explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:363: Reset

2013-12-04T20:18:25Z

Lyusternik:

I thought this was mostly referencing the impracticality of a sign like this. It is only correct for one day for each reset, meaning you would have to reset it daily back to zero, but then you could just leave it zero without resetting it. However, then since you didn't actually reset it, it would actually be wrong. My brain hurts. Edit: I guess the assumption is that it is an electronic sign where the numbers change themselves, and that "reset" means only back to zero, but to me it looks like a manual sign which must be "reset" to change the numbers even upward.--[[User:JSekula71|JSekula71]] ([[User talk:JSekula71|talk]]) 14:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

:I know what you mean, but it's resolved if daily you ''set'' it to n=n+1, until you arbitrarily decide to ''reset'' it to zero on a whim at any time you wish to.
:And no explanation regarding the title text? Looks to me like an overhead-gantry style signage, which indicates what height of vehicle (or person, but it would have to be Robert Wadlow-type people that are affected) can pass beneath it. Normally it'd be a sign indicating the clearance of a bridge ahead, but the only thing restricting tall passers-by ''is'' the sign. Similarly positively-reinforcing but otherwise useless. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 02:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
:If the title text is referring to the sign on-screen, then that's one tall Cue-Ball.[[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 00:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
An alternate definition of 'reset' is 'to change the reading of', via dictionary.com. If the comic opts to use this definition, the sign becomes paradoxical. The sign couldn't have been reset 38 days ago, without someone resetting it each day. Which isn't possible, due to the instructions on the sign, which would make the sign read zero. It's a logical paradox. [[User:Lyusternik|Lyusternik]] ([[User talk:Lyusternik|talk]]) 20:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:440: Road Rage

2013-12-02T15:26:30Z

Lyusternik:

;Incomplete (as of August 26, 2013)
*At the title text Black Hat is avoiding a crash.
*While many explains are monster explains, here is the WIFI missing, this explain is just more a transcript.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The idea is that the tailgater (I'll name him Phil for ease of understanding) will be distracted while he contemplates his loss, so when Black Hat slams on the brakes, Phil hopefully won't have enough stopping distance to avoid a collision, slamming into Black Hat's car. The accident is always caused by the car behind, meaning Phil will be at fault.[[User:Lyusternik|Lyusternik]] ([[User talk:Lyusternik|talk]]) 15:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:440: Road Rage

2013-12-02T15:26:12Z

Lyusternik: