explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:419: Forks and Spoons

2014-01-26T03:39:33Z

Imanton1:

What could the title text be about? [[Special:Contributions/208.120.153.144|208.120.153.144]] 05:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Rachael Ray and Emeril are two celebrity cooks in America; he has a TV show (or did at the time this was drawn); she has her own magazine. Spielberg is presumably the movie guy. {{unsigned ip|24.61.10.104}}

Speilberg is definitely "the movie guy" and most relevantly the director of ''Jurassic Park'', with which Randall has a well-documented obsession ([[87:_Velociraptors]], [[135:_Substitute]], and many others.) The overall plot -- disaster brought about by cocky scientists "toying with powerful forces" -- is the same as this comic's. Rachel Ray and Emeril would presumably be the stand-ins for ''JP'''s Drs. Sattler and Grant. --[[Special:Contributions/66.114.70.139|66.114.70.139]] 17:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
It looks more like a spoork (stage 2 spork) in the last panel[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.215|141.101.99.215]] 09:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

could it be a knife at the last panel? [[User:Imanton1|Imanton1]] ([[User talk:Imanton1|talk]]) 03:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:419: Forks and Spoons

2014-01-26T03:39:22Z

Imanton1:

What could the title text be about? [[Special:Contributions/208.120.153.144|208.120.153.144]] 05:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Rachael Ray and Emeril are two celebrity cooks in America; he has a TV show (or did at the time this was drawn); she has her own magazine. Spielberg is presumably the movie guy. {{unsigned ip|24.61.10.104}}

Speilberg is definitely "the movie guy" and most relevantly the director of ''Jurassic Park'', with which Randall has a well-documented obsession ([[87:_Velociraptors]], [[135:_Substitute]], and many others.) The overall plot -- disaster brought about by cocky scientists "toying with powerful forces" -- is the same as this comic's. Rachel Ray and Emeril would presumably be the stand-ins for ''JP'''s Drs. Sattler and Grant. --[[Special:Contributions/66.114.70.139|66.114.70.139]] 17:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
It looks more like a spoork (stage 2 spork) in the last panel[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.215|141.101.99.215]] 09:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

could it be a knife at the last panel [[User:Imanton1|Imanton1]] ([[User talk:Imanton1|talk]]) 03:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1316: Inexplicable

2014-01-14T03:56:39Z

Imanton1:

[http://xkcd.com/725/ Literally] haunted? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.152|173.245.53.152]] 08:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering too if Randall was also taking a sideways swipe at the way many people today misuse the term "literally".[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.30|108.162.216.30]] 22:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say he trying to say that some errors that computers have are impossible to fathom. I've baffled our IT people on many an occasion and the solution is usual 'rebuild' which is the computer equivalent of an exorcism.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.228|108.162.231.228]] 10:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
:Definitely this. It is also much harder to figure out what the problem is with a computer when you weren't the one who has spent all their time using the computer. It is why I can't understand how IT people do their jobs. [[User:Daleb|Daleb]] ([[User talk:Daleb|talk]]) 13:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Surprised nobody mentioned [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_machine Ghost in the machine] yet... --[[User:Koveras|Koveras]] ([[User talk:Koveras|talk]]) 10:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I find the current explanation entertaining but... raises questions.

Is "This comic is inexplicable and represents a self-referencing joke about explainxkcd.com." serious?
:I think it's not and I deleted the sentence. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.84|173.245.50.84]] 14:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"While it might [be] a reasonable conclusion [i.e. that it is 'haunted'] for a human, demons can't possess a computer." - this reads like "demons exist, but are incapable of possessing computer equipment", rather than "demons cannot possess a computer, because they don't even exist", which would be my ''preference'' (under the standard rules of not being able to ''prove'' the non-existence of the supernatral... and, believe me, I've had my fair share of totally baffling computer problems, in my time, and often anthropomorphise equipment, somewhat, ''at least'' to explain it to non-tech users... but then end up adopting the same attitude myself, of course).

"The title text suggests that Megan insists that Cueball resume possession of his laptop, as she is unsettled by the ghost; Cueball simply refuses, seeing an opportunity to make his problem hers." - I see that as more akin to the "cursed gem" type of story. One simply cannot palm the gem off on somebody else, but it must have a legitimately willing recipient (including a thief stealing it, often) in order for the curse itself to transfer itself. Now that the 'status' of the laptop is known he's not going to accept it back and take the 'curse of errors' back upon himself. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.223|141.101.99.223]] 14:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

:I just removed the sentence "While it might [be] a reasonable conclusion for a human, demons can't possess a computer." In the real world ghosts (the comic does not mention demons) don't exist and can't possess either humans or computers; in a fictional world, they might be able to do either or both (a la King's "Trucks"). -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.217|108.162.212.217]] 15:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the joke is just that normally the smartass that knows more about computers than you is able to easilly fix it, but not in this case. [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 16:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So am I the only one who thinks that the caption(or whatever the hover over text is called) refers to Cueball trying to return the laptop to a retail store. I mean I can see a store like Best Buy refusing to take back a laptop because a customer insists that there is a ghost in it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.83|108.162.216.83]] 18:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

:I agree. but until more people notice it, lets leave it. [[User:Imanton1|Imanton1]] ([[User talk:Imanton1|talk]]) 03:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Overthinking, maybe, but if the computer is haunted (read: possessed), then a valid solution IS to return (read: unpossess? dispossess?) it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.57|108.162.216.57]] 23:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My wife says, "it's a Turing test!"
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.199|108.162.219.199]] 02:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)