explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1179: ISO 8601

2015-05-04T02:13:04Z

199.27.128.172: /* Explanation */ european dates are stupid

{{comic
| number = 1179
| date = February 27, 2013
| title = ISO 8601
| image = iso_8601.png
| titletext = ISO 8601 was published on 06/05/88 and most recently amended on 12/01/04.
}}

==Explanation==
When abbreviating the date into numerical form, {{w|Date format by country|various areas of the world}} tend to list the year, month, and day in different orders (as well as with different delimiting symbols), which can cause confusion particularly when the day value is 12 or lower allowing it to be easily interpreted as the month and vice versa. As a {{w|public service announcement}}, this comic states that there is in fact one international standard for writing numeric dates, set by the {{w|International Organization for Standardization}} in its {{w|ISO 8601}} standard.

The comic then proceeds to list several discouraged ways of writing out the date of the comic's publication, as they do not match the standard. It begins with several commonly used ones in countries around the world, but then begins to list increasingly uncommon ways, ranging from strange (Roman numerals) to quirky (binary, Unix time) to essentially impossible (painting the numbers onto a black cat).

The title text provides a perfect example of the kind of ambiguity that can arise when non-standard formats are used. The ISO standard was in fact published on 1988-06-05 and amended on 2004-12-01. This is mentioned in the title text in mm/dd/yy format; however, there is no way to naturally figure this out, particularly with the second date. With the year truncated to two digits and all three numbers at 12 or lower, the date may well be interpreted as 12 January 2004, or 4 January 2012.

Date formats was again the subject in [[1340: Unique Date]].

The other mentioned formats are:

{| class=wikitable
! Date !! Explanation
|-
| 02/27/2013
| MM/DD/YYYY, used mostly in the United States.
|-
| 02/27/13
| MM/DD/YY, same as above but with the year shortened to two digits.
|-
| 27/02/2013
| DD/MM/YYYY, used variously in South America, Canada ({{w|Date_and_time_notation_in_Canada|officially uses ISO 8601}}), Australia, New Zealand and Europe.
|-
| 27/02/13
| DD/MM/YY, same as above but with the year shortened to two digits.
|-
| 20130227
| YYYYMMDD, same as ISO 8601 without delimiting punctuation. Allowed by the standard. Technically not ambiguous but is hard to read as a date at first glance.
|-
| 2013.02.27
| YYYY.MM.DD, used in Japan. Same as ISO 8601 except with different punctuation.
|-
| 27.02.13
| DD.MM.YY, used in Germany, Russia, etc.
|-
| 27-02-13
| DD-MM-YY, used in Denmark, Netherlands, Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, etc.
|-
| 27.2.13
| D.M.YY. It is common in several areas to abbreviate the month or day to a single digit and drop the leading zero when possible.
|-
| 2013. II. 27.
| YYYY. MM. DD., with month as {{w|Roman numerals}}, used in Hungary.
|-
| 27⁄2-13
| D⁄M-YY, traditional format in Sweden
|-
| 2013.158904109
| Year and decimal fraction of year. 0.158904109 is a decimal approximation of 58/365, with February 27 being the 58th day of the year. Allowed in ISO 8601 as it is not ambiguous; presumably easier to read for computers/programs but difficult for humans.
|-
| MMXIII-II-XXVII
| The ISO 8601 standard but written in Roman numerals. Never used as a traditional standard anywhere as it is hard to read, parse, and interpret for no benefit.
|-
| MMXIII LVII⁄CCCLXV
| Year followed by its partial fraction 57/365, all in Roman numerals. Equally useless as the above. As a note, apparently this 'standard' is different from the decimal fraction two rows above, as the decimal fraction notation uses the ''end'' of the day (first day of the year is 1/365 while the last is 365/365), while this uses the ''beginning'' (first day is 0/365 and last is 364/365).
|-
| 1330300800
| {{w|Unix time|UNIX Timestamp}}, a standard method of storing absolute time in many computer systems and defined as the number of seconds since 00:00:00 on 1 January 1970 (UTC). The Unix time listed here appears to mistakenly be for '''2012'''-02-27, which is also mentioned by [[Randall]] in the original transcript.
|-
| ((3+3)×(111+1)-1)×3/3-1/33
| A useless format where the numbers 2013, 2, and 27 written as needlessly long arithmetic expressions using just the digits 1 and 3. For additional confusion, the values are delimited by slashes, enabling confusion with the fraction bar. (If evaluated literally, the entire expression evaluates to 670.963, or 671 minus 1 divided by 27.)
|-
|    2  272013
| A nearly impossible to read date "format" that can be considered a parody "compromise" between different formats: rather than argue about the order in which the year, month, and day should be, they are simply all written on top of each other. As a "bonus", there is also no arguing over which separator character to use.
|-
| 10/11011/1101
| The US mm/dd/yy format in {{w|Binary number|binary}}, corresponding to 2/27/13. Never used for obvious reasons.
|-
| 02/27/20/13
| MM/DD/CC/YY, where CC stands for century. This format is never used. Note that while months and days count starting from 1, centuries and years in this format count from 0 for extra confusion. But the CC value is widely used on many operating systems to distinguish between the 20th and 21st century, represented by the values "19" and "20" because 1950 belongs to the 20th century.
|-
| 2053112674378
| An obfuscated format where the small numbers indicate the positions where the large digits should be placed. In this reading, 0 is used at positions 2 and 5, 1 is used on position 3, etc.; the result being 20130227
|-
| [A hissing black cat with "2-27-13" painted on it]
| In Western cultures, black cats and the number 13 are associated with bad luck. The cat might also just be angry that someone covered it in paint.
|}

==Transcript==
:Public Service Announcement:

:Our different ways of writing dates as numbers can lead to online confusion. That's why in 1988 ISO set a global standard numeric date format. This is '''''the''''' correct way to write numeric dates:

::2013-02-27

:The following formats are therefore discouraged:
:*02/27/2013
:*02/27/13
:*27/02/2013
:*27/02/13
:*20130227
:*2013.02.27
:*27.02.13
:*27-02-13
:*27.2.13
:*2013. II. 27.
:*27⁄2-13
:*2013.158904109
:*MMXIII-II-XXVII
:*MMXIII LVII⁄CCCLXV
:*1330300800 [This is the UNIX time for *2012*-02-27, Randall.]
:*((3+3)×(111+1)-1)×3/3-1/33
:*   2  272013 [the numbers 2013, 02, and 27 written overlapping each other]
:*10/11011/1101
:*02/27/20/13
:*2053112674378
:*[A black cat with 2-27-13 scrawled across its body in dripping white paint.]
:**Cat: ''Hissss''

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

Talk:1506: xkcloud

2015-04-02T06:01:01Z

199.27.128.172:

The lack of a hover text breaks all sorts of things :) e.g. Floern's unofficial xkcd browser linked here via the hover text but it won't display the link or the lack of give text if there's no hover text! We may get a few less visitors for this comic as a result...

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.115|108.162.229.115]] 08:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
:Still getting swamped, it's business as usual for April 1st. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is "literally on fire" a question? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.163|108.162.249.163]] 09:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

:It indicates uncertainty. He's not really asking a question, but making a statement hesitantly. {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.22}}

::Indeed, see also {{w|uptalk}}. [[User:Pesthouse|Pesthouse]] ([[User talk:Pesthouse|talk]]) 10:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

How does i work? Does it work? When i click the "Help us"-Button i just get a blank comic with "..." written at the top :( [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.148|108.162.254.148]] 10:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
:same here. any hint? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.92.82|141.101.92.82]] 22:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy, time to find out if mediawiki does imagemaps.--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 10:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The image was updated on xkcd.com the button now reads "Click here to help us recover user data before facebook & ca notice we lost it [[User:ẞ qwertz|ẞ qwertz]] ([[User talk:ẞ qwertz|talk]]) 10:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
:Can someone update the picture without just making a screen shoot? It is not like you can save it the normal way. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
::I have never understood how this works. I did try to change to the new version, but it somehow keeps loading the old version, even though I know that I did load a new version up. Even on the file page my file loads as the wrong one. I have tried this more than once... Previously the image has updates to the new version later without a new upload appearing. But I have no idea why...? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I decided to '''man up''', get the train rolling and submitted the '''first revision''' of the explanation. Do expand, retouch, overwrite, format and correct my simple explanation. I didn't know if the 3 already existing posts, the ambiguous text posts or the drawings are user-based, so I avoided saying so in the explanation. I'll just add something about the covet/thirst/hanker/crave in a moment, and I'm done. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.151|173.245.53.151]] 11:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This comic has an empty alt text. See http://m.xkcd.com/1506/. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.201|108.162.221.201]] 13:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

* There's a silent character limit (no error message, just non-acceptance; You can still comment the image again, but the text is lost unless you copied it first) somewhere between 222 and 298 chars. I tried to make a start at playing Identik with an image, but only came half way through. Guess, I have to write shorter...
* Someone figured out, how to copy&paste some grayscale image.
* I managed to submit a color image, but haven't seen it coming back yet. Tell me when you find a red one.
* There is at least one image that is too fine to have been drawn in that minimal editor (squirrel+football). I guess, it's one of the initial images that Randall provided. -- [[User:Xorg|Xorg]] ([[User talk:Xorg|talk]]) 14:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
** There's also an image of Buzz Lightyear that appears to be copy-pasted in. I'm not sure how someone would have accomplished that. How did you mange to get color, user 2 above me? If anyone seems a stick-figure comic titled 2006 in which one character says to the other "You're never going to achieve anything if you spend all your time on that web comic ... Now back to my Zune research", that's mine. Post here and let me know! [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 14:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*** I used the web console to get a drawing context on the canvas object. After submission the image was actually transferred to the lower area, but now, I suspect that it wasn't really the data that got uploaded... -- [[User:Xorg|Xorg]] ([[User talk:Xorg|talk]]) 15:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
**** I used a similar method (injecting modified base64 directly into the stream) to submit goatse :) --[[User:Okofish|Okofish]] ([[User talk:Okofish|talk]]) 22:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
:Yes although I'm certain that most of the images are from users, it would be nice to hear from someone who can confirm that one of their images has been spotted {{unsigned|Kynde}}
::I can at least confirm that one of my texts has been spottet by someone else. I got the black image and wrote "I finally managed to disable the flashlight of my camera". Later I saw an image combining a hammer, a nail and a camera to depict my description. -- [[User:Xorg|Xorg]] ([[User talk:Xorg|talk]]) 15:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
::The last computer device at the far right is a first generation SNES. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.193|173.245.56.193]] 15:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)X
:::I keep reading the unidentified computer (second to rightmost) as a SunSPARC (that could kinda be the Sun logo) or a NEXT cube (right shape but no match to the logo) or something. Not sure where someone got 'radio transmitter'. [[User:Ijkcomputer|Ijkcomputer]] ([[User talk:Ijkcomputer|talk]]) 19:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
:::My first reaction to the second-to-rightmost was some kind of homebrew like an S-100 CP/M system with open-air cards in slots and a cased power supply or maybe a storage device, and a CRT with a graphic shown on it.[[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 04:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
*I think the general idea is based on a game that I think is called the fax machine game? [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.5|198.41.242.5]] 15:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I really, really, hope that some people have seen my contributions. They're pretty damn funny. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|The Goyim speaks]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 17:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a link(Don't contact us) at the bottom of the list on the left that leads to a chatroom.[[User:Foldark|Foldark]] ([[User talk:Foldark|talk]]) 22:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems like the comic stopped working right now? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
:It is also not working for me. I had assumed I was personally blocked for polling the server too often... but maybe we DDOSed it. -[[User:452|452]] ([[User talk:452|talk]]) 22:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
:It's working for me again. -[[User:452|452]] ([[User talk:452|talk]]) 22:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe the 'Don't contact us' button is slowly fading away. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.137|173.245.50.137]] 02:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
:I believe the chat has been removed, I just got booted with a "This room requires a passcode", and now it won't load: https://euphoria.io/room/xkcd/ -[[User:452|452]] ([[User talk:452|talk]]) 02:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like something Randall drew originally... https://xkcd.com/1506/#post/d6e6524c-80a5-5672-a539-8076c5c0342f
--[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.172|199.27.128.172]] 06:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1494: Insurance

2015-03-11T01:21:33Z

199.27.128.172:

Well...suck for you.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.57|108.162.215.57]] 05:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC) RobotGoggles

'''Incomplete tag?'''
I know it's pretty early, and the explanation is bound to be rewritten, but the current explanation is a little confusing, and makes a couple jumps that I wouldn't necessarily make. Maybe the incomplete tag shouldn't be removed yet? I'd do it, but I don't really know enough about actually editing the explanations to feel comfortable doing it yet.
[[User:ARoseByAnyOtherName|ARoseByAnyOtherName]] ([[User talk:ARoseByAnyOtherName|talk]]) 08:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

: I mean, I had written an explanation I'd say was a bit clearer (if a bit more complicated), but some unregistered user removed most of it... Makes me a bit grumpy. The newly added ''Lifehacks vs. IT hacks'' section brings up most of the things that person removed, though, so this should be complete enough. [[User:Obskyr|Obskyr]] ([[User talk:Obskyr|talk]]) 09:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

:: Well, for what it's worth, I liked your version better. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 10:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Not only that. The new version was so bad I decided to revert to Obskyr's. [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1494%3A_Insurance&diff=85633&oldid=85624] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.201|108.162.221.201]] 13:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

;Any meaning to conveyer?

The spelling error in the alt text seems like a simple typo.

Lawyer? I assumed it was a salesman or HR guy. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 08:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
:: Insurance agent. Not exactly a salesman; agents have multiple hats. You don't get fire insurance from HR.[[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 09:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
:::So you're saying the agents are TF2 players. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 04:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This is probably a reference to those youtube videos of ''life hacks'' of questionable legality. Eg signing up for one flight to take another[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.100|108.162.219.100]] 16:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess this might also relate to that (from my experience) programmers tend to like to break things (anything claimed to be "secure" seems to attract lots of people wanting to test out how secure) or find workarounds for things? [[User:Pinkishu|Pinkishu]] ([[User talk:Pinkishu|talk]]) 10:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

;Hacking

Please read [https://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html On Hacking]. I think the term you're looking for is cracking, or at least black hat hacking. Hacking a system would mean getting a system to do something unique and/or interesting. Or interacting with the system in a way that wasn't predicted. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.191|108.162.238.191]] 10:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
:You're right. But there is at least a second common usage for the word hack that is described by wikipedia as "an inelegant but effective solution to a computing problem". When the insurance guy speaks about "cool hacks", he's probably not refering to Stallman's definition. [[User:Nytux|Nytux]] ([[User talk:Nytux|talk]]) 09:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

;Hard hacks
Things like lock-picking is often also seen as physical equivalents of hacking, not necessarily illegal but still something most people would look on with suspicion.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.98|108.162.254.98]] 10:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

:Agree, this is excellent example on "hacking the computer": there is nothing illegal on lock-picking itself. Even if you use it on someone's else door without permission, it would not be crime unless you actually ENTER the door (or damage the lock). Locksmiths MUST know how to do it. But ... first thing you think about when hearing lock-picking is that thiefs do it. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
::Before coming down into the comments, and seeing the last set of comments, I felt it necessary to make an edit to highlight just such an issue regarding the confusion about 'hacking'. As a historical sideline, note also the term "cracksman" as used for those who illegally open safes (and others skilled with locks and barred entranceways, in a criminal manner), which predates all the above computer-era terminology. But I didn't want to add ''too'' much more to the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.181|141.101.98.181]] 17:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I think part of the point of today's comic is to point that contracts are somewhat similar to a computer program (both have definitions and rules by which the system must abide), but lack the strict rigor of the latter. So, when programmers read a legal contract they immediately start searching for bugs or vulnerabilities or even syntax optimizations. {{unsigned ip|188.114.98.29}}

;Why is it illegal to do things allowed by the contract?
Why is it illegal if the insurance company agreed that the "fraudulent" maneuver was accepted, by signing the contract allowing it?
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.172|199.27.128.172]] 23:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The contract doesn't have a section that says "and fraud is prohibited" because fraud is already prohibited by criminal law; thus, no need to spell it out. It turns out that contracts will have many terms added by implication, particularly commercial contracts.

:If you buy a shiny new gun, the instruction manual probably doesn't say "Oh, and by the way, if you point this thing at someone and pull the trigger while it's loaded, you may be charged with a crime." You're supposed to know that this is true BEFORE you buy a gun. That's part of the joke... normal people know that looking for ways to get the insurance to pay out more than it should is insurance fraud. People who think like programmers think they've found a loophole they can exploit. {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.170}}

::Still, it's fraud to deliberately lie to the insurance company to make more money. I still don't see how taking advantage of the insurance company's mistakes is fraud, especially when you're just following the contract. Do companies have special privileges and entitlements to profit? --[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.172|199.27.128.172]] 01:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

::Another problem with your analogy is that shooting someone with a gun is a crime against a person, not the gun seller, while fraud is a crime against the other party. --[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.172|199.27.128.172]] 01:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

; ...

Uh, why doesn't it mention life hacks at all in the "lifehacks vs IT hacks" section? Especially since I remember some lifehacks actually advocate for plain fucking stealing, like e.g. one which suggested that if you need a free umbrella, go to a restaurant and say you lost a black umbrella. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.224|141.101.89.224]] 01:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:I absolutely agree with this point. The comic appears to suggest that programmers apply the conditioning that comes from their jobs (that code exploits are cool, and that the system must be designed to prevent exploits) to life (where exploiting a system's vulnerabilities may look cool but is very probably illegal). The airport luggage registration and screening system allows anyone to walk out the door with any item of luggage, but it is quite simply theft to do so. Likewise, exploiting a loophole in a contract is generally acceptable in order to avoid work or liability, but when you do it to obtain material gain then it is quite simply fraud. It would appear that much of the explanation currently misses the point... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.50|108.162.229.50]] 13:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

;Checking the luggage

Seems like someone already tried this.
I flew to Saigon last week and they check your luggage against your lost&found tag, before you may leave.
--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.156|108.162.222.156]] 15:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
: Correct. Most airports don't check the luggage tags, but I've been to some that do. Don't remember which. May have been South Asia too. [[User:Chrisahn|Chrisahn]] ([[User talk:Chrisahn|talk]]) 14:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a sequel to ''UV'', it may relate, but as mentioned in that comment it's not even close to legal to burn a house then get fire insurance. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 19:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, isn't [[Hairy]] the insurance agent? Should the transcript be updated to name him? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 19:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1494: Insurance

2015-03-11T01:09:33Z

199.27.128.172:

Well...suck for you.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.57|108.162.215.57]] 05:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC) RobotGoggles

'''Incomplete tag?'''
I know it's pretty early, and the explanation is bound to be rewritten, but the current explanation is a little confusing, and makes a couple jumps that I wouldn't necessarily make. Maybe the incomplete tag shouldn't be removed yet? I'd do it, but I don't really know enough about actually editing the explanations to feel comfortable doing it yet.
[[User:ARoseByAnyOtherName|ARoseByAnyOtherName]] ([[User talk:ARoseByAnyOtherName|talk]]) 08:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

: I mean, I had written an explanation I'd say was a bit clearer (if a bit more complicated), but some unregistered user removed most of it... Makes me a bit grumpy. The newly added ''Lifehacks vs. IT hacks'' section brings up most of the things that person removed, though, so this should be complete enough. [[User:Obskyr|Obskyr]] ([[User talk:Obskyr|talk]]) 09:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

:: Well, for what it's worth, I liked your version better. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 10:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Not only that. The new version was so bad I decided to revert to Obskyr's. [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1494%3A_Insurance&diff=85633&oldid=85624] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.201|108.162.221.201]] 13:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

;Any meaning to conveyer?

The spelling error in the alt text seems like a simple typo.

Lawyer? I assumed it was a salesman or HR guy. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 08:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
:: Insurance agent. Not exactly a salesman; agents have multiple hats. You don't get fire insurance from HR.[[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 09:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
:::So you're saying the agents are TF2 players. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 04:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This is probably a reference to those youtube videos of ''life hacks'' of questionable legality. Eg signing up for one flight to take another[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.100|108.162.219.100]] 16:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess this might also relate to that (from my experience) programmers tend to like to break things (anything claimed to be "secure" seems to attract lots of people wanting to test out how secure) or find workarounds for things? [[User:Pinkishu|Pinkishu]] ([[User talk:Pinkishu|talk]]) 10:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

;Hacking

Please read [https://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html On Hacking]. I think the term you're looking for is cracking, or at least black hat hacking. Hacking a system would mean getting a system to do something unique and/or interesting. Or interacting with the system in a way that wasn't predicted. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.191|108.162.238.191]] 10:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
:You're right. But there is at least a second common usage for the word hack that is described by wikipedia as "an inelegant but effective solution to a computing problem". When the insurance guy speaks about "cool hacks", he's probably not refering to Stallman's definition. [[User:Nytux|Nytux]] ([[User talk:Nytux|talk]]) 09:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

;Hard hacks
Things like lock-picking is often also seen as physical equivalents of hacking, not necessarily illegal but still something most people would look on with suspicion.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.98|108.162.254.98]] 10:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

:Agree, this is excellent example on "hacking the computer": there is nothing illegal on lock-picking itself. Even if you use it on someone's else door without permission, it would not be crime unless you actually ENTER the door (or damage the lock). Locksmiths MUST know how to do it. But ... first thing you think about when hearing lock-picking is that thiefs do it. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
::Before coming down into the comments, and seeing the last set of comments, I felt it necessary to make an edit to highlight just such an issue regarding the confusion about 'hacking'. As a historical sideline, note also the term "cracksman" as used for those who illegally open safes (and others skilled with locks and barred entranceways, in a criminal manner), which predates all the above computer-era terminology. But I didn't want to add ''too'' much more to the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.181|141.101.98.181]] 17:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I think part of the point of today's comic is to point that contracts are somewhat similar to a computer program (both have definitions and rules by which the system must abide), but lack the strict rigor of the latter. So, when programmers read a legal contract they immediately start searching for bugs or vulnerabilities or even syntax optimizations. {{unsigned ip|188.114.98.29}}

;Why is it illegal to do things allowed by the contract?
Why is it illegal if the insurance company agreed that the "fraudulent" maneuver was accepted, by signing the contract allowing it?
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.172|199.27.128.172]] 23:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The contract doesn't have a section that says "and fraud is prohibited" because fraud is already prohibited by criminal law; thus, no need to spell it out. It turns out that contracts will have many terms added by implication, particularly commercial contracts.

If you buy a shiny new gun, the instruction manual probably doesn't say "Oh, and by the way, if you point this thing at someone and pull the trigger while it's loaded, you may be charged with a crime." You're supposed to know that this is true BEFORE you buy a gun. That's part of the joke... normal people know that looking for ways to get the insurance to pay out more than it should is insurance fraud. People who think like programmers think they've found a loophole they can exploit. {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.170}}

Still, it's fraud to deliberately lie to the insurance company to make more money. I still don't see how taking advantage of the insurance company's mistakes is fraud, especially when you're just following the contract. Do companies have special privileges and entitlements to profit? --[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.172|199.27.128.172]] 01:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Uh, why doesn't it mention life hacks at all in the "lifehacks vs IT hacks" section? Especially since I remember some lifehacks actually advocate for plain fucking stealing, like e.g. one which suggested that if you need a free umbrella, go to a restaurant and say you lost a black umbrella. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.224|141.101.89.224]] 01:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:I absolutely agree with this point. The comic appears to suggest that programmers apply the conditioning that comes from their jobs (that code exploits are cool, and that the system must be designed to prevent exploits) to life (where exploiting a system's vulnerabilities may look cool but is very probably illegal). The airport luggage registration and screening system allows anyone to walk out the door with any item of luggage, but it is quite simply theft to do so. Likewise, exploiting a loophole in a contract is generally acceptable in order to avoid work or liability, but when you do it to obtain material gain then it is quite simply fraud. It would appear that much of the explanation currently misses the point... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.50|108.162.229.50]] 13:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

;Checking the luggage

Seems like someone already tried this.
I flew to Saigon last week and they check your luggage against your lost&found tag, before you may leave.
--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.156|108.162.222.156]] 15:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
: Correct. Most airports don't check the luggage tags, but I've been to some that do. Don't remember which. May have been South Asia too. [[User:Chrisahn|Chrisahn]] ([[User talk:Chrisahn|talk]]) 14:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a sequel to ''UV'', it may relate, but as mentioned in that comment it's not even close to legal to burn a house then get fire insurance. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 19:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, isn't [[Hairy]] the insurance agent? Should the transcript be updated to name him? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 19:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1494: Insurance

2015-03-04T23:22:23Z

199.27.128.172:

Talk:33: Self-reference

2015-03-02T00:09:20Z

199.27.128.172:

* This comic is not exactly clear to me. What is the self-reference, or what is the humour? [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 14:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
** I added a bit. Does that help clarify? Of course, one of the hallmarks of self-reference is that clarity tends to be lost. [[User:Blaisepascal|Blaisepascal]] ([[User talk:Blaisepascal|talk]]) 14:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
What if I don't find this humorous, then he's not squeezing humor! --[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.172|199.27.128.172]] 00:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1490: Atoms

2015-02-23T06:14:40Z

199.27.128.172:

"My dad FORM the dog"? Typo in the actual comic or just the wiki?
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.240|199.27.128.240]] 05:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Anonymous
: The actual comment, the wiki just grabs what the website has listed.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.24|108.162.216.24]] 05:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
plutonium = radiation exposure, or pacemaker?

this guy sees by which elements are contained, not by which visible light?
--[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.172|199.27.128.172]] 06:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

1325: Rejection

2014-02-03T23:37:02Z

199.27.128.172: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1325
| date = February 3, 2014
| title = Rejection
| image = rejection.png
| titletext = Perhaps you need a crash course in taking hints. Here's your first lesson: We're not actually walking somewhere together; I'm trying to leave this conversation and you're following me.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Incomplete.}}

In popular culture women are sometimes said to not be interested in {{w|nice guys}}, as in common interpretations of the phrase {{w|Nice_guy#The_.22nice_guys_finish_last.22_view|nice guys finish last}} (which was originally about baseball). The guy on the left in this picture is presumably frustrated and complaining because he has been rejected by a woman, and thinks it's because he's the "nice guy" type. Cueball's sarcastic interjection implies that saying that women don't want nice guys and presuming to know what women "really want" is actually showing a rejection of that woman's agency, which might be the real reason she rejected him. It fits with one of the negative connotations of "nice guy": one who does not express his true feelings and/or is {{w|Passive-aggressive behavior|passive-aggressive}}.

The title text continues the "conversation", with Cueball implying that he believes that the first guy is bad at taking hints. He offers a "crash course" in hint taking by clarifying outright that he is trying to end the conversation while the first guy continues to follow him.

Though this guy might indeed be a jerk, there are also many other reasons why a woman might reject a guy who isn't a jerk.

The concept of the self-identifying "nice guy" who actually may have less than admirable motives is also explored in [[513: Friends]].

See also the concept of "negging" as used in [[1027: Pickup Artist]]: you belittle chicks to undermine their self-confidence so they'll be more vulnerable and seek your approval.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is walking, and a guy is following him.]
:Guy: Women ''say'' they want nice guys, but what they ''really'' want are—
:Cueball: —Guys who respond to rejection by belittling their judgment and self-awareness? If so, don't worry— you'll be ''fine.''

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]