explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1460: SMFW

2014-12-17T02:28:33Z

Jolbucley:

Maybe “SMFW” could mean “So Much Fun When” — wait, that makes too much sense. [[User:Jolbucley|Jolbucley]] ([[User talk:Jolbucley|talk]]) 02:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Reading this is like listening to the video of that lady who imitates the sound patterns of different languages, but without actually saying any real words! --[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] ([[User talk:Elipongo|talk]]) 05:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
:link? -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 15:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybcvlxivscw [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.192|199.27.130.192]] 19:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
:No. It's absolutely '''nothing''' like that. If this were reddit I'd downvote you. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.180|173.245.54.180]] 19:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It would sound more natural if it were "''SMFW '''as''' an acronym almost makes sense''". Is the fact that "as" was omitted from that sentence supposed to give us a hint as to what "SMFW" might mean? [[User:Nicksh|Nicksh]] ([[User talk:Nicksh|talk]]) 07:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

: As "the Internet is for porn", in many contexts SFW, lit. Safe for Work, can be taken to mean sex-free content, while NSFW, Not Safe for Work, would mean sex-positive content, then SMFW might be interpreted to me SM For Work, where SM would be humorously interpreted as some graphically explicit sex-positive content, perhaps SadoMachoism, which outside of paperwork is generally classified NSFW. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.29|199.27.133.29]] 10:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

:: And "wtfw it's like smho tbfh, imdb." might be a defensive reaction to those what would not find humour of SM For Work. "what the fooking wut? It's like stick my humble opinion, to be fooking honest, in my dead body. (or database)." [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.29|199.27.133.29]] 10:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

:: Additional evidence of SM For Work, would be the posture in the task chair with respect to the desk and laptop (hunched over, feet not resting on ground, etc) seems the opposite of ergonomic advice which might lead to muscle strain, pain and fatigue -- the type of unsexy, self-inflicted torments that workers do to themselves "for work" {{unsigned ip|199.27.133.29}}

: >It would sound more natural
: You're missing the whole point. It's not ''supposed'' to sound natural. It's supposed to look strange and confuse you. That's the joke. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.180|173.245.54.180]] 19:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was simply 'Save Me From Work' - being unhappy at work is common, and using the internet as a distraction from work is common as well. - So sending a quick message to a friend "SMFW" is a request for them to send you a link or other internet distraction, or otherwise help you come up with an excuse to not be productive. {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.206}}

I thought of So Much For Work as a possible meaning. {{unsigned ip|173.245.50.178}}

SMFW: Single Mode Fiber Waveguide * {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.39}}

I think "SMFW" is a mixture of SMF and MFW: "So Much Fun When". It fits the sentence. The only thing is that Cueball doesn't look like he's having fun.

Smoke more fucking weed could be a replacement for something like "Bloody hell" or "Shit the bed".
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.252|141.101.98.252]] 09:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

So why doesn't "xkcd" appear on the acronyms list? --[[User:Koveras|Koveras]] ([[User talk:Koveras|talk]]) 09:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
: Because xkcd isnt an acronym. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.61|108.162.216.61]] 09:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add STFW ("Search the fucking web", [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/STFW]) as an acronym that SMFW is close to (same except for the second letter)...but there might be enough examples? [[User:Aquaplanet|Aquaplanet]] ([[User talk:Aquaplanet|talk]]) 11:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

SMFW makes perfect sense. Shaking my face when (SMH+MFW) an acronym almost makes sense. {{unsigned|Sederts}}
:Seconded, "Shaking my face when" seems to be the best decryption so far... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.249|108.162.219.249]] 23:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

See My Face When an acronym almost makes sense... makes perfect sense. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.4|141.101.99.4]] 13:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"So Much Frustration When an acronym ''almost'' makes sense."
: +1 -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 15:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
: I'd also like to add in my +1 on this -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.188|108.162.216.188]] 19:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"What to feel when it's like some message has only to be f...ing hashtags, is mostly deep bafflement." [[User:Ackegard|Ackegard]] ([[User talk:Ackegard|talk]]) 14:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

None of these are acronyms. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.115|199.27.128.115]] 14:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

So Much F*cking Want. So, uh. Yeah. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.124|108.162.237.124]] 15:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Small Men Fear Women [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.39|108.162.216.39]] 15:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

So Many Fucking Ways an acronym almost makes sense. Makes sense to me. {{unsigned ip|108.162.230.209}}

Staring, Mildly Frustrated When...? [[User:Kirdneh|Kirdneh]] ([[User talk:Kirdneh|talk]]) 17:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"SMHO" could also be related to "LMHO," or "Laughing My Head Off." So, "Shaking My Head Off"? Something that makes you shake your head so hard it might fall off? [[User:Shanek|Shanek]] ([[User talk:Shanek|talk]]) 16:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

SMFW is an initialism. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.230.131|108.162.230.131]] 16:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

<pedantic>Initialisms are only acronyms when they can be pronounced </pendantic> [[User:Sideshowtanley|Sideshowtanley]] ([[User talk:Sideshowtanley|talk]]) 17:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

: smif-whaa? (smfw) wha-ti-fuh? (wtf) zik-cid? (xkcd) Can be pronounced or intended to be pronounced? Two very different things. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.64|108.162.216.64]] 01:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking "So M*therf*cking what?" as the meaning for the acronym, but Randall is more arcane than that :) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.49.148|173.245.49.148]] 17:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"Social Media Forum Warrior" is what came to my mind. I may have been on the internets for too long. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.137|141.101.104.137]] 19:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Could be an example of a stacked acronym with an acronym recursively nested in an acronym. Or it could be a portmanteau of two acronyms. Is there a term for a portmanteau of two acronyms? Portmonym? Acmanteau? --[[User:Gbleck|Gbleck]] ([[User talk:Gbleck|talk]]) 19:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)gbleck

It's not meant to make sense. It's a play on acronyms not making sense. It is a single statement in a single sentence, but the play is on the fact that the acronym doesn't make sense. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.207}}

Smacks My Face When an acronym almost makes sense. {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.160}}

Two things - 1) these are all abbreviations, not acronyms - no-one goes around saying "Smfw" - they'd say "S.M.F.W."; 2) WTFW is "whatever the fuck works" - used quite often on a couple of forums I've been on. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]] ([[User talk:Grutness|talk]]) 23:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
: I think there are two different, valid definitions of acronyms. Personally the first "acronym" I think of as an example is ATM machine, which you're saying is an abbreviation. I guess some people draw the line if it uses the initials of words, and other draw the line at being pronounced. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.187|108.162.215.187]] 12:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

TDEMSYR!!! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.217|141.101.89.217]] 10:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:89: Gravitational Mass

2014-01-29T04:45:39Z

Jolbucley:

Can anyone add more information about the information stated in the first panel? It is the most intriguing part. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 16:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
: There are two ways to look at mass; through gravity and through inertia. When you look at it through gravity then mass is basically how much a body is affected by gravity, or how much gravity it has. When you look at it through inertia then mass is how much a body resists changes velocity, ie. how hard it is to make a body (like a car) accelerate/decelerate. It turns out that looking at it boths ways gives the same result (same mass). --[[User:BorisIvanBabic|BorisIvanBabic]] ([[User talk:BorisIvanBabic|talk]]) 10:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:In other words, apparently, inertial and gravitational mass for a given body are always identical, or rather reflect the same underlying characteristic of the body which we measure as mass, for any object in the universe; although certain theories explain why this might be the case, none adequately explain why it ''must'' be. ---[[User:Jolbucley|Jolbucley]] ([[User talk:Jolbucley|talk]]) 04:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering that the comic says that there doesn't seem to be a reason for it to be true, and the title text, I think that the missing part of the joke possibly had something to do with her being "heavier" than what a scale would show (since the scale would use the square law to get the mass from the force), and possibly that she is immovable (or hard to move) --[[User:BorisIvanBabic|BorisIvanBabic]] ([[User talk:BorisIvanBabic|talk]]) 10:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:89: Gravitational Mass

2014-01-29T04:45:20Z

Jolbucley:

Can anyone add more information about the information stated in the first panel? It is the most intriguing part. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 16:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
: There are two ways to look at mass; through gravity and through inertia. When you look at it through gravity then mass is basically how much a body is affected by gravity, or how much gravity it has. When you look at it through inertia then mass is how much a body resists changes velocity, ie. how hard it is to make a body (like a car) accelerate/decelerate. It turns out that looking at it boths ways gives the same result (same mass). --[[User:BorisIvanBabic|BorisIvanBabic]] ([[User talk:BorisIvanBabic|talk]]) 10:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:In other words, apparently, inertial and gravitational mass for a given body are always identical, or rather reflect the same underlying characteristic of the body which we measure as mass, for any object in the universe; although certain theories explain why this might be the case, none adequately explain why it ''must'' be.

Considering that the comic says that there doesn't seem to be a reason for it to be true, and the title text, I think that the missing part of the joke possibly had something to do with her being "heavier" than what a scale would show (since the scale would use the square law to get the mass from the force), and possibly that she is immovable (or hard to move) --[[User:BorisIvanBabic|BorisIvanBabic]] ([[User talk:BorisIvanBabic|talk]]) 10:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1204: Detail

2014-01-29T04:31:53Z

Jolbucley:

I'm not certain as to what the date should be, as I'm in New Zealand. I've taken one off of my current date (26th) as a precaution. Anyone who knows the right date (or right timezone) please edit it accordingly. --[[User:ZephireNZ|ZephireNZ]] ([[User talk:ZephireNZ|talk]]) 04:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This comic arrive a day early, right?[[User:Afhoke|Afhoke]] ([[User talk:Afhoke|talk]]) 04:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
:Most likely a result of the time machine. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 05:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Any idea if the typo Ne*ghborhood is intentional and what it might refer to? [[Special:Contributions/141.17.83.10|141.17.83.10]] 07:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
: It appears to have just been a mistake, as it's now been corrected on the panel at kxcd. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 16:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

:: I see what you did there. ;) --[[Special:Contributions/24.145.230.202|24.145.230.202]] 23:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Forget electronic microscope. Where do you think they would be STORING the maps? Nearby galaxies? Other dimension? .... oh, I see: Black Mesa Research Facility is a google service company researching storage technologies. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the vertical axis be reversed? If the Planck length is the theoretical smallest length, wouldn't most readers expect the smallest value to be lowest on the vertical axis? Thus the log scale line would angle downward, more clearly indicating that the resolution lengthy is getting smaller with time. The way it it is drawn, the first impression might be that the resolution length is increasing, not decreasing. Just a suggestion. XKCD is my favorite comic because I learn something new almost every day! {{unsigned|Matthew-e-hackman}}
: I had the same thought. Had to pause a moment to reassure myself Planck Length is a small thing. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 16:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Randall really likes pointing out the dangers of excessive extrapolation, doesn't he! One of his key themes. And this one is taking extremes to the extreme. [[User:Robbak|Robbak]] ([[User talk:Robbak|talk]]) 13:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Representation == Reality? {{unsigned|24.84.201.240}}

Whoa i just figured. the lines meet around 2100 - and in 2101.war was beginning - a coincidence? --[[Special:Contributions/178.203.192.19|178.203.192.19]] 20:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
: Remember, [[286: All Your Base]]. [[User:Tryc|Tryc]] ([[User talk:Tryc|talk]]) 15:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"Shouldn't the vertical axis be reversed?" I would say no. As the smallest resolvable detail shrinks, people refer to resolution as increasing, so a rising line makes sense. Maybe the axis should be denominated in pixels per meter though... [[User:Gardnertoo|Gardnertoo]] ([[User talk:Gardnertoo|talk]]) 15:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody explain the line labeled "Earth" at the top of the diagram? [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])
:The resolution of actual Earth remains constant as the resolution of Google Earth approaches [[Special:Contributions/96.33.168.232|96.33.168.232]] 04:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It's also quite fun to compare the graph to the first publication of Moore's law, which had just one datapoint more but looks more or less identical to the comic. (And it still holds after 50 years... although there are signs it'll be slowing down soon...) {{unsigned ip|212.64.51.153}}

"The images get finer as satellite imaging technology improves" - this is wrong; however, I have no idea currently how to rewite the sentence elegantly, maybe someone else does. The Google Maps/Earth finer images do not come from satellites, but are obtained by aerial photography. No commercial satellite can produce such images (maybe military ones come close - just maybe). In fact, Randall has written about that: http://what-if.xkcd.com/32/ [[Special:Contributions/89.174.214.74|89.174.214.74]] 13:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Each tick in the scale represents a resolution improvement by 1000x." Am I being dense, or does the term "log scale" necessarily mean jumps of 10x? [[Special:Contributions/149.161.34.44|149.161.34.44]] 20:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

:"A simple example [of a logarithmic scale] is a chart whose vertical or horizontal axis has equally spaced increments that are labeled 1, 10, 100, 1000, instead of 1, 2, 3, 4." Taken from wikipedia's article titled "Logarithmic scale". [[Special:Contributions/24.251.209.253|24.251.209.253]] 03:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Google Earth resolution will surpass actual resolution by 2120*...
*must have "Google Eyes" (TM) to experience better than actual resolution [[Special:Contributions/207.126.189.4|207.126.189.4]] 17:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)dabeansdad

Can someone please explain why the Plank length being the resolution of the universe is a "myth", as it says in the explanation? [[Special:Contributions/75.69.96.225|75.69.96.225]] 01:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks for your hint. It isn't a myth but fact in quantum mechanics. It's fixed.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Randall is wrong: Google Earth does not gain resolution exponentially, but logistically. Admittedly, that's somewhat less funny. --[[User:Jolbucley|Jolbucley]] ([[User talk:Jolbucley|talk]]) 04:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:125: Marketing Interview

2014-01-29T04:16:26Z

Jolbucley:

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

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

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

Talk:237: Keyboards are Disgusting

2014-01-29T03:42:53Z

Jolbucley:

This needs to be added to Category:Comics with color but I have no idea how. 17:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
:I can't see any color, am I blind?--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
::Dgbrt, look at the last panel. [[Special:Contributions/131.191.68.103|131.191.68.103]] 08:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Uhhh, the dust... so I'm blind ;) --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 10:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Yeah, the dust is very slightly coloured (dark blues, greens, and browns). Unfortunately, I don't know how to add it either.[[Special:Contributions/67.188.195.182|67.188.195.182]] 22:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
::If anybody else can't see it, try shaking your keyboard upside down over your face.

I tried this trick with my new Netbook. The effect is actually pretty impressive (especially with the € on-key). [[Special:Contributions/67.188.195.182|67.188.195.182]] 22:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:678: Researcher Translation

2014-01-29T03:40:53Z

Jolbucley: Created page with "This does explain a lot, doesn't it? --~~~~"

This does explain a lot, doesn't it? --[[User:Jolbucley|Jolbucley]] ([[User talk:Jolbucley|talk]]) 03:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:179: e to the pi times i

2014-01-29T03:39:19Z

Jolbucley: I just added a comment.

This is one of the few comics that were changed after release, as stated by Randall in his XKCD book. It first claimed e^(i*Pi) = 1, which lead to huge protest from the community and a correction from Randall. --[[User:Gefrierbrand|Gefrierbrand]] ([[User talk:Gefrierbrand|talk]]) 09:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
:He must have been pie-eyed when he wrote that; he's usually pretty good about his math... -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 05:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
::I see what you did there. [[User:Daddy|Daddy]] ([[User talk:Daddy|talk]]) 15:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Randall says in the title text that he's never been satisfied with explanations of the sinusoidal nature of the function of e^ix. http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/questionCorner/epii.html really helps, at least for those who are obsessed with taylor series yet tragically horrible at math. --[[User:Jolbucley|Jolbucley]] ([[User talk:Jolbucley|talk]]) 03:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)