explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1535: Words for Pets

2015-06-09T09:08:31Z

Drmouse:

I skipped the first step by naming my cat "Cat". On the plus side, even in the third year I was still mostly calling her by her name. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.134|108.162.254.134]] 08:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
:My cat is also named "Cat". Then again, I call all cats "Cat". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.138|108.162.210.138]] 19:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure this is relevant enough to include, but there's [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ADogNamedDog a trope about that] [[Special:Contributions/188.114.111.224|188.114.111.224]] 11:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I interpreted this slightly differently. In the first year, the pet is fresh and new, and you put the effort in to call it by its name. As time goes on, you get sloppier about it. In addition, I believe he missed a ring from it: Expletives. Within a year of having a new cat, I was calling it more by expletives than its name. [[User:Drmouse|Drmouse]] ([[User talk:Drmouse|talk]]) 14:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
:I thought expletives were deliberately implied, so I'm very surprised they are not mentioned in the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.239.231|198.41.239.231]] 23:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the explanation. The comic is about words used to refer to the pet, i.e. to name the pet when talking to someone else, not to talk to the pet. For instance "I forgot to feed Lassie" might later become "I forgot to feed the dog", then "I forgot to feed the damn thing" or whatever. Am I the only one to understand "refer" like this?
Zetfr 16:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
:In my household at least, we use the animal's species as its name. For example, instead of "Have you fed Lassie?", we may say " Have you fed Dog?". I think is what Randall is implying. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.29|141.101.98.29]] 17:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
::Since he begins to refer to the animal in the animals language, I would say that only makes sense if he talks to the animal. However the way the caption is phrased it could be understood the way he talks about the animal. So I think it is impossible to say that one explanation is correct and the other is wrong. Maybe that should be mentioned in explain. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I got a completely different idea to this, the relationship is one of friendship, not parentage, so the moving from name to associated to other words to sounds would be more like Hey Lassie -> Hey Dog -> Hey Fatso -> Ugh, Oi. This shows more the common friendship trope of insulting one another in a humorous way, which seems far more likely than transitioning into some kind of hybrid language for all bar the most "maternal" of owners. [[User:Hackerjack|Hackerjack]] ([[User talk:Hackerjack|talk]]) 22:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
:I agree here. With our cat it was Hi Blaser -> Hi Cat -> You little **** -> Oi, you -> "Maw?" [[User:Drmouse|Drmouse]] ([[User talk:Drmouse|talk]]) 09:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1535: Words for Pets

2015-06-08T14:24:28Z

Drmouse: Added a comment

I skipped the first step by naming my cat "Cat". On the plus side, even in the third year I was still mostly calling her by her name. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.134|108.162.254.134]] 08:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure this is relevant enough to include, but there's [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ADogNamedDog a trope about that] [[Special:Contributions/188.114.111.224|188.114.111.224]] 11:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I interpreted this slightly differently. In the first year, the pet is fresh and new, and you put the effort in to call it by its name. As time goes on, you get sloppier about it. In addition, I believe he missed a ring from it: Expletives. Within a year of having a new cat, I was calling it more by expletives than its name. [[User:Drmouse|Drmouse]] ([[User talk:Drmouse|talk]]) 14:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1504: Opportunity

2015-03-27T11:40:47Z

Drmouse: Add comment about extra Lion King

"Everything the light touches is our kingdom" are Mufasa words from 'The Lion King' (1994) --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 08:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- The "You must never go there" line is also from Lion King. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110357/quotes [[User:Drmouse|Drmouse]] ([[User talk:Drmouse|talk]]) 11:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

May someone make this Transcritpt better? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.10|141.101.104.10]] 08:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks to whoever tidied up my explanation [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.185|141.101.98.185]] 11:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the second line ("We must never go there") is from the same scene in ''The Lion King'' as the first line, not a reference to ''Space Odyssey'' . See [[http://youtu.be/K5lEJlbEgz4]] from 0:52 to 1:23. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.55|108.162.216.55]] 11:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:962: The Corliss Resolution

2014-01-10T13:19:36Z

Drmouse:

But technological development is eventually going to make wingsuit flight safe, so how are we going to explain our continued survival after that? '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|purple|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 08:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Rocket-Sneakers(TM) [[Special:Contributions/178.105.151.131|178.105.151.131]] 06:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

When wingsuits become safe, they will become common, and will therefore not be as much fun. In the mean time, someone will have invented something else which is both fun and dangerous (like the aforementioned Rocket-Sneakers(TM)) [[User:Drmouse|Drmouse]] ([[User talk:Drmouse|talk]]) 13:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:216: Romantic Drama Equation

2014-01-03T14:20:47Z

Drmouse:

This can't be right, even at 50/50, the number of gay pairings far outnumbers the number of straight pairings.[[Special:Contributions/80.235.105.134|80.235.105.134]] 20:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Moved from article page
:Not quite. Consider a cast of 4 with 2 male (A, B) and 2 female (C, D). Possible gay pairings - 2 (A-B and C-D). Possible straight pairings - 4 (A-C, A-D, B-C, B-D){{unsigned ip|122.200.61.203}}

:He says for large casts. For 2000 cast members, with 1000 of each gender, the gay couplings comes out at 999,000 and straight at 1,000,000. Presumably this is the small cross over the diagram alludes to. If you substitute x = n/2 into the equations, then you get (n^2-2n)/4 for the gay combinations and n^2/4 for the straight combinations, so for gender balanced cast size of n, the straight combinations outnumber the gay by n/2 {{unsigned ip | 141.101.98.229}}

There is a typo in his formula for gay casts. The + should be a -. {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.159}}

This also the small implication that "Queer as Folk" was so dull that Randall produced this equation to occupy his mind during it. I often find my mind wandering while sat watching soaps with my other half. [[User:Drmouse|Drmouse]] ([[User talk:Drmouse|talk]]) 14:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)