this here for analysis and combining related figures however you so feel like. Not sure if the "of" camps are nicely small figures, in comparison, or still too uncomfortably large for my liking... [[Special:Contributions/178.107.249.215|178.107.249.215]] 22:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You should be more concerned with when the original measure was taken. 2008. [[User:Flewk|flewk]] ([[User talk:Flewk|talk]]) 19:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

'''(A)''' I may change my negative view of eugenics, regarding any native speaker of English who ever uses "shouldn't of". 
'''(2)''' But the reason I decided to comment is that there should be an entire Movie Ratings website or app dedicated to counting how many people said "I'm glad I saw [movie]". This is secretly the most brilliant real-world-application idea that the strip has produced, to this very day. Except whatever I see tomorrow as I reread the series, of course. 
'''(III)''' Insider Build 1703 disables alt-numpad for ascii/unicode characters, except in native Metro apps, which Chrome isn't, so I have to hit windowskey-alt-numpad to pretend to search Start for the special character I use regularly, like °, ™, and naïvetè, then copy/paste it...in this case, the long hyphen for my sig. Bleh. 
— [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 15:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
:I'd say it's nice to see you, Kazvorpal. But it's not. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.246|172.69.34.246]] 15:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Aside from whether or not the result is reproducible, it's a highly dubious analysis to begin with. What's the total number of kissers and non kissers? Are the non-kissers biased towards expecting a better outcome if they had kissed? Are non-kissers more likely to state their regret to google search? Considering Randall's peeves with bad statistics, this comic is a bit ironic. --[[Special:Contributions/176.199.209.149|176.199.209.149]] 14:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:125: Marketing Interview

2025-10-12T09:18:35Z

176.199.209.149:

I believe I disagree with the explanation of the title text on this one. To me it suggests that this would be a rare case in which buying the most popular book would be the best because the people who wrote it obviously know a great deal about marketing.{{unsigned ip|‎75.151.211.170|20:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)}}

I don't understand what you mean by "rare case"[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.202|108.162.219.202]] 05:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

:Agreed. The title text appears to connote that although a case of Black Hat or his ilk is rare, the tendency of good marketers' books to sell better ought most often to be the rule rather than the exception. --[[User:Jolbucley|Jolbucley]] ([[User talk:Jolbucley|talk]]) 04:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

or is it? i think he honestly wonders, not leaning towards one answer or the other. cause being the best selling book on marketing guarantees the writer is (or has) a very good marketer (sry, english is not my first language. is marketer a word?). anyway, it doesn't guarantee that there will be any useful information in it, just that the marketing department did their part in promoting the said book. am i going too far here? {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.14|21:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)}}

The most popular book can imply the best marketing, but doesn't ever imply the best content or the best source of information about a topic. However, if the topic is marketing, the at least the reader can look at the marketing strategy for selling the marketing book, which would make the book's author the best source. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.79|108.162.216.79]] 22:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
:Well the popularity of the book tells more about the publishers marketing strategy than the authors, doesn't it? Or would a author who is good at marketing automatically select the publisher with the best marketing? Not nexessarily, it depends on his goals. If the authors goal is making money, he might go with the publisher that he gets the most out of, which isn't necessarily the one that markets his book the best way. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 10:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to marketing, the most popular book isn't necessarily the one with the best content, but its popularity says more about the author's ability. Fast forward 10 years and replace "marketing" with "SEO." If money weren't an object, doesn't it follow to hire an expert listed within the first few results of googling "SEO consultants?" Another field that presents a similar situation is interviewing applicants for a Human Resources position: they're likely to know all the right answers to the usual questions, especially if it's for a high-level position that requires considerable experience and expertise in the area. {{unsigned ip|162.158.62.219|06:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)}}

I think we should consider rewording or removing the first sentence of the last paragraph. It might be true sometimes, but the way it's phrased implies that the best-marketed books are ''always'' most popular, which isn't true. Also, it might not be necessary to include a generalization at all, since the title-text is about marketing specifically.[[User:DownGoer|DownGoer]] ([[User talk:DownGoer|talk]]) 05:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that this Comic appears to use the term "marketing" in its colloquial meaning, in which it is essentially synonymous with "promotion" or "advertising". In business jargon, that's just one aspect of marketing. Simply having successfully advertised himself as being the best does not proof marketing skills. Marketing also involves understanding customer needs, conducting market research, developing a product or service that meets those needs, setting appropriate pricing, choosing effective distribution channels, and building long-term customer relationships. It's not just making noise and drawing attention.--[[Special:Contributions/176.199.209.149|176.199.209.149]] 09:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:358: Loud Party

2025-10-02T10:43:58Z

176.199.209.149:

Its easy to get down from a tree like that.. Pass your laptop to your partner, you climb down, then pass the laptops to the person on the ground, then SHE comes down.

[[Special:Contributions/98.144.105.195|98.144.105.195]] 18:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

:No, you can't leave both laptops with one person, because then the fox will eat both of them. {{unsigned ip|118.209.55.156}} ♥♥♥♥
::Unless you are Russian, meaning there is a rather insignificant chance that the fox MAY be tame. {{unsigned ip|208.54.86.193}}[[Special:Contributions/208.54.86.193|208.54.86.193]] 02:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
:Getting down from any tree is very, very easy. Physics wil help you. Unless you mean getting down unharmed?--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.119|162.158.86.119]] 09:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't really understand this comic, even after the explanation. What are they doing on their laptops? And why do they need to go to a beautiful and isolated setting together to do it? Also, which is more typical behavior, teen or otherwise; to be enjoying a wild party, or sitting quietly with a laptop? Hint: guess which one I'm doing now? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 20:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

btw love the 'fox' comment...the most insightful thing on this page! {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.223}}

January '14, in January '04, the laptop usage was still a bit nerdy. And in 2015... why aren't those dorks using an "iPad"[tablet] or just their phones up in that tree?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.116|108.162.245.116]] 14:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I don't get the impression that the comic is implying that these two are special or anything, they'd just rather be elsewhere, doing something else. Something which I can appreciate. I mean, maybe they're introverted a bit, but whatever. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 06:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I hate loud parties more because of the "loud" part than the "party" part. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.43|108.162.221.43]] 02:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

So, are those two sitting in a tree daydreaming of being at a party, or are they at a party daydreaming they're in a tree? [[User:Jelsemium|Jelsemium]] ([[User talk:Jelsemium|talk]]) Jelsemium

This comic has so many possible extensions he might have run with. What if one person was at the party imagining being on the tree, and the other was on the tree imagining being at the party? Would some of the imagination become recursive? What about everyone else at the party? What are the laptops thinking about, do they wish they were playing a LAN game with each other? I think later he might have gone for more complexity but this is early work from a simpler time. [[User:David Bofinger|David Bofinger]] ([[User talk:David Bofinger|talk]]) 02:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

This comic easily could be repurposed as a commentary on the pandemic. [[User:Fizzytrater|Fizzytrater]] ([[User talk:Fizzytrater|talk]]) 16:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Jelsemimum, they are at the party daydreaming about the tree. You can tell because the thought bubbles are directional. They start with small circles at the source and get larger towards the dream/thought. --[[Special:Contributions/176.199.209.149|176.199.209.149]] 10:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

How can the explanation tell that they are "staring wistfully at each other"? They don't have eyes or noses, for all we know they could be both looking at the floor. Instead of the two people looking at each other dreaming of being together, they might simply both have the same dream of being on a tree alone.--[[Special:Contributions/176.199.209.149|176.199.209.149]] 10:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:358: Loud Party

2025-10-02T10:41:31Z

176.199.209.149: