explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1386: People are Stupid

2026-06-17T15:54:28Z

69.5.140.194:

On average yes, an individual is of average intelligence. But taken as a population of a whole, well, that's a different story entirely. Randall needs a vacation, ever since he jumped the shark with the dead baby it just feels like the downward trend is getting steeper. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.135|108.162.210.135]] 13:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
::"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." - Kay, Men in Black 1997 {{unsigned ip|172.71.30.187|01:33, 6 September 2024}}
:I don't really think that he jumped the shark. I don't quite get what you are trying to say, and individual can't be of average intelligence. You must first define the average, if we take the mean intelligence of the whole population, then take a person from the sample, then we say that the individual is of average intelligence. You can't say people is stupid while referring to the whole population, because of the definition of stupid, if we take a sample of low IQ people then those people are going to be of average intelligence within the sample, the same goes to the whole population. So this comic is perfectly valid. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.192|108.162.212.192]] 04:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
::I know this is a lot later, but I believe that OP was referring to the difference between mean and median measures of intelligence. More than 50% of the population can be below average intelligence if the distribution is skewed right. [[User:NotLock|NotLock]] ([[User talk:NotLock|talk]]) 03:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that a reference to the Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.119|103.22.200.119]] 04:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)krayZpaving

White Hat being burned? This certainly will not end here.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.102.208|141.101.102.208]] 04:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

'''''Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.''''' This wiki is founded on the very principle that people are stupid. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.223.29|108.162.223.29]] 05:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: You make an intelligent point, which I both appreciate and like. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.50|108.162.222.50]] 13:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
::Awww, it's just a joke, it's not personal or anything! '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 13:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This comment is one that makes me scratch my head and wonder... surely Randall is able to see that intelligence is not a relative but rather an absolute thing (if one were to kill the 10% most intelligent people the rest wouldn't get dumber, nor smarter). Surely intelligence is not to be measured in units of the common denominator. Surely it is obvious that 2nd panel is a pure strawman. Sigh...
Oh and btw an IQ of 100 is the median, not the average. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 09:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: I am wondering if the explanation should not include a mention of the Median/Mean problem because it is entirely possible for a majority of a population to be above or below some mean (average) statistic depending on the distribution. Also stupidity is a standard that is not dependent on either median or mean.[[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 11:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: The IQ of 100 is actually defined to be the median AND the average (and also the mode). It is also defined that the distibution around the IQ of 100 is a perfect bell curve. The IQ just tells you how many people in the world have your IQ (It is also defined that two values that have same distance from hundred, e.g. 80 and 120 have the same amount of people, 'cause it's a perfect bell curve (this means that there are as many people with IQ 120 as people with IQ 80). If the overall population gets more intelligent they have to make the IQ tests harder, so that 100 is again the average and median (This really happened). This and some other things are reasons why I think that IQ tests are BS. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.93.219|141.101.93.219]] 14:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
:: "A test device with numerous correlates measures an amount of environmental influences beside innate determinants, therefore bullshit"... What are your other objections to I.Q. testing? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.221|141.101.89.221]] 14:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The mocking "award", which is an analogy of saying "intelligence isn't everything" (an EXTREMELY common cliche), reflects the fact that Randall, like just about anyone, is oblivious to the magnitude of the totality of positive correlates of intelligence, and even (TRIGGER WARNING, TABOO CONCEPT AHEAD) I.Q. Intelligence, I.Q., not only makes you happier, it also makes you more helpful to other people, more creative, more socially stable, better-to-do, less susceptible to mental illnesses, more likely to remember events in your life, etc. etc. etc... Basically, there isn't a positive trait or quality of life with which intelligence doesn't correlate. But people positively LOATHE awareness of how highly intelligence, in fact, matters. Hence the vehement denial whenever someone indicates its importance, all the "I know an intelligent person who is miserable/mean/...", all stressing of exceptions, all ridicule of the notion of intelligence in general, all the "don't think about it"-mentality, all writing off of I.Q. as "antiquated, grossly limited, racist, metric" rather than the extremely potent predictor that it is. tl;dr Randall at all, take time to actually STUDY intelligence or the g factor before you mock it like that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 09:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

: IQ is based on an arbitrary test and isn't necessarily accurate or reliable. Cognitive ability (which IQ does not accurately measure) WOULD make you more creative, have better memory, etc. I don't know anything about the mental illness thing, but it doesn't make you happier- you can be extremely intelligent but still have a miserable life. Also many "geniuses" in history have emotional issues and unbalanced lives. Intelligence doesn't make you more helpful, either. Yes, you might be more ABlE to help others, but only if you were educated, and only if you WANT to. Plus, this is a webcomic poking fun at people generalizing humanity, not an in-depth analysis of IQ. This whole argument is pointless, and I don't know why I just wasted a bunch of time on it... I guess I have fallen for the trap described by comic 386, Duty Calls. [[User:Random xkcd Fan|Random xkcd Fan]] ([[User talk:Random xkcd Fan|talk]]) 00:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

: In other words (and this is going to be my last addendum to this note, because it is a vast subject), whenever people say (or imply, as in the comic's case) that "intelligence isn't everything", the question to ask in return is, "okay, now what is the degree to which intelligence enables, facilitates, contributes to, 'the rest' to which you're opposing intelligence here?". People minimise the depth and breadth of the intellectual substrate of achievement. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 09:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

: Also, Randall (and everyone saying that) is being highly unjust in equating "people aren't smart" with "people aren't as smart as me". A perfectly valid alternative sense is, "people aren't as smart as to be rationally expected to contribute to rather than damage the discussion/situation/position at hand"--having the objective good, the objective recognition that certain situations (for instance, a certain online conversation which is expected to be competent) require certain minimal intellectual thresholds (for instance, an I.Q. of 120), in mind rather than egotic comparison. Lower intelligence, deny it all you please, comes with temperamental problems for instance. Selection for intelligence will largely filter them out. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 09:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

:: tl;dr of my entire production here: people must learn that BOTH situations of the Dunning-Kruger are equally harmful, the one that's less often considered perhaps actually even more so. Mistaken self-perception as intelligent is bad for the individual, but refusal to acknowledge the importance of one's own cognitive capacity (which is as good as universal in intelligent people--"I am not that smart" (who hasn't heard that one innumerable times?), "I just like doing thing x, my proficiency in it has nothing to do with my intelligence or I.Q.", "I have areas in which I'm 'stupid' too", "effort counts too") has societal consequences, of contributing to erroneous dismissal of the notions of intelligence & I.Q. & g etc. Shutting up for good now. Night. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 10:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

::: GAHHHHH just one more thing. Consider this: the fact that people dismiss I.Q. is the best indicator of how important a trait it really is. Thing is, people would not feel compelled by modesty to deny its importance had it not been vitally integral to many, many things. We deny what we value, so to give hope to those who lack that thing (to comfort those who lack intelligence). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 10:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

:::: Okay, no offense, but maybe you should calm down a bit. It's just a WEBCOMIC, not the Universal Decree of All Things Correct and Accepted as True. Also, I'm pretty sure you're overthinking it. Randall is just poking fun at those who say, "oh, people are stupid, you know". Cueball isn't seriously giving statistics (although I do agree with his logic- intelligence is NOT absolute, it's relative. And IQ is obsolete; it's based on arbitrary tests and vary based on things like race and social class, which should be evidence enough that it isn't some divine, and 100% precise way of calculating cognitive ability). Cueball is simply making fun of White Hat's statement that "people are stupid". Also the comic generally points out making remarks about the human race as a whole doesn't help anything... {{unsigned|Random xkcd Fan}}

:::: Hey 141.101.89.211... I wonder if you have something to say, but despite my best efforts, I'm having trouble following everything you're saying - I have a feeling you were a bit emotional (perhaps tired?) when writing that, or you might have had fewer "more things" immediately following "I'm done" statements. If you're up for it, I'd appreciate you taking the time to make sure you're saying what you want to say, and ''then'' say it, because you seem to at least have good grammar (though there ''were'' a few British spellings... :-D), so I suspect you probably have a good point. It's also conceivable that I'm just not smart enough to get what you're saying (?) or perhaps it's just too ''early'' for me. BTW the best way of making sure I see what you're saying would probably be to let me know on my [[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk page]]... might even have the conversation there if you'd prefer. Thanks for your time. [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 11:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: I don't know why you think that 141.101.89.211... No where does the comic say that. The mocking award is simply mocking people who '''may or may not''' have higher intelligence than the people they're addressing taking a Better Than Thou attitude because they think they do. In other words: "Higher intelligence doesn't give you an excuse to act like a jerk." I'm sure you can agree with that too [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.218|108.162.245.218]] 04:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I would add one "people are stupid" angle not yet mentioned: judging by behavior, most groups of people are less intelligent that any member of that group individually. This is valid even for the "all people" group - just look at the planet. Surprisingly, judging by content of most wikis, the "editors of wiki" groups seems to immune. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: Good point--conforming to pressures of one's group or one's position to the detriment of one's judgment is a separate personality trait. The phenomenon is remedied by intelligence, but independent from it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 10:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: Beat me to it. I'd like to add that even individual people have their occasional stupid and intelligent moments, with the stupid ones typically being of greater magnitude. Thus, it's not unreasonable to say that the average actions of people are at least slightly less intelligent than the average intelligence of most people on most days. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.83|173.245.55.83]] 12:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: Similar to the statement in the film "Men In Black". Agent J says, "Why the big secret [about the aliens among us]? People are smart. They can handle it." Agent K responds, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.45|108.162.221.45]] 01:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe people say things like that, man, people are stupid [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 10:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Lake Wobegon references. Not only is it on-target, but I take personal joy seeing mentions of uniquely Minnesotan culture anywhere I can find them. --BigMal27, Minnesota-born, Minnesotan-raised // [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.88|173.245.55.88]] 11:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Instead of saying, "People are stupid," we would do better to say "People make poor decisions / statements / judgments." And this, for multiple reasons, few of them I suspect tied to basal intelligence. Stage of life, level of health and stress, experience relative to the topic, level of education and the quality of that education, cultural idiotic beliefs that interfere with optimal choices, and a zillion others. Plus, as a large percentage of humans are either just coming online in experience and education, or are winding down in health and mental function, we are guaranteed to see a large percentage of stupid decisions right across the IQ landscape. No help for it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.217|108.162.246.217]] 13:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: I.Q. affects level of health and stress, rate of acquisition of experience, level of education, quality of education obtained, preference of cultural beliefs. It doesn't seem to defy reason that it affects the zillion other factors, too. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.221|141.101.89.221]] 13:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
: Remember, in interaction between psychological and social factors, the question is never of *existence* of a connection, but of its magnitude. It is fine to posit a multitude of environmental factors that determine (ir)rationality, but as long as such position keeps people from connecting I.Q. with those factors' actual occurrence (how much I.Q. does it take to finish a good school? to develop a habit of reading a book every month? this is not at all trivial question, and it needs to be resolved with more than anecdotal evidence of "I know an intelligent illiterate person"), there might be an elephant buried underneath the room which no one knows about. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.221|141.101.89.221]] 13:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I know Cueball's explanation can be construed to illustrate otherwise; but I doubt the comic was meant to be a comment on the relative intelligence of humanity. It seems more likely, to me, that the purpose of the comic was to comment on the stonewalling that the mindset, "I'm better than you," induces. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.35|108.162.216.35]] 15:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The cartoon never mentions I.Q. at all, Just "Average Intelligence", so the Mean/Median discussion is moot. As for the other discussion on this page, I'm just going to quote Blaise Pascal: "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time" [[User:Jim E|Jim E]] ([[User talk:Jim E|talk]]) 16:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned above, in other comments that it's hard to find a way to indent from, there's a difference between different 'average's. (To compare "the median" with "the average" is not a good way of doing it, because one needn't know whether you're talking mean or mode in the second sense. I could even say that I have more than the average number of arms, for a human.) The assumption that the median [i]and[/i] mean (and, perhaps, also mode) are a single location at which 100IQ can be placed is dependant upon the bell curve being symmetrical. Just one hyper-intelligent could skew the mean well above the median. (Ok, so we're talking about comic-book "hyper"ness, to make it significant, in a world's worth of population, but the principle still stands for any more manageable population.) And about IQ tests being recalibrated... there is already a common convention that there's a score-adjuster (or a look-up table, based on this) that gives you different IQs for the same number of correct answers but for people of different ages (and sometimes male/female). Which seems to me like "we give up trying to be demographically neutral, let's just find how well different people answer in our test and then work out where their own arbitrary sub-group's bell-curve stradles". That said, I like IQ tests. I do well in them, and have fun doing them, even if I don't actually believe in them any more than I believe in Sudoku puzzles! And, sorry, I ended up typing far more than I had intended... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.193|141.101.99.193]] 16:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I see a lot of discussion on intelligence, but nothing on "losing faith in humanity". The way I see it everywhere is not in response to stupid people, but to acts of inhumanity. Random acts of violence and hate, for example. Or not random, but large scale. "Restored my faith in humanity" comments often refer to the opposite (in my experience) which involve random acts of kindness, or large-scale altruism. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 08:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What about people using Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp and any other "social network web 2.0" thing? They certainly aren't an individual or small group, they are stupid and I've lost my faith in them. :) {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.166}}

There are distributions where majority of the population would indeed be below average. Luckily for humanity, intelligence is on a bell curve! I am happy beyond words that this is the case. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.31}}

This has to be one of the most entertaining boring conversations I've ever come across! Brilliant! (Or not.) [[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 14:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think when someone says "people are stupid", they actually usually mean something like "people systematically make mistakes that I feel are readily avoidable", rather than making an actual judgement regarding general intelligence. So this comic feels rather off to me. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.113|173.245.48.113]] 08:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

:If you read xkcd long enough, you'll find a lot of Randall's comics feel "off." {{unsigned ip|108.162.212.215}}

Interestingly, the people making comments about average people being stupid tend to be, eh, below-average-smart themselves. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.217|108.162.246.217]] 00:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

:"Interestingly," huh? You sound smart. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.215|108.162.212.215]] 14:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

When I say "People are stupid" I mean that a group of people making a decision is much stupider than a person. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.215|108.162.246.215]] 04:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

'''"No, people aren't stupid. On average, people are of average intelligence."'''

Hey, guys. Consider that average intelligence ''is'' stupid. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.215|108.162.212.215]] 14:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
: Yeah, this is how I've always interpreted "People are stupid" it means, considering we all think we're a smart species, our average intelligence is really low. It's not "I'm better than everybody/average/most people" but "Everybody/the average person/most people is/are worse than most people believe" [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.216|141.101.99.216]] 13:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
:: You stupid, stupid humans. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52|162.158.255.52]] 02:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

What if the distribution of intelligence is bimodal? If no one is of "average" intelligence, might the more extreme stupidity of a large portion of the population give the impression that the actual average is lower than it appears? [[User:Bppubjr|Bppubjr]] ([[User talk:Bppubjr|talk]]) 14:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"People is dumb." [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.164|173.245.52.164]]

All the (admittedly online) IQ tests I've done have always been focussed on logic, mental manipulation of shapes, maths, deduction etc. While this favours those with a certain type of brain, I can't help but think it is heavily biased against those with creative types of thinking. Hand me a paintbrush and canvas, and my logical brain is of no help at all --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 15:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
:Intelligence is the ability of learning, the use of logic and solving problems. While being creative is good, necessary and a very useful thing by itself, is NOT intelligence. So a person could be creative and being dumb at the same time, or the opposite. Also, there are not different kind of brains. The whole left-brain vs right-brain thing is a myth: http://www.livescience.com/39373-left-brain-right-brain-myth.html [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.29|173.245.48.29]] 21:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Not XKCD's best work. This is a normal response that smarter people initially feel when encountering others, having taking themselves as the baseline. This actually reflects a lack of elitism, where you expect other people to be the same as you and are surprised they are not (pretty much the opposite as portrayed here). Case in point is Freeman Dyson. Here's an excerpt from the Atlantic Monthly piece on him:

The prodigy in question, Freeman Dyson, now middle-aged, stared ahead, his incessant concentration on the road unbroken. He seemed mesmerized by the oncoming pavement, or by some idea or formulation glimpsed in the immateriality beyond the pavement. I asked him whether as a boy he had speculated much about his gift. Had he asked himself why he had this special power? Why he was so bright?

Dyson is almost infallibly a modest and self-effacing man, but tonight his eyes were blank with fatigue, and his answer was uncharacteristic.

“That’s not how the question phrases itself,” he said. “The question is: why is everyone else so stupid?”

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.124|108.162.241.124]] 00:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

'''386 + 1000?'''

In Duty Calls (386) http://http://xkcd.com/386/ people were just wrong. Fast forward 1000 strips and they are stupid. [[User:Hananc|Hananc]] ([[User talk:Hananc|talk]]) 13:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the author here. Due to ambiguities of language it can correctly be said that most people are stupid. On one hand, we have the strict definition of average intelligence: it is defined by the intelligence of the average. If, however, one defines intelligence based on each person's average use of what they have, well, averaged over time, most people don't use what they have. That is why I assert that most people are stupid: because they have the ability to be average or above, but in practice their lack of thinking leads to decisions as bad of those who would score far worse on any real or theoretically perfect test.

note: The form of testing and its accuracy is irrelevant. It's just a score generated by a process.

[[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.16|172.68.174.16]] 07:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Anybody else notice how '''TRIGGER WARNING: DO NOT READ IF YOU CAN'T TAKE CRITICISM''' might be proving [[White Hat]]'s idea right? Just look at the arguments! Note: While not all people are stupid, a moderate percentage of internet contributers have been observed to act stupidly.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.21|108.162.242.21]] 19:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

== Analysis of definitions ==

1. "People are X" can mean either "all people are X" (1a) or "most people possess the property Y at least to the degree X" (1b), in this case " a majority of people are unintelligent enough to be called stupid"

2. "Stupid" can mean "below average intelligence" (2a) or "less smart than a reference value (ex. the intelligence of the speaker, or how intelligent the speaker would like humans to be, or than required to deal with a task or problem at hand)" (2b).

Now we just need to go through the combinations of the definitions.

1a/2a. All people have intelligence below average. Impossible by definition of "average".

1b/2a. A majority of people have below average intelligence. Possible if the distribution curve is skewed, i.e. if most people have intelligence slightly below average and some people are a lot smarter than the average. My sample, however, says that the opposite is the case, though it might also be skewed in respect to general population.

1a/2b. No people are smart enough for X. Possible depending on the definition of "enough". The speaker is very probably not the smartest human being in existence, but some statements such as "no living human have demonstrated enough intelligence to formulate a definite proof of Riemann hypothesis as of yet" are objectively true.

1b/2b. Most people are not smart enough for X. Again possible depending on the definition, moreso as most if not all problems could be solved well enough if all or most people just cooperated better and prioritized the global good over their own.

Therefore, the statement can be fine as long as the speaker has a good reason to say it in a particular context and/or includes himself in it. In any other case, Cueball's reaction is justified. {{unsigned ip|172.68.65.20|16:45, 10 February 2021}}

I have to disagree with this comic. Yes, on average, people are of average intelligence. However, if the average intelligence is "stupid", then the average person is stupid. [[User:R3TRI8UTI0N|R3TRI8UTI0N]] ([[User talk:R3TRI8UTI0N|talk]]) 00:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
:As long as you're happy with calling half* of all people ''very'' stupid.
:* - Or you could be mean and assume it's an extreme outlier dragging the number down.
:Which begs the question how smart one needs to be to be considered smart. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.56|172.70.85.56]] 00:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there some way we can give White Hat a little redemption in the explanation? Like we did with 1534 Beer's explanation? He's not objectively wrong and Cueball's not objectively right, we can all see that. I'd do it myself, but I'm a bit phobic of watching my edits get mindlessly reverted. It ruins my whole day. [[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 15:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3254: Detector

2026-06-15T03:01:18Z

69.5.140.194:

The deluxe edition of the machine probably has "Detected/Not detected" lights for each of those items. I would guess its cost would be significantly higher. [[Special:Contributions/47.248.235.170|47.248.235.170]] 21:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)Pat

To whoever wrote the initial transcript: the title text should not be included. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't even detect a vacuum? Useless thing, showing not even a vacuous truth. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:590:1402:2E01:102F:245D:DD57:1937|2A02:590:1402:2E01:102F:245D:DD57:1937]] 22:15, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

It also has zero false positive [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 23:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
:Not necessarily. We are told that it never says "No" when it should be saying "Yes", which suggests that there will be no false negatives. If were trust that assertion.
:But we aren't given any assurance at all (even a simple nodding statement with no provability behind it) that the machine will not continue to say "Detected" even if it {{w|False vacuum#Existential threat|somehow really shouldn't}}. Should it do so, it would be be a false positive. Even though various other existential problems might be more important to anyone around who might care about it, at that point. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 23:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
::My point is that there is no circumstance that the machine would exist where all of the items it detects are no longer present i.e. the case of a false positive just cannot happen. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 03:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Failing to detect states would be a particularly worrying prospect for people in the USA. --[[Special:Contributions/2A10:D586:3E93:0:CC7B:253E:A0AA:2FA9|2A10:D586:3E93:0:CC7B:253E:A0AA:2FA9]] 08:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I would claim the assertion about false negatives is incorrect. It's impossible for a true negative to be displayed by the machine, so it's enough for a single malfunction that ever makes the machine display a negative to get a 100% false negative rate. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:79E0:2820:8:9966:10CC:BAF3:62E|2A00:79E0:2820:8:9966:10CC:BAF3:62E]] 09:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
:Not necessarily true. If the machine is set up to scan a volume of space that includes its own green lamp, then it should be recording the matter, light, etc of that green lamp, so no question that it would (self-reinforcingly) be detecting the thing that says it is detecting things, and never .
:But if it's monitoring a distinct space a few feet away, and (because of handwavy occurances that I'll leave to your imagination) that whole area of space gets changed/replaced/displaced by some utter shielded void of some kind, ''that'' could result in there now being a true negative result to report, whether or not the machine can or will do.
:Which is moot if there's no way for the Not Detected lamp to light (there's no way for the circuitry to light it... there is no circuitry attached to it... it doesn't even have a bulb... there's an ED209 standing nearby to aggressively shoot anyone who ever ''looks'' like they're trying to install the necessary bits to overcome any or all the deliberately omitted ways for the lamp to even ''apparently'' be lit up...) the instances of it being negative/"Not" might be ruled out by even the weirdest quantum effects (there just is no solution to the universe's wavefunction that results in the other light being lit), even in the apparent philosolhy of "if anything is possible, it must happen in an infinite universe".
:What it comes down to is whether the possibility of the light ever lighting is (unlike the unspoken possibility of a bubble of non-existence spontaneously forming or passing over the right spot) sufficiently unlikely within the xkcd-verse to make it less unreliable (for negative reporting) than all the other detectors. Like how many times have neutrinos passed through the neutrino detector without being detected (very high false-negative; false-positives may also happen when someone cannonballs into the pool during the pool-party), but less so for more reliable experimental detectors. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.239.222|82.132.239.222]] 12:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
If the Not Detected light were to turn on, it would be detected, and would thus turn off, providing opportunity for oscillation. But at what frequency? [[Special:Contributions/173.188.194.118|173.188.194.118]] 12:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
:Perhals (Planck time)-1 ''if'' it was immediate (and no silly 'speed of light' delay within itself, or other processing delays like collating/multiplexing the various inputs for all the different sub-detectors prior to choosing which light to light) plus could detect an intensity of light as low as the NDL emits. (Imagine that it only triggers when a supernova-level of light is detected? It may be a very ''insensitive'' detector, by what degree of detectable-stuff it can measure, even though it is also sensitive to a wide ''variety' of different detectable-stuffs, at least once they get beyond some arbitrary individual thresholds for their respective quality of detectability.)
:Though the Detected-light would already be detected (as light and mass and electrical fields and everything else), by the same assumption of its light-sensitivity (assuming the NDL isn't purposefully dimmer than the DL, exactly enough to prevent this NDL-detection), so if the lighting of the light is relevent to a Detection event, then Detection events are assured regardless of whether one starts from a Non-Detection Event baseline (immediately flips to being a Detection, then stays there). [[Special:Contributions/82.132.239.222|82.132.239.222]] 15:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
:Since the presence of the mean indicates that some of the listed things MUST be present in the machine itself, how do we know it is actually detecting anything, and isn't just a box with a light on it?
::Because Hairy says that it would be bad if the other light was lit? That doesn't have the tone of "oh dear, the 'Detector' is broken"-bad, or even "hmm, perhaps we should consider that this machine isn't actually doing any detection in the first place"-bad, but very much more like "oh dear, the things that the Detector is detecting are broken"-bad. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]]

Seems related to [[2469]], no? [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 06:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

So it's just a big box with two LEDs on it, one of which is always on and the other of which never needs to function... Hey anyone want one of these? I'll build you one for 200 bucks! [[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 03:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3235: Types of Board Game

2026-05-05T23:48:51Z

69.5.140.194:

I created a starter explanation, but I have no idea how to create tables. [[Special:Contributions/47.146.30.92|47.146.30.92]] 04:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

It is rare that xkcd makes me laugh out loud, but this comic's title text really got me! XD [[Special:Contributions/2601:241:8002:3E0:C95E:1939:2ED0:CD78|2601:241:8002:3E0:C95E:1939:2ED0:CD78]] 04:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if blackhat is the one who committed the murder in the last game, and was expunged from the current round with the social deduction game [[User:RG|RG]] ([[User talk:RG|talk]]) 04:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Also, I "fixed" panel 6: https://www.pasteboard.co/hxBFDL497SLH.png [[User:RG|RG]] ([[User talk:RG|talk]]) 04:54, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Whoever it was didn't necessarily commit the murder ''in the game'' - all we know is that it was ''discovered'' during the game. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The reference to Monopoly seems ultra-specific given the plethora of games that have this structure, including Candyland, Snakes and Ladders, Sorry, and if one allows for multiple tokens, Parchisi and even Backgammon. Despite the amount of hate for Monopoly, it seems more likely that the editor has something against Monopoly than Randal. [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 05:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Also, Monopoly, played by the correct rules, is not that boring. It's just, that too many people skip the bidding rule. With 4 Players, after one turn around the table for all four game pieces (which required 10-12 dice rolls per player), statistically 75% of all properties should be snatched up. [[Special:Contributions/195.65.24.115|195.65.24.115]]

::Probably not worth debating how boring/bad Monopoly is or isn't. Suffice it to say that there are a large number of people who despise it, rightly or wrongly. [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 06:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:::No, there are a large number of people who aware of the fact that Monopoly is supposed to be despised, and so espouse that view – like people who say they hate the word "moist" or believe that "We Built This City" is the worst song ever, because they've been told to say that. The number of people who have actually played Monopoly (using the actual rules) and who actually hate it is much, much smaller. People widely advertise hatred for a badly designed game based on a misinterpretation of Monopoly. That's not hating Monopoly – that's just not getting it and blaming someone else. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 11:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Even if you play Monopoly by the proper rules, it means that players get eliminated and leave the game. That's not a good thing for a social activity. It's less fun to finish a game if the majority of players (supposing you started off with 5 or 6 players) have already left the room to watch TV before the game ends. --[[Special:Contributions/208.59.176.206|208.59.176.206]] 13:42, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::That's assuming you don't reincorporate the bankrupt/departing players by having them 'employed' by the remaining ones, in some interesting manner (even without being represented by pieces that can move). Evolving into some kind of Cooperative, Party and/or Social Deduction team-game, by the time it's one-on-one by playing pieces alone.
:::::Or allow it to become suitably entertaining to spectate, such as everyone not now in the game being allowed to make entirely separate side-bets using real-world cash (or other deals/promises... "Strip Monopoly" need not bother the ''players'' directly, except for having a reason (or not) to try to keep playing well).
:::::Clearly, none of this is stipulated directly in the boxed rules, but none of it need change the rules that ''are'' provided, which can be adhered to as strictly as you like. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.188|82.132.238.188]] 15:44, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Monopoli? Is that the Italian version?--[[Special:Contributions/2A00:23CC:D248:8901:8046:B94B:F152:34FA|2A00:23CC:D248:8901:8046:B94B:F152:34FA]] 07:51, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

It's possible that [[Special:Contributions/2A02:8071:5C20:40:84FB:9239:8AB8:1729|2A02:8071:5C20:40:84FB:9239:8AB8:1729]] (who made both this edit and the Pachisi edit), coming from Germany, doesn't realize that in America, Parcheesi and Monopoly are the more accepted spellings (Pachesi is probably more appropriate for the historical game Parcheesi is based on, but this is about table games not historical games). [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 08:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I misread the tie-in as being Grogu, which would have made it even weirder. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:Me too. Maybe because I'm not a board gamer and have never heard of Goku before. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I think a clearer example of a "boring" game is Ludo, where the goal is simply to move all the pawns around the board once. [[User:Redmess|Redmess]] ([[User talk:Redmess|talk]]) 09:57, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Ludo is Pachisi/Pachesi/Parcheesi, apparently (can't say I've ever heard of any of those names - always knew it as Ludo - but Ludo is a later name). There is a minimal amount of strategy involved in Ludo, in that you get to choose which pawn to move on any given go - unlike, say, Snakes & Ladders, which is entirely down to chance. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 10:57, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Where does the 3.75 for Twilight Imperium come from? First and second editions have 3.46, 3rd edition has 4.26 and 4th is even at 4.35. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I miss the board game extention pack to Calvinball. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:1888:3B86:68A0:FA0F|2A02:2455:1960:4000:1888:3B86:68A0:FA0F]] 11:47, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:Remember: If you don't touch the 30-yard base wicket with the flag, you have to hop on one foot! --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User_talk:DollarStoreBa'al|'''''converse''''']] 13:26, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Went with a base game rating for Twilight Imperium, maybe one of the expansions is higher, but base game seems like most appropriate to reference. --[[User:Trimutius|Trimutius]] ([[User talk:Trimutius|talk]]) 11:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

What did the comment mean about the truth or dare murder reveal being untrue?
:I’m confused about this as well. I looked it up and it looks like he was convicted on some pretty compelling evidence. I’m not seeing anything about him being found not guilty on appeal. [[User:Salsmachev|Salsmachev]] ([[User talk:Salsmachev|talk]]) 14:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:: I assumed it meant that it turned out that the bit about admitting it in a game of Truth or Dare turned out to be embellishment, but I can't find any evidence of that either. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 15:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I ''REALLY'' want "Candles of Vienna" to exist. [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 14:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe add some real hyperspecipic games? Like "castles of mad king Ludwig" or "Whitechapel". [[Special:Contributions/2A02:BA0:10A8:4CB6:C1DE:6320:68C1:1C95|2A02:BA0:10A8:4CB6:C1DE:6320:68C1:1C95]] 16:06, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure Hive is a good example for an abstract game; as it has a clear theme based on real things (bugs) even if some of the mechanics seem a little arbitrary. The other one given seems to fit; although the example in the comic feels to me like a parody of the Gipf games specifically. And trying to see how many others I could think of made me wish I had friends to play Otto Game Over with. -- [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 17:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Do replace it if you have better examples - I just put in the first couple that came to mind to replace the previously quoted games that didn't seem to fit the theme at all. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Are there actual rules for cones of dunshire available somewhere, or is it purely fantasy? [[User:New editor|New editor]] ([[User talk:New editor|talk]]) 18:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:Being Category Theory, it's complete fantasy. [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 19:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
::I don't think the ([https://parksandrecreation.fandom.com/wiki/The_Cones_of_Dunshire_(game) fictional], then [https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/165694/the-cones-of-dunshire defictionalised]) Cones Of Dunshire game is actually based on Category Theory. It's the comic's 'overcomplicated' game (''also'' with Cones Of Dunshire elements, merged with something else) that ultimately has the Category Theory basis. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 21:27, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The newest version of Twilight Imperium has a complexity of 4.35. The 3.46 mentioned in the explanation is for the 1st edition, from the 90s, which nobody plays nowadays. I think the explanation is therefore wrong. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:BA0:10A8:4CB6:7B66:7B00:5558:336C|2A02:BA0:10A8:4CB6:7B66:7B00:5558:336C]] 20:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
: Factcheck: It's not wrong, but it may be misleading. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

And these are ALL of the types of board game? I guess Randall's never played Settlers Of Catan, or Betrayal At The House On The Hill. (Though, I guess you could always just default to calling them "boring," since that has no real criteria.) [[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 23:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:Randall has favorably mentioned Agricola and I think a few other Euros in previous comics, so he knows Euro games with the '''right amount''' of complicated (enough to be un-boring) do exist. Maybe he couldn't come up with a good joke about them? Regarding Betrayal games, it's not unfair to count them as a variant of Co-op. [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 10:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
::Co-op meaning "sort this deck with only hand gestures, then organize my junk drawer"? I feel that's QUITE unfair! [[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 23:48, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not particularly familiar with either {{w|Friends}} or {{w|Dragon Ball}}, but…why is the Goku tie-in "ill-advised"? [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 01:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
: Pretty sure it's because Goku doesn't really have anything to do with the existing characters the board game is based on. A Mario and Sonic cross over makes sense, but a Mario and Doom Guy crossover? Might be cool, but doesn't really make sense, and the mix of target audience is weird. [[Special:Contributions/110.145.224.178|110.145.224.178]] 04:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
:: A tie-in that "doesn't really make sense" does not, for me, sound "ill-advised." I'd reserve ill-advised for unexpected consequences of a tie-in, like hypothetical award-winning bakers Hansel Adams and Gretel Garbo join forces in a new pastry company called Hansel and Gretel that brings to mind the dark fairy tale when it was unintended. Maybe I'm being too strict about it. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 18:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
::: I think it's problematic because there is no tangible or easily conceptualised overlap between the two (or more!) respective canons. Whatever the premiee is for the core game, we can presume that shoehorning Goku into it is going to be... Strange. Either suddenly Goku is more likely to be sitting on a sofa saying how things are "soooooo <something-or-other>" (or whatever it is that a Friends-themed game tries to convey... but I'm not a games designer, and it's also been far too long since I've seen the show!), or the player-character Ross has to deal with situations that Goku brings into the conjoined scenario.
::: It is also quite possible that some reasonably 'unforced' intersection could be made to allow such a crossover situation to work ''very well''. However, it seems clear that that this idealist result has ''not'' happened. It has perhaps preditably failed to be done well. More than that, it seems that it may have been meshed together ''very badly''. The only real information we have is Randall's 'in-universe critic' lambasting the effort. At the very least it failed to satisfy the voice-of-the-titletext, for whatever reason. The basis of this is more {{tvtropes|NoodleIncident}} than actually justified in any way, but there's no great reason to presume this isn't truly as ill-advised as we are informed it is. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.56|82.132.238.56]] 22:19, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
: It is difficult to identify why a tie-in to a board game ''that does not exist'' might be "ill-advised". But any situation which suits the ''Friends'' friends would be entirely foreign to Son Goku, the alien martial arts hermit. They are from very different genres! ''Friends'' is about silly situations arising from (relatively) mundane and relatable circumstances, with each episode being more or less interchangeable. ''Dragon Ball'' is a more plot-driven series, with high-stakes battles against demons and aliens and whatever Chiaotzu is, with Goku and his allies honing their skills and cultivating their power levels from chapter to chapter and arc to arc. They simply don't have any common ground which a board game could be built on. You ''could'' put Goku into a board game about whatever the ''Friends'' friends do, but he would fit about as well as Robert Baratheon would in the new Precure series. (For future readers: the detective one.) [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 23:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh dear, the party game is using the deprecated standard identified in XKCD 3232.--[[Special:Contributions/108.175.232.134|108.175.232.134]] 05:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
: "Wait - how do we know which one of us is the Count of Three?" [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that it stands to reason that Black Hat wouldn't be invited back after admitting to murder. I mean, you wouldn't want to annoy him, would you? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 14:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The games that are Abstract and Themed are two sides of the same coin (which could also have further 'sides' from the list, of course). If you have to make a game around a given theme, you have the option of starting off with an established ruleset (e.g. "it's Monopoly, reskinned for Star Wars!") or you have to take canon features and invent some canon-logical gameplay mechanism to how they interact. But, having obtained your theme-game, you can strip the theme away and you still have the playable mechanism. Even if it ''seems'' arbitrary and inexplicable (e.g. "you sit Chandler and Phoebe together on a table at Central Perks" now becomes something about putting triangles and squares on a movable hexagon). Even with a 'pre-Theme' to the Themed game, like Monopoly, that can be reduced to the simplicity of mere tokens and it might seem nonsensical that the big red tokens on a given landing zone on the perimiter of a square board (or around a circular one, or it could be ''any'' kind of twisty, looping path, even) make it so that other players occasionally have to surrender other tokens to you. Or that other tiles may take counting tokens off/give counting tokens to ''anyone'' who lands there (or passes them), another sends you to another tile with further rules for when you can move again. You could play the 'framework monopoly' easy enough, without ever imagining Hotels, Mortgages, Taxes, etc as 'reasons' behind the rules provided.
 Compare and contrast: Something like Uno is very simple and self-describingly abstract (itself is based upon a standard 52-cards (+jokers?) game which seemingly arbitrarily assigns some card-values/faces to non-obvious functions - such as 8="change direction of play"). But Uno (or the standard playing-card game) can be reskinned into a canon-conversion. Say you want (out of thin air, this, no idea if it's been done like this at all!) Babylon 5... Kosh (or Kosh, of course) is shown on the 'change direction' card, maybe, and Mr Morden on the 'skip next player' one, with Zathrus (or Zathrus, or Zathrus... but maybe not Zathrus!) as the wildcard. The 'suits' of the relevent cards could be Human Minbari, Centauri and Narn, any values being the number (or scale) of the fighters/warships concerned. ''Alternatively'', you construct a game around the theme (moving through Brown Sector, Blue Sector, etc, encounter cards featuring the main characters (and more generic appropriate 'monster of the week'-like cameos) buff or penalise your progress on the way to some winning/losing condition in whatever Cooperative/Competitive/hybrid manner the designer wished to implement. But you can pluck the framework of the game away from the theme and the gameplay would work the same in the abstract sense. Or perhaps even shoehorn it into an (apparently) Hyperspecific game, totally unrelated to the Theme it was designed for (essentially a Themed game, but one or other of Themed or Hyperspecific might be considered a case of the Tail Wagging The Dog, if directly compared to the 'logical' other, with the Abstract being just the wagging with no dog and maybe no obvious tail - a kind of Cheshire Cat thing, buf the other way round).
 ...if you see what I mean. For those wanting a '''TL;DR;''': I'm saying that these aren't distinct game-types, but end-(or mid-?)points on a multidimensional spectrum. Being one type of game does not preclude something from possibly being another type. If not simultaneously (want to play a Cooperative Party Social-Deduction game, anyone?) then after merely superficial details are changed. You can de-Theme/re-Theme chess all kinds of ways... a computer chess-player doesn't need to know about how mediæval knights are abstracted to pieces that can leap others, or by mystified as to how fortified buildings are apparently mobile in a certain manner, yet ''can'' in the right circumstances be utterly defeated by a single footsoldier or even an otherwise useless head-of-state, etc. (You can play a game where your 'classical West-style turrets' are playing against the Elephants-with-Howdahs version of the opposing piece. This doesn't change your gameplay. It's not Games Workshop figures with "that figure doesn't have a Power Fist, so he can't ''use'' the Power Fist". You can move your Castle the same whether it's a building or an armoured pachyderm or Laurel And Hardy Stuck In A Chimney Pot.) ...umm, that was supposed to be a TL;DR;, of course, but please excuse the additional philosophising details that got added anyway. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.188|82.132.238.188]] 15:44, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
: "You can't play that card!" "Why not?" "''Not'' the one...!" [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Wanted to put in a completely unrelated comment on how the table is portrayed. It is rare to have a table with solid panels rather than either legs at the corners or more centralized pillars, particularly at a group gathering for tabletop gaming. Mentally we don't clock this portrayal as an abnormality because we almost never have an orthographic view of the table and players - the panel blocking out the view of the players sitting on the far side of the table fits our experience with the tabletop blocking our view of their legs and the seat of the chairs. [[Special:Contributions/57.140.32.1|57.140.32.1]] 17:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
:The text of the Transcript initially described it as a "counter", by the way, which more describes a 'block-not-leg(s)'-supported table. It was changed from that because of the more typical use of "counter" in a gaming context.
:But I also find it interesting. Probably rather than a typical dining (or living room) table, it's a countertop in an 'island kitchen' that's being used. Or a 'gaming room' with its main table/'[[2742: Island Storage]]' being of a type chosen to hold some or all of the various gaming options the owner possesses. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.56|82.132.238.56]] 22:19, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
:: ''Desk''? It seems to me that the furniture is a bit too low to be a kitchen countertop or island (as evidenced by the proportion of the chairs to the humans which are normal rather than barstool-like), but it's consistent with a side view of a desk, which often has big side panels. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 16:49, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

If anyone actually designs ''Candles of Vienna,'' let me know so I can design the Goku expansion. [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 17:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3235: Types of Board Game

2026-04-21T23:20:22Z

69.5.140.194:

Talk:3184: Funny Numbers

2025-12-23T08:32:22Z

69.5.140.194:

It should be"The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy".
: In response to above unsigned post: fixed! You could've edited it too :)
[[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 05:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

this is crazy [[User:Qwertyuiopfromdefly|Qwertyuiopfromdefly]] ([[User talk:Qwertyuiopfromdefly|talk]]) 06:08, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Bad comic, Randall. Put it back. [[Special:Contributions/47.141.37.161|47.141.37.161]] 06:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

"If you have to ask, you're not old enough yet," is there like, some kind of comprehensive guide to sex and sexuality I was supposed to receive on my 18th birthday or something? All I got was 18 $1 scratch tickets. [[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 08:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3180: Apples

2025-12-13T18:32:54Z

69.5.140.194:

As heretical as it is, I almost want to keep the explanation just like this [[User:KelOfTheStars!|KelOfTheStars!]] ([[User talk:KelOfTheStars!|talk]]) 00:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I wasnt going to ruin it, when I saw it like that. But now it's been expanded, I've added in my own thoughts on the subject. Namely elemental number-theory, i.e. the possibility of counting any item just like you count any other item, plus what's going on with the title text, including a slightly kludgy call-back to the fact that (''to have a budget'', that must have people succesfully counting expenditures and purchased values) the Exp. Maths Dept. has clearly trained people in the use of numbers enough for them to now be awkwardly snapping at the heels of the EMD querying the justifiability of at least one of their ongoing studies. (Not sure how long my thoughts will actually last, though, in the light of further editing. But I hope at least some of what I'm getting at will be successfully distilled into any more succinct version.) [[Special:Contributions/78.144.255.82|78.144.255.82]] 01:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Twelve apples! <*thunder rolls*> Ha! Ha! Ha! [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh the irony! How did they count the twelve apples? 0,succ(0),succ(succ(0))..., I bet. This is already heavy math. (For example, what guarantees you that succ(0) exists and has exactly one value 1 and is the successor only of 0? Peano envy.) [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:FD7E:5F02:5364:961|2A02:2455:1960:4000:FD7E:5F02:5364:961]] 08:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you for starting your counting at 0. I have espoused that zero IS a counting number, as you can't get to 1, unless you first arrive at 0. "Sherman, count how many unicorns there are in this field." "Um, there are zero, Mr. Peabody." [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 15:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
::How'd you ``get to'' zero? You have to start somewhere and it is arbitrary. You could start at 17, define succ^-1(x) and go back to 1 or 0. Clearly this is inconvenient but not wrong. If you need zero it may make sense to start at zero but if you need negatives it may not matter. If you are teaching you might want to deal with other concepts and not ``we start at zero because''. There is no one true set of axioms & definition. Usefulness of Non-Euclidian geometry does not make Euclidian geometry useless.[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 17:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

In fact if you really want to nitpick, while most people would accept that 7+5=12 it is demonstrably false that my seven apples plus your 5 apples are equal to a pool of 12 apples. In fact it is demonstrably false that I even have 7 apples. Because no 2 apples are identical they can't be combined together. We may be willing to disregard such gross inaccuracies for the sake of, you know, being able to continue to survive for a little while longer, though. [[Special:Contributions/176.138.186.7|176.138.186.7]] 11:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:As cardinal, ordinal or nominal numbers? Actually, more like ``household numbers'', which includes named fractions like half, third, quarter but not 17/47, defined by tradition like the culinary definition of tomato as a vegetable. [[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 17:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:The physicists have already shown that all apples are perfect spheres of uniform density and cannot be split into smaller apples. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 15:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
::Are the perfect spheres bosons or fermions?[[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133|76.180.39.133]] 15:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Not spinning? spin=0 => boson.[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 17:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

This comic makes me wonder if Randall is aware of us, and if he might someday try to make a comic so bizarre, we become unable to "explain" it at all. Would such a thing be possible? Something so absurd, we're forced to shrug and say "I got nothing"? It's possible I've been awake too long.[[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 18:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3165: Earthquake Prediction Flowchart

2025-11-08T03:14:16Z

69.5.140.194:

Gettin pretty sick of the "citation needed" joke appearing in early drafts of our explanations. It's not clever to just say that at random. [citation needed] [[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 03:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)