explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1807: Listening

2017-03-06T15:31:37Z

MGitsfullofsheep: Alexa, buy me a dollhouse.

I think it's important to note that, at least with Alexa, the device isn't transmitting to the cloud 24/7 - the "wake word" detection happens locally, and then it starts streaming to the Amazon servers. [[User:Okofish|Okofish]] ([[User talk:Okofish|talk]]) 13:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I think [[I Know You're Listening]] should be mentioned as a related comic. [[User:Effy|Effy]] ([[User talk:Effy|talk]]) 13:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a recent variant of an old joke. https://www.google.fr/search?q=voice+command+format+c+colon
Perhaps Randall got triggered by this news: [https://teleread.org/2017/01/10/when-voice-command-listens-to-anyone/ “Alexa, buy me a dollhouse.”]
--[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 15:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

explain xkcd:Community portal/Miscellaneous

2016-02-15T13:25:13Z

MGitsfullofsheep: /* Sightless readers offended by the "It's 'cause you're dumb" tagline. */ vote change

<noinclude>{{Community portal}}</noinclude>

== The Community Portal's design ==

{{tl|Community portal}} looks too Wikipedia-ish (because that's where I got it). Someone who can design things should probably fix that. It isn't protected for the time being, though it probably will be in the future (high-visibility template). --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 00:54, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

== Common mistake ==

This affects all pages that ever say "alt text" in reference to the TITLE text on xkcd images. "Alt text" is incorrect; Alt text refers to the text that is shown as an alternative when images are not displayed. Title text is what xkcd uses and is shown as a tool tip-like bubble when images are hovered over.

I would correct this myself but I saw no way to edit the main page. --[[User:Jillysky|Jillysky]] ([[User talk:Jillysky|talk]]) 14:21, 6 August 2012‎ (UTC)

:You actually don't need to edit the main page to fix it, as what's there is just a mirror (transclusion) of the actual content from the comic page, at [[Curiosity]], which is open for editing by anyone. Then again, the "alt-text" in that case is generated by a template, {{tl|comic}}, so that's where we should fix this. The template's code, however, is currently a terrible mess (sorry!), so I went ahead and took care of it. Thanks for catching that! --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 16:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

:Ah? So it's wrong, for instance, on http://m.xkcd.com? because of that I took it for granted that we could call it the alt-text... - [[User:Cos|Cos]] ([[User talk:Cos|talk]]) 17:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

:: Yes. If you look at the page's html source, you'll see:
<nowiki><img
id="comic"
src="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/curiosity.png"
title="As of this writing the NASA/JPL websites are still overloaded. Trying CURIOSITY-REAR-CAM_[256px_x_256px].torrent.SwEsUb.DVDRip.XviD-aXXo.jpg instead."
alt="Curiosity"></nowiki>
::(line breaks added for clarity) --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 23:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

:::That was my error in the template. I knew "image text" that has been commonly used by Jeff was not techically correct, but I didn't actually go back and confirm it was alt text before I included that tag in the template. That's to Waldir (I believe?) for correcting the template. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 14:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

== When the "official" transcript is wrong? ==
I did [[903: Extended Mind]]. Interestingly, the transcript on xkcd.com is missing the bottom line "When Wikipedia has a server outage, my apparent IQ drops by 30 points." I assume we want a complete transcript, rather than whatever xkcd.com says it is...? [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 04:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

:We're focusing on the actual transcript of the comic, not the xkcd.com transcript. The official transcript is usually right, but even Randall makes mistakes sometimes. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 04:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

== Milestone: half the comics explained!! ==

Hi all! I'm pleased to announce that we have just broke the 50% mark for xkcd explanations! The page that balanced the count (568 explained, 568 to go, at the time) was [[877: Beauty]], created 01:31 UTC, 21 November 2012 by [[User:Davidy22]]. Congratulations!! :D --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 03:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

:The caterer's been called! The punch will be arriving soon! Go [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]! [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 06:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

::[[File:freedom.png]] Punch is served! [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 07:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

But the Main page says 407 explanations, 731 to go! What's up with that? --[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 21:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

== Reverse? ==

Why in the Archive why are all the thing up until "Heatmap" in Reverse? Can someone please answer? [[User:Tmack3|Tmack3]] ([[User talk:Tmack3|talk]]) 08:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:Archive? Can you provide a link or screenshot? '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 04:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

http://xkcd.com/archive/ [[User:Tmack3|Tmack3]] ([[User talk:Tmack3|talk]]) 08:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

::Ah, that's because the comic right after that, rtl, has a right-to-left character in it that flips all the proceeding text. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 00:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok, i see that now. When I 1st saw that RTL I just thought that it was random letters, thankyou for explaining it for me. [[User:Tmack3|Tmack3]] ([[User talk:Tmack3|talk]]) 08:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It also depends on what browser you are on because on Google Chrome it was normal. [[User:Tmack3|Tmack3]] ([[User talk:Tmack3|talk]]) 09:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

== Do you think this question was asked by one of the xkcd people? ==

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090301060752AAtYugc [[User:Tmack3|Tmack3]] ([[User talk:Tmack3|talk]]) 08:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

== Matthew Reilly ==

I would just like to tell everyone that I asked Matthew Reilly (the author) if he is ever scared that a velociraptor is going to attack him, and he said NO! He clearly needs to start worrying about them! [[User:Tmack3|Tmack3]] ([[User talk:Tmack3|talk]]) 10:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

== What can we learn section ==
First of all I love your work. I believe deeper understanding of each XKCD can make a world a better place and I thank you sincerely for starting this webpage. I wanted to ask what you think about "What can we learn?" section I've been adding to some of the pages. Thank you - [[User:E-inspired|E-inspired]] ([[User talk:E-inspired|talk]]) 13:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

:This site is actually the work of multiple editors working slowly and steadily to fill in explanations for all the old comics. Some of the xkcd comics are incredibly deep - comic [[956]] is such a poignant comic that digs into the DRM issue on so many levels. Your reflections on many of the comics are very much warranted and you're helping us create talk pages with high-quality opening posts, which is great for future discussion on this wiki. It'd be nice if you could refrain from putting headers in talk pages, technical limitations of the wiki make long explanation pages choke when headings are in the discussion page. Other than that, keep up the good work! '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 13:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

::I've put in my 2 cents to comic [[956]], and thank you for teaching me how to comment and link to other comics - [[User:E-inspired|E-inspired]] ([[User talk:E-inspired|talk]]) 13:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

::: FYI, you can always make pseudo-headings using a horizontal rule and a bold "header", but honestly I think a simple standard opening sentence would suffice. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 12:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

:Oh, and the guy who draws xkcd is called {{w|Randall Munroe}}. So many glowing things to be said about him. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 13:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

::Yes, I can't thank him enough for simplifying complex issues to funny stories, I think it's exactly what our generation needs - [[User:E-inspired|E-inspired]] ([[User talk:E-inspired|talk]]) 13:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

:I'm in favor of a Mr. Rogers style of 'what lesson can be learned' on the talk page, but make sure your comments don't come across as sanctimonious and holier-than-thou as that can be really off-putting. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 19:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

:: You are absolutely correct, I have not thought of that, please trust me I did not do it on purpose. Thank you Mr. Lcarsos - [[User:E-inspired|E-inspired]] ([[User talk:E-inspired|talk]]) 19:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you David, and I apologize that I've not made it clear that by your work, I do mean your collective work (the wiki is only as good as all the people behind it). I was trying to put the headers to allow others to find the section easier in case they start looking for it, perhaps I could make a suggestion to make it a standalone section so that others would be encouraged to contribute their own understanding of lessons they have noticed from each comic. I know the lessons I've seen, but I would love to learn from others as much as I hope they can learn from me and Mr. XKCD, thank you. - [[User:E-inspired|E-inspired]] ([[User talk:E-inspired|talk]]) 13:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

== DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD ==

Hello fellow editors. Do you remember the last time we were hit by a surge of automated spam? Neither do I. ConfirmEdit has really done a number on the volume of spam that we're eating - one spam account has been created since we finished configuring confirmEdit, and zero anon edits have been spam. Zero. Can you say happiness? Can you say party? '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

:Hehe, I'm glad! Thanks for being so relentless on the spam-fighting all this time! Maybe we should make up a new reason to make Jeff remove the /wiki/ in the URL? ;) –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 18:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

:: Awesome news! Finally the patrolling feature will be usable: [{{fullurl:Special:RecentChanges|hideanons=1&hidepatrolled=1&from=20121204025000&days=365&limit=1000}} Unpatrolled changes by registered users] / [{{fullurl:Special:RecentChanges|hideliu=1&hidepatrolled=1&from=20121204025000&days=365&limit=1000}} Unpatrolled changes by anonymous users] :) --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 12:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

== 1000th comic explanation!! ==

Hi all! It apparently went unnoticed that '''we have recently surpassed the mark of 1000 comic explanations!''' Some calculations based on [[:Category:Comics]] and [[Special:NewPages]] led me to the conclusion that the 1000th explanation was [[681: Gravity Wells]], created by [[User:AlexRNL]] just yesterday! Yay! This calls for a celebration, no? Congrats to [[Special:ContributionScores|everyone]] who made this happen! I'll edit [[Mediawiki:Sitenotice]] with a congratulatory message. Way to go, guys! --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 16:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
:ps - I also took the opportunity to flesh out our [[explain xkcd|about/history page]]. Please take a look and fix/add any details I might have missed. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 16:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

== Style guide ==
Is there a style guide for this wiki? --[[User:PeterMortensen|PeterMortensen]] ([[User talk:PeterMortensen|talk]]) 20:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
:Oh, sorry, I did forget to answer here. A guide on this is not easy, many individual comics do need special layouts because they have content never can match to a style guide. But I will give a try [[Help:Style Guide]].--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

== Adblock ==

I've whitelisted the site in adblock, but the ads are still blocked.
Anyone know what' going on here and how I can fix it?--[[User:ParadoX|ParadoX]] ([[User talk:ParadoX|talk]]) 04:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
:Huh. I was wondering why our impression counts weren't rising. I thought it was just because this site had high turnover. I've changed the webpage that the word whitelisting links to, try the instructions there instead. Project wonderful is our ad provider, and they've been pretty good to us so far. Also, thanks for helping to support the site! '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 04:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::Great! I don't really mid ads as long as they aren't intrusive. Works now, Hope everyone else does it as well.--[[User:ParadoX|ParadoX]] ([[User talk:ParadoX|talk]]) 05:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
::I saw you wrote "the webpage that the word whitelisting links to" so I went to the search box and typed whitelisting. My search didn't yield anything useful: [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?search=whitelisting&go=Go&title=Special%3ASearch]. I don't know how to create the missing page but there oughta be a link for someone like me who searches for whitelist or whitelisting, to take them to the instructions you refer to. [[User:SaxTeacher|SaxTeacher]] ([[User talk:SaxTeacher|talk]]) 10:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
:::We already have this linked somewhere, but [https://www.projectwonderful.com/adblock.php this] is the link you want. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 13:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I normally access this site through the android app "xkcd browser". That app only links to the content part of the site and doesn't show the side bar, so the adds aren't shown either. Might be worth discussing it with the author. [[Special:Contributions/109.158.126.139|109.158.126.139]] 08:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

:We support those avenues completely, you don't need to feel bad if you use an app to browse this site. We're only really concerned when we put up ads and our impressions are less than half our page hits, because that essentially means more than half our readers aren't contributing to server costs. That's really hard to deal with. We have enough daily page hits to qualify as web publishers at very big ad agencies, but we've had to settle for relatively low rates at the smaller Project Wonderful because 60% of our users were using adblock, so the agencies rejected us because our valuable "paying" audience was too low for them to consider us. That's been the difference between us using dedicated servers to host the site and hiring a contractor to set it up, and the (admittedly somewhat decent) shared hosting plan that we have to settle for now. We can only afford the shared hosting, because the small-scale advertisers at Project Wonderful don't even pay for full days of advertising; most of the time, we make less per day than the posted $3.90 price. That said, we're grateful that Project Wonderful would take us as a publisher when no one else would, but it really feels like the difference between being accepted to community college and being accepted to an ivy league school. For a similar reason, the Google ads route was not sufficient to satisfy our needs; not a large enough proportion of our users were looking at ads, so we either needed to spam them and degrade the site, or we needed to make them refresh, which makes pages slow and causes needlessly high traffic for a lot of users. We didn't want our ads to make the site worse, because that would drive away users and defeat the purpose of us being a public resource for xkcd readers. We actually decided to go the agency route pretty early, because adsense takes a massive cut of revenues and gives us little control over what ads or advertisers actually showed, which was not okay with us. Whoah, I wrote a lot. I hope it was coherent. Maybe someday I'll collect my thoughts and write a proper summary on how and why we advertise. Also, if you have any questions about anything ad-related, you can always ask us at [[explain xkcd talk:Advertise Here]]. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 11:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

== Feynman? ==

Feynman (both in [[182: Nash|living]] and [[397: Unscientific|zombie]] form) probably deserves an entry in the [[Template:Navbox characters|character navbox]] template doesn't he? [[Special:Contributions/128.250.152.198|128.250.152.198]] 02:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
:That's two comics out of 1200+. Three if you count the song. Not quite enough yet. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 02:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
:: If that's the criterion, then we need to get rid of [[Brown Hat]]. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 19:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

== Job Interview (Electric Soup) ==

The soup is clearly being poured out of an electric socket. This "electric soup" is probably not a reference to the alcoholic brew favoured by Scottish tramps, but more likely to the virtual nature of the company. {{unsigned|Sulis}}
:Hey, go here [[Talk:1293: Job Interview‎]] for discussions. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

== Is there a similar, transcripted service for The Oatmeal? ==

Hi everyone - this site is a real gem, I've sent it to a friend of mine who can't read XKCD because she's blind. The transcripts on this site are a real boon!

Does anyone know if there is a similar service for The Oatmeal? I've searched and searched, but found nothing so far.

Thanks :)

Jeff

:As far as I know we are kind of unique in the web comics world. I think we get away with it because Randall publishes all his comics as Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial. We liberally link back to xkcd, and we don't make a penny (The ads are just to cover server expenses, because wikis and the databases that support them get big when you're covering a body of work like xkcd). I haven't looked into the copyright Matt uses for the Oatmeal, but he seems like a cool enough guy to not kill a community transcripting effort of his comics. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 20:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

== what if 103: Vanishing Water - comics ==

Please explain the 2nd and the 4th comics from http://what-if.xkcd.com/103/

"Just tried to sail my boat over land, because I didn't learn from that kid in the Zephyr." (who's the kid from Zephyr?)

"A third time?" (maybe whales were dropped twice before in other what-ifs?) [[User:Daniel Carrero|Daniel Carrero]] ([[User talk:Daniel Carrero|talk]]) 21:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

:"A third time?" is a reference to a whale falling twice in "Hitchiker's guide to the Galaxy". Been a while, so I don't remember the details of how this fit in, but the second time it happened to the whale, he thought "Not again" or something along those lines. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 18:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Raises the question of if we should explain jokes imbedded in What If comics. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 18:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

== Discussion usage ==

Am I being a killjoy in feeling that the discussion section should be mainly limited to discussion on improving the explanation, gathering consensus and that type of thing.
Specifically, the discussion for [[1418: Horse]] is quickly turning into every man and his dog posting a sentence in the style of the comic, which doesn't really add anything to the page other than clutter.

Personally, I'd just delete most of them, but I think I might be turning into a grumpy old bugger... --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 20:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
:The discussion is also there for just talking about the comic. Those guys aren't wildly off-topic, there's no need to clamp down on what they get to talk about. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 17:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

::Yep, I must just be grumpy and draconian! Lesson learned --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 20:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

== 2014 Christmas header ==

Since the header for the site current contains a [http://imgs.xkcd.com/store/store_default.png graphic link to the store] that promises that Randall probably won't ship you a [[:Category:Bobcats|bobcat]], it seems to me that probably ought to be preserved and explained somewhere. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.189|173.245.56.189]] 17:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

== XKCD at LanguageLog ==

Arnold Zwicky (of the well-known linguistics blog Language Log) has put together a list of linguistics-related XKCD strips, here: http://arnoldzwicky.org/the-language-of-comics/comics-lists/xkcd-cartoons/ I thought it might be appropriate for a copy of the list (maybe a category) to be created from it. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.79|199.27.133.79]] 03:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
:[[:Category:Language]] '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 04:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

== Bookmarklet ==

Hello there, I've created a little bookmarklet (https://ginkobox.fr/shaarli/?a77vQw) and I thought it might be useful for someone out there.

When launched, it adds the 'explain' before xkcd.com and the browser loads the explainxkcd page. I've tested it only on Firefox.

(Contact @ https://ginkobox.fr/wiki/doku.php?id=about) {{unsigned ip|‎108.162.229.100}}

== Is there a RSS feed for What If? ==

Is there a RSS feed for What If?--[[User:17jiangz1|17jiangz1]] ([[User talk:17jiangz1|talk]]) 11:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
:No, because we cover the comics. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 18:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

== My User Page ==

Can someone help me with [[user:17jiangz1|my user page]]? I can't seem to remove the large space on top.--[[User:17jiangz1|17jiangz1]] ([[User talk:17jiangz1|talk]]) 07:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
: The only solution I've found is to remove the contribution scores (data6=...). Not sure what exactly is triggering this bug. --[[User:SlashMe|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe|talk]]) 21:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I am receiving "Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character ""." for <code><pre>{{#expr: {{formatnum:{{#cscore:17jiangz1|pages}}|R}}/{{formatnum:{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}|R}}*100 round 5 }}</pre></code>--[[User:17jiangz1|17jiangz1]] ([[User talk:17jiangz1|talk]]) 05:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
:Bump?--[[User:17jiangz1|17jiangz1]] ([[User talk:17jiangz1|talk]]) 06:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

== What-If ==

It hasn't updated for 2 weeks. why?--[[User:17jiangz1|17jiangz1]] ([[User talk:17jiangz1|talk]]) 06:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
:Looks like they're on hold for a few months (Until July 14th). Too bad, I enjoyed them. ([http://what-if.xkcd.com/ Look at the top of the What-If page]) --[[User:Zman9600|Zman9600]] ([[User talk:Zman9600|talk]]) 20:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
:What is so special about the date and time? Seems very specific: ''July 14th, 2015 at 7:49:59 AM EDT.'' --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.99|141.101.98.99]] 12:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks like it's set for the 40th anniversary of the Apollo-Soyuz mission launch. {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.158}}

What If updates will resume on July 14th, 2015 at 7:49:59 AM EDT. By that time {{w|New Horizons}} will have it's closest approach to {{w|Pluto}}. See here: http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/ --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

== thanks for having a working website ==

the search function on xkcd.com was taken off, and now the random function seems to be having issues, but it's nice that here both work [[Special:Contributions/188.114.97.114|188.114.97.114]] 19:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
:We do our best. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 22:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

== Ada Munroe ==

The latest [[what if?]] number 139 has a question by "Ada Munroe". Is she related to [[Randall]] in any way? --{{User:17jiangz1/signature|06:57, 09 August 2015}}

== Out of curiosity ==

I notice that whenever someone links to tvtropes.org in an explanation, someone changes the link to the matching page on allthetropes.org. I'm curious as to why that is. Is there some kind of terms of use conflict at play here that an editor should be keeping in mind? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.156|199.27.128.156]] 06:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
:TVtropes does not restrict links to their site, and if this has been happening there are some time-outs that I need to be handing out. Can you point me to some of the edits where this is happening? '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 08:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
::The specific example I had was, um, [[1468: Worrying]]. On Jan 3rd the links went to tvtropes.org, and on March 18th they were all changed over to allthetropes.orain.org. I just found it curious, I wasn't sure what the reason for it was [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.47|162.158.255.47]] 10:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
:::Reverted. Typically, the reason people change perfectly good links to specific, obscure links in wikis is usually self-advertising. I'll be watching that guy's edits in the future. Thanks for the heads up. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 18:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

== Sightless readers offended by the "It's 'cause you're dumb" tagline. ==

I'll admit, every now and again the comic is over my head. ...because I'm dumb in that particular field. However, blind users who enjoy xkcd must do so through explainxkcd. They are NOT dumb. They are *blind*. Without explainxkcd, they would have no idea what is in the comics panels.

Explainxkcd is a great site. There is no question it provides a service to the internet community.

Please see this thread (last paragraph) on Userfriendly.org. Keep in mind, the end user is sightless and explainxkcd is "viewed" through a screen reader. http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/read.cgi?id=20160207&tid=3930989 (Anonymous)

: The guy on that other site is complaining about that XKCD does not work well in a screen reader -- that is not our problem, but a problem for Randall to solve on his own site. We cannot be the catch all for everything on the internet that Randall broke [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 15:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
:: Agreed --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I never even noticed the tagline in question. Humorous to sighted folks, sure. ...but obviously offensive to those who have no choice but to access xkcd through explainxkcd.

I'll leave it to the administrators or the community to figure something out, if anything at all. Maybe no one cares? I didn't come here to make any suggestions, only to point out how offensive those 4 words are to some users of the website. {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.88}}

:Alright, put a link here in the site notice. What does everyone else think? I'm open to changing it, it's something people complain about fairly periodically and our identity isn't completely tied to the tagline, I feel. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

::Well, we definitely shouldn't change anything because that particular guy is upset. It's one thing to be offended, but he's also attacking both this site and Randal Monroe. I don't think that sort of behavior should be rewarded. I actually have a rule online where, if someone acts like a jerk to me, I will be kind, but I won't give them what they want. I think a lot of the problems with people being jerks to others is that they still get what they want, so what reason do they have to stop? If he wants us to change it, he should address us like an adult and ask us himself.

::But you claim this is a common complaint. Then I would say we need more info. My instinct would be that people don't understand that it's a joke. But then my solution would be to do what the site is designed to do and explain the joke, rather than take it down. If there's actually something about it that's offensive to an entire class of people, that's different. I am unaware of a stereotype that blind people are stupid, but I'm open to the idea that I don't know.

::I'm not particularly married to the tag line. I actually didn't even notice it was there. But I'm loathe to take it down over a misunderstanding. I can't think of a similarly humorous replacement that would not be offensive, but I can at least suggest "Because nobody knows everything." --[[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 09:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I've gotten these before. There's a [[Talk:Main_Page#Header_message|slowly growing]] section in the main page discussion page and a complaint buried somewhere in my talk page and they're usually quite unhappy. I pegged it up this time round because there's special needs involved, and a good part of our intended appeal is the transcripts for the blind. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 10:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I like your reasoning, what if "It's 'cause you're dumb" was follow by "[citation needed]" and make the whole thing a link to a page explaining the header. It would be in character of the page, and xkcd. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.34|108.162.221.34]] 00:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Sam

::Is he one of those people who are so self-centered and 'entitled' that just because they have a disability they assume that everyone is constantly trying to offend them, even in the most unlikeliest of cases? Does he actually believe that the tag line was written with the intention of offending blind people? This is ridiculous. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.71|141.101.106.71]] 11:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"Just in case you feel dumb"? "Some comics may be funnier than they appear"?[[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.198|199.27.130.198]] 09:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

How about simply removing it? At least until we find something that isn't offensive to anyone - which might be very hard to obtain. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Because you're crippled... That's worse I guess. 
But before considering the "you're dumb" tagline, one must think about the name of this wiki. It is called '''Explain''' xkcd, not read xkcd, and explaining is for dumb people, not blind people. 
Maybe one thing we can do is add a "(unless you are just here for the transcript)" subtext, with a link to the transcript section, which has the advantage of both taming offended blind readers (maybe) and provide a direct, "spoilerless" link. --[[User:GuB|GuB]] ([[User talk:GuB|talk]]) 10:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I need explainxkcd for two reasons: being visually impaired, although I can see most of the comics I often miss crucial details that I find only in the transcript; and as a non-American, I lack many cultural references (books, movies, songs, sayings...) that are given in the explanations.
I don't think either of these reasons makes me "dumb". However, I never found the tagline offensive. It was immediately obvious to me that it was meant as humor. Who could seriously think that someone is dumb just because they haven't read the specific book that Randall is parodying in a given comic? Or because they're not familiar with a specific programming language or Unix command? IMHO the tagline *is* funny precisely because very few people can actually "get" all the comics without an explanation. Suggesting that anyone who isn't part of the 0.1% of the population who share all of Randall's abilities and references, is dumb, can't be anything but a joke. Adding to the lot those who can't get the comics because they're blind doesn't make the joke more offensive. It's a sad world where political correctness kills all forms of humor.

On the other hand, the tagline is not an essential part of the site and if a significant number want it removed, so be it.
Zetfr 10:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

:Well not everybody's mind works the same way, and some people legitimately cannot grasp humor very easily. They may come to read the explanations precisely because they can't recognize what about a given comic is supposed to be humorous, and they likewise may not be able to tell that the tagline is just a joke. Besides, the tagline is equating a lack of knowledge with a lack of intelligence, which also makes it inaccurate and kind of kills the humor for those who stop and think about it.

:I personally agree with the above "Because nobody knows everything." approach. I would suggest something along the lines of "Because you won't always get the joke." --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.134|108.162.242.134]] 11:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

:: This sounds like a bunch of dumb people coming together and suggesting that the rest of people should be more like them (joke intended) [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 15:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

: +1 on this. '''Keep'''. --[[User:SlashMe|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe|talk]]) 20:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote '''removal''' [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 11:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Mostly agree with Zetfr, it is a rather obvious joke, and this is a website about a webcomic which is mostly about fun, it would be different if this was some serious news portal, but it isn't, and in my humble opinion people who can't take a joke shouldn't even be here. There will always be ranters and people who get offended, we should not let them make decisions for us. I sincerely believe vast majority of people, blind or otherwise, understand it. [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]])

:I agree with Zetfr. If a user doesn't understand that it is a joke, then he won't understand XKCD's jokes, either, no matter how much explaination he can get.
:--[[User:Lou Crazy|Lou Crazy]] ([[User talk:Lou Crazy|talk]]) 12:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
::I also agree with the above, and like the part of Zetfr about because you need a reader to use the page you do not need to be offended by an obvious joke --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

if i had a vote i'd say change the "because you're dumb" from text to a picture with alt text of something slightly less rude. "because you're using a screenreader," perhaps. although that would show up on mouseover. meh. whatever. --13:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
:and someone isn't "entitled" because they get annoyed about something that doesn't annoy you. as a sighted person i don't even look at the headers on the page. i would imagine that since the text in question is at the top of the page he has to listen to it every single time the page is refreshed. which is annoying enough if it's not insulting. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.161|141.101.106.161]] 13:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
:It is bad to have the alt-text saying something differently, but since the current tagline is not offensive to non-blind people then why would it be offensive to a blind person. [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 15:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote '''keep''' -- Blind people do not have to come to this site, they can just use xkcd.com directly and if that is not working for blind people then that is Randall's problem not ours. The tag line has been there for years while I have noticed it before and used the site and I have never been offended, if a blind person is offended maybe they should stop using the internet. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.109|162.158.255.109]] 15:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
: I second that -- the tag line does not appear to offend non-blind people, it should not offend blind people either [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 15:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Voting '''KEEP''' -- the tag line is a joke, and who is to say that blind people cannot be dumb [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 15:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote '''keep''' as well. I don't see any reason to change it; it's not a jab at disabled people, blind or otherwise. The site is called '''explain'''xkcd, and everything here centers around explaining the comic, not being a transcription service. (If that's not the case, then maybe other things need changing too.) I always thought the tagline fit nicely with the "sarcasm" part of xkcd's own tagline. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.26|108.162.216.26]] 15:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote '''KEEP and satisfy both sides'''. If you examine the HTML, or use [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/fangs-screen-reader-emulator/ Fangs] (free screen reader), you may notice there is a jump-to-nav div element that lets people with screen readers jump to various parts of the page. The jump-to-nav div is only a few HTML lines below the tagline. I'd recommend:
# Moving the jump-to-nav div to '''before''' the tagline
# Adding a "Jump to Transcript" link in the jump-to-nav div.
# Test it with [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/fangs-screen-reader-emulator/ Fangs] in Firefox to simulate a screen reader.
This way, screen-reader users can jump to the transcript and don't have to hear the tagline every time they visit an explainxkcd.com page.
-- [[User:Hat|Hat]] ([[User talk:Hat|talk]]) 15:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Consider "Do you get it now?" [[Special:Contributions/198.41.235.11|198.41.235.11]] 16:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote '''keep''': it's reasonable and no change is warranted

I like the suggestion of '''keeping''' the current tagline, but changing it to an '''image with alttext''' saying something like "because you're using a screenreader". I also vote to move the link to the transcript to above the tagline. [[User:Rileysci|Rileysci]] ([[User talk:Rileysci|talk]]) 17:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I get the joke and I'm not offended by it, but it seems to me that it really sticks out on this site and it doesn't seem consistent with Randall's sense of humor. Everyone on this site is very inclusive and eager to share all perspectives and points of view. I come here both to see the humor that I have the knowledge to understand and to learn more about the world the way Randall sees it. In short, I come here to be one of the lucky 10,000. In fact, I would suggest that as the tag line, "Congratulations! You're one of today's lucky 10,000!". Inside joke that can link to the comic (http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1053:_Ten_Thousand) and it is welcoming. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.170|108.162.245.170]] 18:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
: +1 on this. '''Change''' [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 03:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote '''keep'''. In case it is not kept then it should be changed to something completely different. Te idea of making a title text to an image I really dislike, although I even more dislike adding anything to the existing one to either refer to people coming for the transcript or making excuses for the obvious joke. This has been a part of the page forever, I have seen it almost every time I come here. To begin with I did feel dumb sometimes, but I was never offended by it, just amused. But of course an explain page is for those who did not get the joke. And there are other pages that explains the comic. I do not know if they have a transcript? But I'm happy to know that some people must really enjoy the detailed transcripts that I usually try to provide. I had just not though about the blind perspective. I more use the transcript to make sure every one agrees on what is seen in the images of the comic. Having said all this, I must admit that the best suggestion for a change so far is the one posted above my post (about the lucky 10,000). :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote keep, for exactly the reasons explained by Zeftr above. Changing it to an image with alt text would be OK also. [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 20:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

:I vote '''Change''' it because it is too easily mistaken as an insult instead of a joke. At least change it to ''Because you are stupid''.... Ah, maybe instead ''Because xkcd is far beyond common knowledge'' or ''Because hardly anyone gets everything'' or ''Because it is usually nerdly esoteric even for geeks''. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.46|108.162.221.46]] 21:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

:I vote '''Change'''. I have never been a big fan of the tagline. I don't know everything, but I am certainly not dumb. Also, I echo the reference to (http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1053:_Ten_Thousand). This comic has always been about expanding knowledge, not making you feel guilty for not knowing something.

:'''Change''': I realize the "It's because you're dumb" tagline follows the sarcastic nature of Randall's humor, but there are enough people who don't get or appreciate that sort of humor and are likely to be more offended by it, special needs or no. Here's my suggestion: "For those of us who don't get it." [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 21:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

At what point is "enough" people offended? I've only seen evidence of several (https://xkcd.com/1070/) visually impaired users actually offended by the site, along with a couple people who didn't specify their visual ability. I don't know the traffic on this site, but I would expect it to be on the order of 10^4 or higher. So is this discussion about changing something that a handful of people find offensive? Or is there an actual problem of something inappropriate on the site. If this is all about a couple people finding something offensive, I imagine a few christians might take issue with (https://xkcd.com/709/). Should we start another discussion about accommodating them? Or add a disclaimer that the views expressed by Randall Munroe are his own and do not reflect those of this site? [[User:Beardmcbeardson|Beardmcbeardson]] ([[User talk:Beardmcbeardson|talk]]) 01:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
: So you vote to '''keep''' -- right? [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 04:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

'''Slightly Change'''-- make it more obviously tongue in cheek. "It's cause we're dumb" or "For those of us who need it" I agree with the point about not complying with people on the internet who can't behave like adults, however I've never found the line particularly funny. Also change the jump-to-nav, as that would just get annoying to hear it every time you open up the site. I am not recommending changing it based on the imagined offenses of others. I just think it could be funnier.[[User:NotLock|NotLock]] ([[User talk:NotLock|talk]]) 06:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I like changing to "For those of us who need it"

'''Keep''' Trying to satisfy everyone is like trying to understand every comic. It probably won't happen. As an example, using the 'one of 10 000' example provided above can insult a bunch of people that are not from the States simply because the comic (and the reference to the comic for that matter) will make them feel left out. My other reasons for voting keep have all been mentioned already. People get insulted so easily, let's try not to encourage this behavior by rewarding it. [[User:Bon|Bon]] ([[User talk:Bon|talk]]) 07:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote '''Change''' because I find it slightly offensive myself. If we change it, we should replace it with something that everybody would interpret as humorous, e.g. "Because we can't all be rocket scientists". [[User:Condor70|Condor70]] ([[User talk:Condor70|talk]]) 08:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

'''Keep'''. Next thing we know, liberal arts majors will complain about xkcd science being offensive. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.91.229|141.101.91.229]] 10:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote for '''change''' or '''remove'''. Regarding the former, while I know it's supposed to be a joke, I never found it humorous myself and, unlike others that wrote before me, I don't think it relates to the humor or sarcasm used by Randall. It being offensive is not part of my motivation for my vote. I agree with some of the suggestions written up to now. Regarding the latter, I don't really think it's existence is necessary. Regardless, changing the div things is a must. [[User:GuiRitter|GuiRitter]] ([[User talk:GuiRitter|talk]]) 16:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote for '''change'''. You could keep much of the humour by changing it to something like "because ignorance '''can''' be cured". [[User:Farnz|Farnz]] ([[User talk:Farnz|talk]])

If I may vote (as a happy international user of this site, but not yet a contributor), one more vote for '''Keep''' - at least as "don't change now, because of this specific request, because of perceived offensiveness". For several reasons, which have been mentioned already:

a) I think it's funny. It also fits perfectly with the overall XKCD humor. And the same line of thinking as the book "You are now less dumb" from "YouAreNotSoSmart.com".

b) It's so obviously generic (directed at everyone reading it) I fail to understand how it can be interpreted as insult instead of irony. Even worse: I fail to understand why it should be _especially_ insulting to blind people. Having a transcript for them to use is nice, but it's merely one of the aspects this site provides (and it's not even at the top nor are there pages "transcript only", so blind are no primary audience)

c) If this site decides to actually help blind people more, how about: putting the tagline in the image (so it's not "read every time"), put the transcript at the top / provide pages with only transcripts, so that the original XKCD can be consumed prior to the explanations here (just as non-blind users would see it)

d) this request follows the current Outragism trend, so I do suspect that it's not actually blind people feeling offended, but privileged SJWs thinking about who might possibly feel offended, bringing change to the world where it's not beneficial even for those they claim to support. Comparable to PETA.

While I'm at it - THANK YOU for this site. Most XKCD I mostly understand. But due to being an international reader, some aspects of American Culture I need explainXKCD to grasp, and other aspects it's just nice to see more details, cross-references with other comics, and hidden gems.
[[User:Zefiro|Zefiro]] ([[User talk:Zefiro|talk]]) 18:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:I'm an "international user", too, and I suppose a lot of users of this site are international users who need to be explained some xkcd jokes that would be obvious to any native English speaker living in the US. I don't have an opinion about changing the tagline or keeping it, but I would like to notice that "Because you are dumb" is the kind of joke that would need an explanation - it would be hard for me to tell if it's a joke or an insult. Therefore, an easier joke could have some advantage.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 22:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote for '''change.''' I know it's a joke, but it's not particularly funny, and can easily be mistaken for an insult. [[User:Ekedolphin|Ekedolphin]] ([[User talk:Ekedolphin|talk]]) 20:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Trlkly (and Isaac(https://xkcd.com/1448/)), more information is needed. The purpose of this site is to explain xkcd (obviously, from the name) so people come here primarily to seek knowledge or a better understanding about xkcd. As long as the explanations or the explainers don't act like white hat (https://xkcd.com/1386/), there should be no reason to take the tagline seriously.--[[User:Beardmcbeardson|Beardmcbeardson]] ([[User talk:Beardmcbeardson|talk]]) 01:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote KEEP, but I do support the idea of moving the jump-to to above the tagline. I believe that the tagline is obviously a joke, and that pleaing everyone is nigh impossible. I also strongly oppose the proposal to change it to an image with an alt-text of "because you're using a screen reader." Finally, I do not believe we should change the tagline. We should, if anything, remove it altogether. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.20|173.245.54.20]] 03:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

'''Slightly Change''' - I like 199.27.130.198's idea, "Just in case you feel dumb." [[User:Mateussf|Mateussf]] ([[User talk:Mateussf|talk]]) 04:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote '''Change''', preferably to something like "The ''Anti'' Thing Explainer; Simple Stuff in Complicated Words!" Only, you know, more complicated to improve the joke. [[User:KitsunePhoenix|Amaroq (KitsunePhoenix)]] ([[User talk:KitsunePhoenix|talk]]) 05:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

What about: it's cause you need more context. I also don't like the current tagline, because dumbness would be more the inability to understand than a lack of knowledge.

'''Change''' - First thing first, as suggested, move the jump-to-nav div to before the tagline and add a "Jump to Transcript" link in the jump-to-nav div.

Then also change the tagline: it's not that good, and not that in line with the xkcd humor - it's actually ''directly opposed'' to the spirit of [[1053]]. Some better ones have already been suggested:
*"Some comics may be funnier than they appear"
*"Congratulations! You're one of today's lucky 10,000!"
*"because sometimes we all need a little help"
''Or'' we could even have a bunch of good ones like that out of which one is selected at random when the page is loaded --[[User:Jules.LT|Jules.LT]] ([[User talk:Jules.LT|talk]]) 09:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I like the joke in the tag line (some of us come here because they are to stupid or to lazy to lookup all the information xkcd is joking about)
but I also find it to direct to the user. I want to add some suggestions to Jules.LT [[User:SirKitKat|sirKitKat]] ([[User talk:SirKitKat|talk]]) 10:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
* "Error loading tagline, click here to retry."
* "Because it is Monday morning."
* "Because you like explaining jokes."

I think people coming here and complaining because "dumb" appears to be aimed at insulting the blind are hilarious, because another meaning for "dumb" is "unable to speak." If people who were "dumb" in this way were complaining because we are using the other meaning of "dumb" it would be awkward, but degree of visual acuity is not open for the same misinterpretation. [[User:Swordsmith|Swordsmith]] ([[User talk:Swordsmith|talk]])

'''KEEP''' for the same reasons as [[User:Zefiro|Zefiro]]. If change is necessary, fix it so the screen reader doesnt say it aloud. (This ensures the change is propagated to those who have no other recourse for sightless XKCD enjoyment, and is not a ploy by SJWs who can't take sarcastic humor (why are they reading XKCD in the first place?) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.40|108.162.221.40]] 14:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It is super obviously not intended seriously, because xkcd is a technical comic that nobody will understand entirely on the first pass. If it's true, then everybody is dumb. Boo hoo.

The guy in question is under the mistaken impression that Randall runs this site and maliciously hides his transcripts under the tagline. He's also very angry about a lot of things. Sighted people have to look at the tagline every time it loads too, it's at the top of the page.

I vote '''Keep''' because I hate negotiating with terrorists. If it has the effect of filtering out people who enjoy being outraged, then it's doing a service. Image search "stephen fry offensive".

I'd be fine with moving the jump-to-nav div. I'm absolutely against making it an image with a different tagline, because then we would be depriving blind people of the joke. I'm absolutely against changing it to something less offensive. I would settle for removing it entirely, or changing it to something more offensive, such as "It's 'cause you're dumb, and get offended over dumb shit."

Or, you know, make a transcribexkcd.com site. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.217.203|108.162.217.203]] 16:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

'''Change''' to one of the cool new suggestions I've seen. I've always been sad about this tagline, and while I love XKCD humor, I just don't think the tagline is funny. It makes me hesitate and sometimes decide not to share this site with others who I think would love the humor, but not the tagline. The issue keeps coming up, and this is just one more way that it irritates people and causes hassle. It's obvious to me that we should find a new tagline, or just drop it for the time being. [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 17:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

'''Change''' The word "dumb" used as slang for "unintelligent" or "uneducated" is offensive and many better suggestions have been proposed, which retain the wry humor without the offense. Hiding behind "it's just a joke" is beneath the standards of this site. {{unsigned ip|108.162.245.134}}
:It's not hiding behind "just a joke", it IS the joke. It's tongue-in-cheek. It's so obviously false that you have to intentionally ignore the joke and manufacture offense about something benign. I'll give you that it's not that funny. It's also not that offensive. Why are we talking about something so petty. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.11|108.162.221.11]] 21:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

'''Keep'''. I feel like a blind person being insulted by the implication that being sightless somehow makes them unintelligent is a pretty far leap of logic. Not being able to see has no bearing whatsoever on your actual mental acuity. How many actual complaints have there been? One, a few, lots? I don't know, but if it was a significant number I might change my mind. As it stands, though, I think it's pretty clear in the site description that this site is meant for people who don't understand the comic due to its focus on obscure topics and use of technical jargon, being written by a former NASA robot technician with a bent for Linux. Using disabilities as an insult is something I don't condone, but in this case I think it's a case of certain individuals being overly sensitive. Thinking a word as mild as "dumb" is offensive is a bit much, especially since it's often used in contexts other than "uneducated" or "stupid" - I use it to describe myself all the time when I can't word proper-like. I think of it more as "scatter-brained". --[[User:KingStarscream|KingStarscream]] ([[User talk:KingStarscream|talk]]) 18:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

'''Change''' I feel like the "Because we can't all be rocket scientists" tagline suggested above is great; I always found the tagline to be a bit annoying because I often know all of a comic except a small part, and I come here for that. It's just unnecessarily confrontational and Randall himself has expressed in https://xkcd.com/1386/ and https://xkcd.com/1053/ that he doesn't agree with insulting ignorance. {{unsigned ip|198.41.235.179}}

'''Change AND Keep''' I get the original joke, but I love some of the new ones too. Randomly rotating tag line appear is my vote, BUT let's make the tag line clickable so that we can explain the tag line .... for those of us who don't get the joke! {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.10}}

'''Keep''', but change the jump-to-nav, and maybe make the tagline clickable. I like the tagline. Someone already said this, but this is explainxkcd, not readxkcd. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.63|108.162.216.63]] 19:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote '''Keep''', because it's been there for so long! I remember coming here years ago and looking for the references I didn't get, and the tagline was already there. It's a legacy thing, the one thing remaining from the old website in the new fancy wiki format. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.226.204|198.41.226.204]] 20:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

For all you people being offended and claiming that the tagline is contrary to the spirit of xkcd, I give you [https://xkcd.com/386/ xkcd.com/386]. This entire argument is offensive to me, can we remove it? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.11|108.162.221.11]] 21:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

'''Keep''' The referenced posting is obviously a troll. And xkcd has transcripts so the story of the self proclaimed blind person with diabetes does not make sense. --23:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Rather than "cuz you're dumb" which both asserts a trait and uses what might not be the best word choice, why not something like "Because you might be ignorant"? Dumb, after all, isn't remediable, though ignorance is. (Also, a consideration, "dumb" can mean "mute," so if there's something with screenreading for blindness, that could be read as assuming more than one disability? ("blind and dumb" akin to "deaf and dumb"?) // Possibly do something akin to the warning on the comic's site itself: "Because you might be a liberal arts major." [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.61|108.162.221.61]] 00:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

'''Keep''' because risk of accidental offence is never a good reason to rewrite comedy. If community wants to change suggest "Explaining Xtremely Klever Comedic Drawings"; if only to troll those who insist that the letters XKCD must stand for something (which it doesn't) [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 00:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

−
The issue seems to boil down to:

−
Is it funny?

−
Is it overly offensive?

−
And therefore:

−
Is it worth it?

−
Throwing in my opinion, however small:
+

It's amusing to me.
The joke is clear, and universal. Offence may be taken equally by anyone reading.
It fits well.
Possibly have a hidden link for those offended. A rotating tag line could include more jokes, but...
By all means move the navigation.

An explain explainxkcd page that is linked to might work, in the spirit of metahumour.

However, it may not be as serious an issue, as the tag line is easy to ignore. Just moving HTML a bit seems like a logical, cheap and easy solution, and then we can test it. Please note that this has no technical knowledge behind it, just a reading of the above.

So, my vote goes to '''keep''', and shuffle HTML or, in order, link, replace with rotating, modify, remove.
Harmless fun. Possibly have a cookie-based option to permanently hide the tag line.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.160|108.162.250.160]] 00:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, I have broken formatting in the last few edits, trying to fix it...[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.160|108.162.250.160]] 00:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

: My vote is '''change''', and it's not because of blind people. Let me run you through a very common scenario for new users:
:* You have a person who generally thinks of themselves as quite smart.
:* They read the comics and find most of them extremely funny.
:* They come across a comic they just can't understand.
:* They stare at it for minutes, wondering why they just can't get the joke.
:* Pride already bruised, they eventually give up and turn to Google.
:* "Explain xkcd! That's exactly what I'm looking for!"
:* Click the link.
:* "Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb"
:* Gee, what a lovely welcome. Not.

: Insulting your users the first time you meet them is '''''terrible''''' practice. You're pointing at them and laughing that they didn't understand the joke. You're kicking somebody when they're already down. OK, that is exaggeration, but when you look at the line as a new user, it's not friendly and welcoming; it doesn't encourage you to return. It's just bad UX.

: Now, we could overlook the directed insult if it was indeed funny, but it really isn't. There's nothing witty about it, nothing punny about it, no double-entendres or sly references. It's just an insult.

: Legacy is no reason to keep something that doesn't work. Just because something wasn't picked up as bad practice 5 years ago doesn't mean that it isn't bad practice. Can you imagine if Microsoft kept Clippy around for "legacy reasons"?

: It would be one thing if it were kept because there were no other options, but ''so many'' fantastic alternatives have been suggested:
:* '''It's 'cause we're dumb''' -- Changes it from an insult directed at one person to a statement with an inclusive sense of community. It saying that, hey, you may not understand all the comics, but neither do we! Let's learn together!
:* '''Congratulations! You're one of today's lucky 10,000!''' -- Direct reference to comic which celebrates filling gaps in one's knowledge. Also, as a comic reference, most people won't get it the first time, so make it a link and use it to draw people further in to this wiki!
:* '''Some comics may be funnier than they appear''' -- Actually humorous, containing reference to a very common message we're all familiar with (objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear). Also alludes to the hidden depths to many of the comics, where additional levels of meaning are revealed the more about the subject one knows, which is what this wiki is trying to reveal.
:* '''Error loading tagline, click here to retry.''' -- Looks like the kind of joke you'd actually find in the comments. Clicking the tagline should then do something completely unrelated to reloading the tagline (I dunno, set off some cool JS magic).
:* '''Because it is Monday morning.''' -- Should only be shown on Mondays. Can easily be implemented with parser functions.
:* '''Because sometimes we all need a little help''' -- Gives an understanding tone that's comforting to new users.

: '''TL;DR''': The current tagline is unnecessarily confrontational and projects a bad welcome to new users, and there is nothing particularly clever/funny/important about the current tag line to recommend keeping it, especially with ''so many'' better suggestions on offer. Put it this way, if you were seeing "It's 'cause you're dumb" tag as a suggestion to add to this wiki today, would you choose it over the other options? No? Then make like an old meme and "Let It Go!" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.157|108.162.249.157]] 05:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

: I think the above comment is a perfect example of different mindsets. I discovered this wiki in exactly the way you described. But I was not offended in anyway when seeing the tagline, which I did almost immediately. Rather, it got a little chuckle out of me along with a thought along the lines of "Haha, yeah, maybe I am dumb." If you get offended by such a tagline, it suggests to me that you are not all that certain about your own intelligence in the first place. It's a static bit of text. It was not aimed at the person reading it, it was aimed at EVERYONE reading it. EDIT-I realize this post could be seen as offensive or a personal attack, which it's not, please read the "you" not as the poster of the above mentioned comment, but as a generic for any person reading the comment. [[User:Bon|Bon]] ([[User talk:Bon|talk]]) 07:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

: If I remember correctly I've heard it origonally was a pic of Blackhat saying it. Would it be possible to use that on this site. It seems like a decent solution? (I haven't read all of this so I don't know if this has been suggested sorry if it has). Like people have said no one gets all of xkcd, as a nonAmerican there is also a lot of references I don't get. Getting offenend over this does seems pretty pathetic to me. I also use this site for non explanation reasons, that is it often links together comics which is handy, and people often post cool links. But as others have pointed out this site isn't transcriptxkcd or linkxkcd it's explainxkcd, so that's what it should be meant for. Claiming i's offensive o the visually impaired seems pretty silly. All in all, maybe it could do with tweaking to make it more obvious but IMO it's a solid '''keep''' [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 11:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

::I vote '''change''', for the reasons the Halfhat above listed. I also never thought "It's 'cause you're dumb." really fit with this wiki. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.33|141.101.104.33]] 12:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I can't believe we've become such a limp-wristed baby society that we can't even have a joke like "It's 'cause you're dumb" as the tagline. Nobody would reasonably get offended at it. '''Keep.''' [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.33|108.162.221.33]] 13:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote '''keep'''. Blind people have to realize they're not the only ones reading this site. This site was created to explain the comic, not purely to provide a transcript of the comic - that's just icing. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

If there ever really was a single person who took the tag line seriously, then it was just telling them the truth. I vote '''keep'''. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.90|162.158.255.90]] 19:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote '''Keep, or otherwise, Change'''. My opinion: It is not offensive, and I find it humourous. As I am very interested in the maths and the sciences, and I am very nerdy, I do often understand the jokes in each comic. However, sometimes I don't quite get it. This wiki is very good for that, because it collates many people's views and expertise on the comic. If the vote is overall to change, I am a fan of "Because sometimes we all need a little help." [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.29|173.245.54.29]] 21:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote '''change''': I've always been a bit unsettled by it myself. Some deaf readers may be more insulted by it than blind ones. vote for "'''Cause you're #dumb''" (or perhaps another NOT symbol... so only people that don't understand are insulted... and the tagline can be linked to a page that explains why it isn't an insult) [[User:Edo|Edo]] ([[User talk:Edo|talk]]) 23:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote '''KEEP'''. I actually had the feeling the fellow who complained may not understand sarcasm very well. Regardless, the tagline to me is remarkably funny and one of the things I always point out to folks when I first turn them on to XKCD. I worry they will stop following XKCD if they don't understand a post, which is why I am especially glad your site exists. There are many types of humor that will be lost on folks. Myself, for example. I was just railing to my friends about how much I did not like a recent popular vine which showed a guy, allegedly the father, scaring a very young child strapped in a car seat, by yelling in horror as the cars convertible roof was closed. Because I did not grow up watching laugh-tracked America's Funniest (sic) Home Video segments, I am not conditioned for casual schadenfreude-driven videos. But I know that's just me. I don't want to limit free-speech merely because it is not for me. Regardless, I really just want you to '''KEEP''' it because to me it is darn funny and just the sort of humor most of the folks who enjoy XKCD appreciate. --[[User:Hugo|Hugo]] ([[User talk:Hugo|talk]]) 23:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I will also vote '''keep'''. While it ''might'' be considered offensive, it's really no more "offensive" than XKCD itself. Lest we forget the line at the bottom of every comic page:
:Warning: this comic occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and '''advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)'''.
I don't see how "It's 'cause you're dumb." is any worse. [[User:Schiffy|Schiffy]] ([[User_talk:Schiffy|Speak to me]]|[[Special:Contributions/Schiffy|What I've done]]) 23:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

:: I don't think it's offensive, it's more childish, which may be off-putting for first time readers. Hence I vote for '''change'''. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.216|199.27.130.216]] 01:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote '''Keep''', per the reasoning of, among other people, Zefiro. I like the tagline a lot and don't see much at all, if anything, that's wrong with it. Like Hugo, I feel like it's a bit of ''entirely'' appropriate humor. [[User:APerson|APerson]] ([[User talk:APerson|talk!]]) 00:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote '''change'''. I know it's supposed to be a joke, but it seems out of place and not particularly funny, and it could discourage potential readers. I don't have an idea for a new tagline, but plenty of good ones have been suggested here. [[User:Cheese Lord Eggplant|Cheese Lord Eggplant]] ([[User talk:Cheese Lord Eggplant|talk]]) 03:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

'''Keep''' better sums up my vote, and I wish to explain why. I understand the views (as stated above) that it might discourage potential viewers, but I have seen enough well-put arguments that point out why it should not be removed for the arguments on the other side of the debate. However, I do understand that sightless users would get pretty pissed off at being told that they're dumb over and over. Is there perhaps a way to hide the text from programs designed to assisted the disabled? I have a couple of suggestions.

Perhaps it can instead simply be an image, and can even be done in a more stylized text that hints at the humour behind it (no, I have no specific suggestions). This image should not have the words it says in the meta-text within it. I just think it's not worth removing it over, it's kind of funny (or very funny, depending who you ask), replacement suggestions kinda make it bland, and this is a way to avoid having sightless people get told they're dumb over and over. The stylization is just a suggestion, because most alternative taglines I've heard don't sound up to par compared to it. Just anything to point out the sarcastic and purely humorous intentions.

I'd like to enforce my suggestion of having an image with no meta-text that can be read by bringing up that explainxkcd.com can hardly ''lose'' popularity if for the sensitive minority they don't have a tagline (especially if this tagline they are not aware of could be construed as offensive). 'Cause seriously, who's going to go tell a blind person "hey man the tagline for this site is insulting to you want to hear it?" so they'll just not learn of its existence and go on peacefully. So: Image, stylized to clearly express humour, with no program-interpretable meta-text for the blind to hear. I'd like this opinion to be closely considered, and I'd love to hear intelligent replies. ''For all intents and purposes,'' I vote '''Keep''', but to address the issue proactively and adaptively to get the best for both worlds.

I would like to point out one change I would definitely agree with, however. The commenter at 108.162.249.157 not far up suggests "It's 'cause we're dumb", and I would totally back that. That one change could make a world of difference for some people. --[[User:Znayx|Znayx]] ([[User talk:Znayx|talk]]) 09:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

: "It's cause we're dumb" is actually a pretty acceptable change in my opinion. I still vote keep, but wouldn't mind seeing that one. Right now the no tagline version looks lonely. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.40|108.162.221.40]] 14:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

::For the record, I would oppose a change of "It's cause we're dumb" because it's simply not as funny (the joke benefits from it sounding like it's a mock insult) and for the reasons in my main post right below this one that I see no reason to change the tagline which should not offend or be taken personally by someone who has enough sense of humour and intelligence to enjoy xkcd. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 17:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
::This brings up the point that it is indeed a mock insult, and one that everyone gets when they visit the site, those with perfect vision are insulted just as much as the blind, or white, or black, etc... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.34|108.162.221.34]] 00:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Sam

I would vote '''keep''' as it is. I am mindful of offensive content, but context is key. This is a website whose primary purpose is explaining a humour-based webcomic that touches on topics that require some intelligence to really enjoy. The tagline is obviously (I hope) tongue-in-cheek. "if you need explanation of this sometimes very technical and specialized and sometimes ambiguous webcomic, you're clearly a moron". I think that most people on this site and elsewhere would consider those who enjoy xkcd (a webcomic that often concerns itself with science, history, technology, etc.) to be relatively intelligent. Just perhaps not in every particular area (as noted right at the top of this discussion). I also think it is clear that this is a wiki an thus the tagline is directed to everyone, even the people who wrote the tagline. We're all here because we're "dumb" in the sense of occasionally needing (or at least enjoying) a deeper explanation for the comics. If someone who is blind is using the site other than for its originally intended purpose, and it helps them, that's awesome. But that doesn't mean the tagline must acknowledge all possible uses of the site. Just the thesis statement of the site, which is "this site is for explaining something you might not understand". If there are blind people who use this site just to read the comic and never to need or enjoy the explanations, then I guess they are smarter than me. I do not personally believe in changing the tagline of the entire community because it doesn't apply to one small group that is using the site for a different purpose than its intentions (again, not knocking them for using the site at all, but seriously, don't walk into McDonalds and go "''I eat here because my doctor says I need more sodium, and I actually hate the food. I'm offended by your "I'm loving it" tagline. Change it!''". Or complain about Disneyland's slogan because you suffer from depression.). I would also have expected anyone who reads xkcd often enough to bother coming to this site just to do so because of their blindness would have a sense of humour and would understand the context in which the tagline was intended, and not take it personally. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 17:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:I really agree with basically everything TheHypo writes, both here and his above comment on the reason "we're dumb" would not work at all. The idea with keeping the text but only as an image could be used, but I just do not like that we change this because someone made a ''troll complaint'' somewhere, regardless of him being blind or not; that is just one more good reason to keep it. Then again if we really wish to make it better for blind people, then by all means use an image. But keep the text in the image then! If you do enjoy xkcd then you should be able to spot the humor, and with the way Randall himself keep on mocking people on his own page, and in his comics, then why should this not fit well in with this explain page, and why should we not keep on doing what we have been doing so far? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

How about '''Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're ''dumb*''.''' (''*Or don't get the joke because it is either outside your area of expertise or in a format that isn't accessible to you'') - [[Special:Contributions/141.101.70.23|141.101.70.23]] 04:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

'''Change'''. I've always realized it was a joke, but I think we could do a bit better. How about, "Some comics may be funnier than they appear" as suggested by 199.27.130.198? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.42|173.245.54.42]] 19:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

'''Change'''. When I first started reading this wiki and noticed the tagline, I wasn't offended, and I realized it was a joke. But it also gave me an impression that this wiki is run by immature people as this is a childish insult, used as joke. Naturally, I wasn't too keen on following thissite closely and would only visit here when there's a comic that I don't understand at all. Thankfully, after reading through multiple explanations, I no longer think that the writers are immature and as I started reading other explanations, I started coming here even for the comics that I understand. My point is, it took me couple of months to warm towards explainxkcd and most people aren't that persistent/ give the chance to prove. So we are making lot of people to alienate with the site just at the tagline, even before they get to the content. I vote for '''Some comics may be funnier than they appear'''. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.216|199.27.130.216]] 01:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

'''Keep''' would be my vote. Today's society puts too much emphasis on protecting people's feelings, to the point that some people have onion-paper-thin skins, too thin to operate effectively when out in public! I feel this complaint falls under this category. Such over sensitivity shouldn't seriously be catered to. Politely listened to and considered, at most. Bending to such things just encourages people to be more sensitive.

The way I see it, you CANNOT enjoy xkcd without being smarter than average, or you'd have to turn to xkcd Explain for every single comic! It cannot be fun to require being walked through every single one. Conversely, I doubt there's very many of these smart people who are smart enough to get every joke (and every nuance) without assistance. Therefore it should be clear that is is a simple tongue-in-cheek joke, you don't really mean it seriously. It should be taken in the tone that it's meant, and it offends me when people don't.

For example, right now I'm at a bar at a Valentine's Day event. As I'm hopelessly single, this day is problematic for me, especially to be in public. I COULD ask that people refrain from love stuff, from flaunting their relationship, etc., that I'm here for other reasons. But as an intelligent adult I realize this would be unreasonable, that many people, especially most here tonight, enjoy the love stuff, enjoy Valentine's Day. It is certainly not their fault I don't, not directly, and they should not be held responsible for my discomfort.

If the final vote is for Change, I like "It's because '''we're''' dumb", or "we're all dumb", be inclusive to reduce how derogatory it sounds. Remember, while sightless people might find this site useful, the primary reason for it IS because we're dumb, i.e. we need help getting the joke. - NiceGuy1[[Special:Contributions/198.41.235.215|198.41.235.215]] 04:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Wait, so they think they're smarter than me? I'm offended! ;-)
Okay so I'm not. I almost voted keep because the primary raison d'être of exkcd is not for blind people. It was created specifically for people who need help understanding some of the science, math, and arcana behind the humor.
But you know what? "It's 'cause you're dumb" is not that funny. Some of the suggestions are better. So I vote "'''CHANGE'''". [[User:Saspic45|Saspic45]] ([[User talk:Saspic45|talk]]) 07:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

How about "Explain xkcd: It's 'cause we're dumb."? This has more of a feeling of inclusiveness and camaraderie to me, as in we're all equals more-or-less in the face of RM's brilliance and having a good time enjoying the material together. Came up with it about a year ago, because as it is the tagline struck me as a bit harsh, and have said it that way in my mind ever since.
Edit: Ok, I see this has been suggested, so +1 for that minor change.

'''Change.''' While I didn't notice it at first, I was pretty offput when I did. As someone who has some trouble catching sarcasm all the time, I was excited when I found this site -- it helps me with not only things outside my knowledge, but also lets me check when something ''is'' being sarcastic. And when I finally noticed that tagline, even though I knew it couldn't be directed straight at me, it still sort of felt like it. I've been called dumb nearly throughout my life for not catching sarcasm which others seem to understand immediately, and it doesn't exactly feel nice (or in the spirit of XKCD!) to have that little reminder floating there. It's not even worded to be funny, either, just sorta cold. Sarcastically saying someone is dumb for not getting sarcasm... it's a vicious loop. And when there are so many other options -- many of which have fun puns or a much more friendly feel -- why are people so attached to this one? And from what it seems, a lot of people seem attached to it purely for the purpose of being stubborn against people who don't like it. Plus, why is it such an awful thing to try to make people feel more welcome? Jeez, guys. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.11|108.162.216.11]] 21:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Change it please. I see it all the time, and it feels SO condescending. I often check out the site to get more information about a topic in the scope of a given strip, or to see if there's any subtext outside of the primary joke, and it ALWAYS feels like the site is insulting my ability to understand "simple humor". I understand that it's supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek joke, but I hate it. I think it should either be changed to one of the previous suggestions, or use a rotating set of taglines, or it should just be removed completely, because I utterly dislike the way it currently is. [[Special:Contributions/130.215.123.52|130.215.123.52]] 12:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Definitely '''change''' - I'm surprised what it was doing there in the first place - but I do not like the "we're dumb" version either. My current favorite is "Because we all need a little help", as it is equally directed at both the non-joke-understanding audience and the screenreading audience; but I definitely like "Some comics may be funnier than they appear" and, to a lesser extent, "You're one of today's lucky 10,000" (not sure, actually, whether that one would benefit from a link to the relevant comic). Incidentally, how did the previous guy manage to post four hours in the future? Or is the AM/PM to 24h conversion broken? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.88|141.101.81.88]] 08:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, this blew up... I never found the tagline particularly funny, but I honestly can't believe so many people appear to be offended by it. If someone is dumb enough to believe it is specifically aimed at them, not realise that it is humor, and think it is actually worth getting upset about, then the tagline is perfectly justified. Should be changed to "Please click here if you are easily offended", with a link to Disney.com, (or 4chan/b/...) --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 12:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I vote '''change'''. Even smart humans need positive words. Many of the proposed alternative with only positive words suits me fine. [[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 13:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

== Concerning recent spam ==

In light of the recent and large amount of spam that we've been seeing, I've revoked new users of the right to create and move pages, as well as access to the write api. If your account is three days old and has 10 or more edits under it, you will still be allowed to create and move pages. This will end when the spambots decide to leave. To the person who's doing this, don't ruin this for the other people who use this site. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 19:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

aw man. tfw another troll already beat me to the punch {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.62}}

271: Powers of One

2014-10-25T17:15:02Z

MGitsfullofsheep: /* Explanation */ The zoom changes by 10 times at regular intervals (10 seconds, 2 seconds) not frames.

{{comic
| number = 271
| date = June 6, 2007
| title = Powers of One
| image = powers_of_one.png
| titletext = It's kinda Zen when you think about it, if you don't think too hard.
}}

==Explanation==
This is a parody of the short documentary {{w|Powers of Ten (film)|"Powers of 10"}}: the original one can be found at http://www.powersof10.com/film.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0]

Like in the documentary, the comic features a man and a woman on a blanket, during a picnic. Then, the zoom level of the image should change... but, while in the documentary it changes by 10 times at regular intervals (hence the name "Powers of 10": 1x, 10x, 100x ...), in the comic powers of 1 are used: since every power of 1 is always 1, the image doesn't change at all.

So, a series of identical images is shown.

The title text says that while this idea may seem profound (or "{{w|Zen}}", which is commonly used in American slang to mean "profound") but quickly loses any pretensions to actually being profound when you take a second look.

==Transcript==
:[A sequence, presumably continuing endlessly in both directions, of identical images of a couple lying on a chequered blanket, with a picnic basket, on grass. Each image has a rule at the bottom giving measurements in meters, with the scale in terms of 1 to a particular power. The powers visible are the -1th (part), 0th-2nd, and 3rd (part).]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

Talk:713: GeoIP

2014-10-24T17:12:54Z

MGitsfullofsheep:

The title text is more than hyperbole: In the United States, if someone is "living in their mom's basement", it implies they can not or will not get a job allowing them to move out. i.e.: they are a loser. The resultant weak response "Screw you, GeoIP" seems to push that depiction even further. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.186|173.245.56.186]] 23:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

: I don't get this. The title text goes "Meet hot young singles in your mom's basement today?" Not their. Isn't this another "yo' mama" joke, simply implying that your mama has hot young singles in her basement?[[User:Mumiemonstret|Mumiemonstret]] ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 08:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

:: I think it just means that you can do the same trick on *your* IP, just replacing the string "low earth orbit" with "your mom basement". [[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 17:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1432: The Sake of Argument

2014-10-10T12:19:46Z

MGitsfullofsheep: Continuing on reference to Monty Python argument clinic.

In my experience when someone begins a hypothetical with "for the sake of argument" The hypothetical being explored is almost always a direct exploration of the argument being put forward by the person they are speaking to, so to my mind the perfect response to the second panel would have been: "You admit you were wrong then, Excellent!" ;-) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.211|108.162.250.211]] 07:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

:In contrast, it is often used alongs the lines of "OK, I see that you don't agree with my viewpoint, so for the sake of argument, pretend that you do agree with my viewpoint". I suppose this is an effort to try and get the other person to explore your views by stepping into them. For example: "Ok I know that you think that drink driving is fine, but for the sake of argument imagine that your dog had just been run over by a drunk driver" --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 08:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

IMHO could be vaguely related to the [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y Monty Python's Argument Clinic] [[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]]
:IMHO "related" to, no matter how vaguely, would be a strong choice of word. At best, I could imagine "inspired by" - after all, Cueball has barely presented a connected series of statements, much less apparently one intended to establish a proposition, definite or otherwise - it's clearly the automatic gainsaying of anything Ponytail says... [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 10:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
::No it isn't! ;-) [[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 12:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"Rather than getting frustrated at being derailed, Ponytail instead seizes on this and decides they should get a boat, and that the Devil can come too." - I'm reading the title text a bit differently: it's not Ponytail being not angry and chiming in, but actually having no words (indicated by '...') and then it's Cueball again taunting her even more with inviting the devil. [[User:Zefiro|Zefiro]] ([[User talk:Zefiro|talk]]) 09:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

:I just wanted to say that I agree with Zefiro here.--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.173|173.245.56.173]] 09:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

::On reading again, I agree. I missed that the ellipsis was a seperate section, rather than the beginning of 'For arguments sake we should get a boat' --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 11:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1431: Marriage

2014-10-08T15:41:49Z

MGitsfullofsheep: Edited to minimize confusion about adoption issue and adopters situation.

Okay, that was the hardest explanation I've attempted so far. [[User:Cheeselover724|Cheeselover724]] ([[User talk:Cheeselover724|talk]]) 04:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:Graphs tend to be hard. On that note, the transcript was tricky and probably needs work. [[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 05:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:: Hope you don't mind, I just about completely rewrote the transcript, attempting to indicate the structure of each line and the visual effect I thought was intended -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 11:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

Thank you for your efforts. This of course raises questions about what's next. Let's hope we can question sincerely and this does not become a troll.

How about adoption of children by single persons (authorized in France, where else) ? By same-sex couples (authorized in France because the same law applies to marriage and adoption) ? Can anyone (even Randall) gather data and produce a graph ?

Adoption normally gives a home with proper parents to a child that lack them by accident.

Notice that every human person living or dead has exactly one mother and one father because of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete Gamete] mechanism (even if one or even both parents are sometimes unknown or the person is raised by other people). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child] article 7 mentions "The child (...) immediately after birth (...) shall have the right (...) to know and be cared for by his or her parents."

In the US one can buy a child specifically produced to be adopted. Depending on the situation, children are produced using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy gestational surrogacy] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_reproductive_technology Assisted reproductive technology].

In theory this has nothing to do with sexual orientation of the buyers. In practice fertile couples just have babies naturally. So the only people who buy babies are very rich people who want babies with specific features (keyword "screening"), infertile couples and people that may be technically fertile but whose situation is not a traditional couple (they may be single or same-sex couple). I know in my town two gay men that bought two children in the US.

Those children are produced to be deprived of one of their parents. That violates [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child], right ? Is that a progress ? How to solve that ?

Let's try to remain close to this XKCD graph and the question: what's next and what to think of it ? Open to your constructive questions and comments.
--[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 11:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

:So you're saying that adoption (from gay or straight couples) violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? That all sperm donation should be banned? [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 12:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Also, the US has not ratified the UNCRC so this discussion is moot. You can't hold them to the rules if they blatantly declare that they don't follow them.[[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 12:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

::Thank you for your reply Diszy.

::> So you're saying that adoption (from gay or straight couples) violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

::No, I'm not saying that. The case of babies produced and sold, even after many debates, seems somehow wrong in a way that has nothing to do with sexual orientation of parents.
::When a child has no suitable genetic parents (they are dead or abusing) I understand that adoption is clearly compatible with UNCRC article 7.
::When a child is produced to be deprived of one parent, I find it debatable. Or maybe we can save the logic by considering that the genetic parent "resigns" their responsibility, which falls back to the previous case.

::> That all sperm donation should be banned?

::I'm not discussing if it should be banned, but you raise an interesting point.

::Technically, a spem donor is a genetic parent that "resigns" (can anyone find a better word) their responsibility as parent since they are not planning to honor it (some do, afterwards). Does it violate UNCRC article 7 ? My understanding is: things are blurred by the "as far as possible" wording.

::> Also, the US has not ratified the UNCRC so this discussion is moot.

::[http://www.wordreference.com/definition/moot moot - ] "of little or no practical value or meaning;
::interesting only from the point of view of theory:"

::Thank you for this piece of information. So this can't be used to demonstrate that US legal system is inconsistent.

::> You can't hold them to the rules if they blatantly declare that they don't follow them.

::I didn't know that.

::Again I'm not discussing good and bad or whatever, rather logical consistency. This is a math-geek-language discussion place, isn't it ?

::There's one way countries who have ratified the UNCRC could claim it's okay.
::They could claim that the "parents" in article 7 are not genetic parents but the persons who are willing to raise the child. Though that's another possible way to make a consistent logical model, I'm pretty sure that's not what the UN had in mind when they wrote this.

::Thank you again for your feedback.

::--[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting to think about the differences between interracial marriage versus gay marriage. In the latter situation an entire class of people aren't able to obtain the only type of marriage that would likely appeal to them, whereas I think interracial marriages are more "fungible" (definitely not the right word) in that a person who engages in an interracial marriage may not have a strong preference for interracial marriages over intraracial marriages. So in banning interracial marriage, they impacted specific individuals, but there wasn't a well-defined class of interracial marriage pursuers who were denied the right to marry. I think this is relevant because in the case of gay-marriage, most people in the wronged class (people who want gay marriages), and many people outside of the wronged class, all support the right. With interracial marriage on the other hand, I would be curious to see if it was mostly whites that opposed interracial marriage, or if large percentages of whites, blacks, and other minorities also disapproved of interracial marriage.

[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.194|173.245.54.194]] 15:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)XkdcPoster

Talk:1431: Marriage

2014-10-08T15:04:58Z

MGitsfullofsheep: typo precious previous

Okay, that was the hardest explanation I've attempted so far. [[User:Cheeselover724|Cheeselover724]] ([[User talk:Cheeselover724|talk]]) 04:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:Graphs tend to be hard. On that note, the transcript was tricky and probably needs work. [[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 05:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:: Hope you don't mind, I just about completely rewrote the transcript, attempting to indicate the structure of each line and the visual effect I thought was intended -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 11:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

Thank you for your efforts. This of course raises questions about what's next. Let's hope we can question sincerely and this does not become a troll.

How about adoption of children by single persons (authorized in France, where else) ? By same-sex couples (authorized in France because the same law applies to marriage and adoption) ? Can anyone (even Randall) gather data and produce a graph ?

Adoption normally gives a home with proper parents to a child that lack them by accident.

Notice that every human person living or dead has exactly one mother and one father because of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete Gamete] mechanism (even if one or even both parents are sometimes unknown or the person is raised by other people). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child] article 7 mentions "The child (...) immediately after birth (...) shall have the right (...) to know and be cared for by his or her parents."

Now consider people technically fertile but whose situation is not a traditional couple (they may be single or same-sex couple). In the US they can buy a child specifically produced to be adopted (I know in my town two French gay men that bought two children in the US). Depending on the situation, children are produced using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy gestational surrogacy] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_reproductive_technology Assisted reproductive technology].

Those children are produced to be deprived of one of their parents. That violates [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child], right ? Is that a progress ? How to solve that ?

Let's try to remain close to this XKCD graph and the question: what's next and what to think of it ? Open to your constructive questions and comments.
--[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 11:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

So you're saying that adoption (from gay or straight couples) violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? That all sperm donation should be banned? [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 12:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Also, the US has not ratified the UNCRC so this discussion is moot. You can't hold them to the rules if they blatantly declare that they don't follow them.[[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 12:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

Thank you for your reply Diszy.

> So you're saying that adoption (from gay or straight couples) violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

No, I'm not saying that. The case of babies produced and sold, even after many debates, seems somehow wrong in a way that has nothing to do with sexual orientation of parents.
When a child has no suitable genetic parents (they are dead or abusing) I understand that adoption is clearly compatible with UNCRC article 7.
When a child is produced to be deprived of one parent, I find it debatable. Or maybe we can save the logic by considering that the genetic parent "resigns" their responsibility, which falls back to the previous case.

> That all sperm donation should be banned?

I'm not discussing if it should be banned, but you raise an interesting point.

Technically, a spem donor is a genetic parent that "resigns" (can anyone find a better word) their responsibility as parent since they are not planning to honor it (some do, afterwards). Does it violate UNCRC article 7 ? My understanding is: things are blurred by the "as far as possible" wording.

> Also, the US has not ratified the UNCRC so this discussion is moot.

[http://www.wordreference.com/definition/moot moot - ] "of little or no practical value or meaning;
interesting only from the point of view of theory:"

Thank you for this piece of information. So this can't be used to demonstrate that US legal system is inconsistent.

> You can't hold them to the rules if they blatantly declare that they don't follow them.

I didn't know that.

Again I'm not discussing good and bad or whatever, rather logical consistency. This is a math-geek-language discussion place, isn't it ?

There's one way countries who have ratified the UNCRC could claim it's okay.
They could claim that the "parents" in article 7 are not genetic parents but the persons who are willing to raise the child. Though that's another possible way to make a consistent logical model, I'm pretty sure that's not what the UN had in mind when they wrote this.

Thank you again for your feedback.

--[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1431: Marriage

2014-10-08T15:04:20Z

MGitsfullofsheep: Tidying question/answer ordering. Compatibility between UNCRC and adoption of produced children.

Okay, that was the hardest explanation I've attempted so far. [[User:Cheeselover724|Cheeselover724]] ([[User talk:Cheeselover724|talk]]) 04:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:Graphs tend to be hard. On that note, the transcript was tricky and probably needs work. [[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 05:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:: Hope you don't mind, I just about completely rewrote the transcript, attempting to indicate the structure of each line and the visual effect I thought was intended -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 11:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

Thank you for your efforts. This of course raises questions about what's next. Let's hope we can question sincerely and this does not become a troll.

How about adoption of children by single persons (authorized in France, where else) ? By same-sex couples (authorized in France because the same law applies to marriage and adoption) ? Can anyone (even Randall) gather data and produce a graph ?

Adoption normally gives a home with proper parents to a child that lack them by accident.

Notice that every human person living or dead has exactly one mother and one father because of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete Gamete] mechanism (even if one or even both parents are sometimes unknown or the person is raised by other people). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child] article 7 mentions "The child (...) immediately after birth (...) shall have the right (...) to know and be cared for by his or her parents."

Now consider people technically fertile but whose situation is not a traditional couple (they may be single or same-sex couple). In the US they can buy a child specifically produced to be adopted (I know in my town two French gay men that bought two children in the US). Depending on the situation, children are produced using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy gestational surrogacy] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_reproductive_technology Assisted reproductive technology].

Those children are produced to be deprived of one of their parents. That violates [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child], right ? Is that a progress ? How to solve that ?

Let's try to remain close to this XKCD graph and the question: what's next and what to think of it ? Open to your constructive questions and comments.
--[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 11:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

So you're saying that adoption (from gay or straight couples) violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? That all sperm donation should be banned? [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 12:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Also, the US has not ratified the UNCRC so this discussion is moot. You can't hold them to the rules if they blatantly declare that they don't follow them.[[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 12:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

Thank you for your reply Diszy.

> So you're saying that adoption (from gay or straight couples) violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

No, I'm not saying that. The case of babies produced and sold, even after many debates, seems somehow wrong in a way that has nothing to do with sexual orientation of parents.
When a child has no suitable genetic parents (they are dead or abusing) I understand that adoption is clearly compatible with UNCRC article 7.
When a child is produced to be deprived of one parent, I find it debatable. Or maybe we can save the logic by considering that the genetic parent "resigns" their responsibility, which falls back to the precious case.

> That all sperm donation should be banned?

I'm not discussing if it should be banned, but you raise an interesting point.

Technically, a spem donor is a genetic parent that "resigns" (can anyone find a better word) their responsibility as parent since they are not planning to honor it (some do, afterwards). Does it violate UNCRC article 7 ? My understanding is: things are blurred by the "as far as possible" wording.

> Also, the US has not ratified the UNCRC so this discussion is moot.

[http://www.wordreference.com/definition/moot moot - ] "of little or no practical value or meaning;
interesting only from the point of view of theory:"

Thank you for this piece of information. So this can't be used to demonstrate that US legal system is inconsistent.

> You can't hold them to the rules if they blatantly declare that they don't follow them.

I didn't know that.

Again I'm not discussing good and bad or whatever, rather logical consistency. This is a math-geek-language discussion place, isn't it ?

There's one way countries who have ratified the UNCRC could claim it's okay.
They could claim that the "parents" in article 7 are not genetic parents but the persons who are willing to raise the child. Though that's another possible way to make a consistent logical model, I'm pretty sure that's not what the UN had in mind when they wrote this.

Thank you again for your feedback.

--[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1431: Marriage

2014-10-08T11:44:32Z

MGitsfullofsheep: This of course raises questions about what's next.

Talk:1430: Proteins

2014-10-08T11:06:27Z

MGitsfullofsheep: Added link and short blurb about EteRNA

'''If this comic has motivated anyone to join in with the Folding@Home project, you can get started [http://folding.stanford.edu/ here].''' --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
:I've been folding for about a year now. Before that it was the SETI@Home project - but I decided to switch to something that could have more direct and beneficial results. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
::Is there an xkcd team on any of the distributed computing projects? Or does someone want to put one together? [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 22:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
:::I would like to join a team [[User:RecentlyChanged|RecentlyChanged]] ([[User talk:RecentlyChanged|talk]])

This comic has some similarities to [[1425: Tasks]]. It can be difficult for the public (or experts for that matter) to grasp the complexity of a task for a computer. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely if you were folding yourself a crane out of paper then you would need to fold yourself a pair of scissors in order to be able to make cuts. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.49|141.101.99.49]] 10:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely the "pull the tail" is referring to the flapping bird origami, which is similar to the crane but lacks one set of folds that make the figure narrower.{{unsigned ip|108.162.219.116}}

Thanks for adding that "your actually donating your electricity" part - I had not considered it to that extent. I realized that the program is using more CPU/GPU "loading" while the screen saver is active, but for some reason I didn't translate that into more money out via my electricity bill. :) [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No mention yet of the fact that Megan (and Randall) thinks this is the hardest problem! I have added some where it only aims at other science questions. But she did not say anything about science. Solving all human crises like overpopulation, climate, pollution, hunger, war and death could also be seen as either several or just one (unified) problem. She would then still think her problem harder... Should that be added as well in some form? I will leave that for others to decide. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is clear that Megan means computational problems - unifying gravity or solving human crises have not been reduced to computational terms - so the comparison is not appropriate and the comment in the explaination is unwarranted. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.157}}

The Title Text made me think of Rembrandt's painting The Anatomy Lesson, where the lecturer was pulling a tendon in a cadaver's forearm, making a finger move. It might make an appropriate metaphor: Today's scientists are taking baby steps in learning the "anatomy" of proteins through trial and error, much like the scholars of the past deciphering the basics of the human anatomy. [[User:Aiw|Aiw]] ([[User talk:Aiw|talk]]) 21:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the last few paragraphs about the simulation program and cpu cycles are unnecessary. Perhaps create a trivia section? [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjaminikuta]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 04:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

:I agree, they don't really contribute anything to the explanation, but are somewhat related. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 07:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, too. Perhaps move them to comments section. Anyway, there's a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_with_a_purpose&redirect=no Game with a purpose] on a similar topic, RNA folding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EteRNA EteRNA]. It's a little strange to play because the underlying reality is unusual, but interesting and somehow trickily entertaining. --[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 11:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1354: Heartbleed Explanation

2014-09-09T12:53:21Z

MGitsfullofsheep: pabr.org contains a very interesting list of attack cases.

I assume everybody got the (truncated) reference to the password "CorrectHorseBatteryStaple"... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.210|141.101.89.210]] 06:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
:Until I read this wiki, I did not get that. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.50|108.162.216.50]] 10:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)BK201
:There are also references to (if I recall correctly): [[Missed Connections]], "snakes but not too long" from [[Umwelt]], there's boats (of which many comics exist), "bees in car why" may be slightly related to [[Parody Week: TFD and Natalie Dee]]... that's all I see. Also the ip (375.381.283.17) doesn't seem to represent anything, but you never know. {{User:Grep/signature|11:04, 11 April 2014}}
::The IP most certainly does not represent anything because it is invalid. Three of the octets are >255. [[User:Dan|Dan]] 21:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
:::It does not refer to anything as an IP address. It can still represent something that is not a real IP address - fake IP addresses with four random non-octet numbers are far from unheard of in Hollywood products (e.g, Iron Man 3: 936.345.643.21) [[User:Amadan|Amadan]] ([[User talk:Amadan|talk]]) 03:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

While the bug is explained very good, there is one point missing: The word "user" seems to imply that Meg is known to server. But the bug doesn't require that - ANYONE can ask the server. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
: Nope, the word "user" does not indicate a logged in user. It's just a reference to anybody who happens to "use" (actually: connect to) the server at the moment. In fact, it is a particular network connection (TCP or else), on which other end there is a "user" Meg. -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.111|108.162.210.111]] 12:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The transcript should include all the text in the servers memory, not just the highlighted text. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
:Nope, it can only do 64k per request. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.91|108.162.216.91]] 16:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
::I meant that the transcript here above the talk page should include all text. When I wrote my comment, only the highlighted text in the computers thoghts where transcripted. Now that I visit the page again, it seems to be complete. The text in the servers last speech is only half the 500 charachters long (251) but that is explained by OnePointEight in the comment below. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
:The speech bubble is formatted as truncated, but if it were complete it would be 500 characters which is what was requested by Megan and within the 64k max.[[User:OnePointEight|OnePointEight]] ([[User talk:OnePointEight|talk]]) 19:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Heartbleed Explanation Explanation. Lovely. Also, I see that Eve is an administrator. Eavesdropper? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 15:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
:Also the attacker is Meg, which can be thought of as an alternate to Mallory/Trudy [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.65|108.162.221.65]] 16:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
::This is absurd. Meg is a common nickname for Margaret. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.84|173.245.50.84]] 20:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
:::As my main language is not English I'm not familiar with nicknames, but if Meg is a common nickname for Margaret then that is important and should be included in the explanation of the title text. I did not understand why Margaret suddenly turned up... [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
::::The explanation of the title text has presumably been expanded since you visited it. It's a reference to a book. --[[User:V2Blast|V2Blast]] ([[User talk:V2Blast|talk]]) 03:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"Snakes but not too long"... great! --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.241|108.162.210.241]] 15:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the "server key" is a phone number: 1-483-503-8534 {{unsigned ip|199.27.130.228}}
:I was thinking the same thing. 483 is not a valid area code however. {{unsigned ip|173.245.48.60}}

The User Ada is a reference to Ingress, in which Ada is the head of the blue team. Ingress, being an ARG, would be an IRL game.{{unsigned ip|108.162.219.10}}

Why has everyone here missed the reference to Portal 2? It almost seems so obvious :). [[User:YetAnotherGeek|YetAnotherGeek]] ([[User talk:YetAnotherGeek|talk]]) 09:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Are we sure that the hacker in the comic is Megan? She has long, curly hair as opposed to short straight hair. Considering she has long hair and has malicious intent, she might be Danish. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.71}}
:The server refers to her as "Meg", and if she were spoofing the source address, the packets wouldn't go back to her. That would be an amplification DoS attack. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.4|108.162.246.4]] 22:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Has anybody figured out what the selfie.jpg contents reaaly are? It isn't a valid JPG because the magic numbers don't match, and it isn't ASCII text because multiple bytes have the most significant bit set. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.45|108.162.215.45]] 07:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
:I put 834ba962e2ceb9ff89bd3bff8c into a file and [https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/809c727dee625e37c3487f6d57d42e295e2fdd74a8c1f89ce7e667d8ae3e2fcc/analysis/1397428742/#additional-info sent it to VirusTotal]. The magic literal seems to match "DBase 3 data file with memo(s)", so I'd say that it's just random data. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.4|108.162.246.4]] 22:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone figured out if the words "potato", "bird", and "hat" are supposed to mean something in particular? --[[User:Dfeuer|Dfeuer]] ([[User talk:Dfeuer|talk]]) 07:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about "potato" and "bird", but "hat" could possibly be a reference to Black Hat Guy, who often creates havoc to prove a point. Also, completely separately from Black Hat Guy, in security discussions, attackers are broken up between black hat ("bad") and white hat ("good") hackers. So "hat" could be a sort of generic reference for a hacker. {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.116}}
:Black Hat Guy is not completely separate. He wears a black hat because he is a black hat hacker. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.65|173.245.55.65]] 23:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC) TooMuchBlue

I think that "potato" and "bird" are a reference to portal 2, (possibly) how the computer cores constantly malfunction. [[User:mailmindlin|mailmindlin]]

To understand better how far this goes, [http://www.pabr.org/heartbleedtax/heartbleedtax.en.html A taxonomy of Heartbleed attacks] contains a very interesting list of attack cases. --[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 12:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1416: Pixels

2014-09-06T11:08:55Z

MGitsfullofsheep: "scroll to zoom" is wrong and misleading

Firefox users with HTTPS Everywhere may have trouble seeing the comic, and Chrome users may experience lag (for lack of a better word) when zooming in. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.168|141.101.99.168]] 06:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The combination of "turtle" and "pixel" reminded me of how to code graphics in the older days with for instance turbo pascal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_graphics) - Stian

Would it be possible to have a "gallery" of all the zoom-in images? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.209|199.27.128.209]] 06:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Since the Zoom-in images have at lest one story line in them (I read one about a book launch, the book was launched to space in a rocket), I think a gallery or some such is needed for them. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.218|108.162.250.218]] 06:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I got to a white panel and there was nothing. Everything was white and zooming in or out didn't change it. Not sure if it was a bug or intended. -- [[User:Irino|Irino]] ([[User talk:Irino|talk]]) 07:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
* That happens to me when I click on the image in Chrome. Not sure why. [[User:Castriff|Jimmy C]] ([[User talk:Castriff|talk]]) 21:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yet another comic that doesn't work well on mobile. I'll probably compile a list of comics that are broken in some way for mobile... Er. Soon-ish. -RTR [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.232|108.162.246.232]] 07:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I have acquired a list of images with what they zoom into, and am working on turning that into something presentable. There's a lot of images though, so it may take a day. As for the white panel, yes, there does seem to be one broken link (out of nearly 500). I'm not sure how I would go about reporting it to get it fixed. [[User:Tahg|Tahg]] ([[User talk:Tahg|talk]]) 07:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There are 79 different images. I have them isolated and am uploading them now. [[User:Omixorp|Omixorp]] ([[User talk:Omixorp|talk]]) 08:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
:Cool - the images are here - if you click on the broken links they can be seen. But why are they not visible? They take up a lot of space, so I have moved them to a separate gallery page as has been done with [[1350: Lorenz]]. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
::I think there's a problem with all thumbnails across this site - even old thumbnails don't seem to be working right now. [[User:Omixorp|Omixorp]] ([[User talk:Omixorp|talk]]) 10:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
:::They work on Lorenz that I have linked to in my comment above. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't work at all (blank) on my Firefox and IE11. I just installed Opera and it works but it's VERY laggy. Also, I have to scroll UP to zoom in, not down. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.97.206|141.101.97.206]] 08:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
:Neither on Firefox 31.0. Zooming until the first level of pictures, I see them appearing. But when they are larger than ~20 pixels they start to disappear. They only reappear intermittently when I pan or zoom. When I zoom in further, only images on the left side appear intermittently. This shows the grid is built from left to right, then top to bottom, and it just stops randomly. --[[User:Zom-B|Zom-B]] ([[User talk:Zom-B|talk]]) 20:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
:I'm having different problems with both Firefox 31.0 and 32.0 on Windows. When zooming in, all pixels (including white parts of the image) resolve to images with black background, so I never see the "white" ones (except for the initial "turtles" one). Anyone having the same problem? IE11 works for me. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.186|141.101.99.186]] 21:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
::I also have this issue, using Firefox 31.0 on Windows 7. It's also very slow/laggy doing the fade transitions between pixels and the images. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.191}}

This date of this comic (Sept 3rd 2014) coincided with the date of Randall's book, What-If. This book is shown or referenced in a number of the frames.--[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
:But the site says the book was out September 2nd... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 11:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
::You're right, 108.162.237.161. I changed it and provided proof. As far as I could find, though, it's only launched in the US as of today. [[User:NealCruco|NealCruco]] ([[User talk:NealCruco|talk]]) 19:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Also just isolated the images. I described the procedure on my blog: http://azttm.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/xkcd-com-1416-pixels/ [[User:Azt|Azt]] ([[User talk:Azt|Azt]]) 09:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I zoom in when I scroll up. I also like turtles. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.120|103.22.201.120]] 09:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this comic might be a reference to D. Hofstadter's celebrated book ''Gödel, Escher, Bach'', what with the 'holism', 'reductionism' and 'Mu' coming out at some point (there is the very same construction in one of the dialogs from that book). Plus, generally speaking, ''GEB'' is all about "strange loops" and infinite recursions. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.30|108.162.254.30]] 09:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I have uploaded a graph showing the layout of the entire storyline, with thumbnails of the individual images, at [[Media:1416_Pixels_layout.png]]. --[[User:Mnw21cam|Mnw21cam]] ([[User talk:Mnw21cam|talk]]) 12:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Has any attempt been made to find "extra" panels that may occur as a part of a logical series? For example, there is "chess-b" and "chess-w", are there "chess-a", "chess-c", "chess-d", etc? [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
:It never occurred to you that those letters stand for Black/White? --[[User:Zom-B|Zom-B]] ([[User talk:Zom-B|talk]]) 20:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
::Huh, wha? No, that's got to be way too simple. There MUST be more images! :P Actually I was hoping/wondering if there was a sequence of 20-ish chess panels which depicted a game, with a Randall type ending to it. *sigh* Way to burst my bubble. lol [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 12:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Any Kerbal Space Program players on here who can shed any light on the origins of 'Need Moar Struts'? Is it a well known meme amongst the player base as I have guessed?--[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 14:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

In an infinite series of turtles, at least 4 of them have to be youthful, genetically modified, and skilled in martial arts. Has anyone found them? [[User:DivePeak|DivePeak]] ([[User talk:DivePeak|talk]]) 21:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I am on Chrome, and I cannot see any of the images in the Explain XKCD gallery even though the actual strip works fine. Anyone know what's wrong? [[User:Castriff|Jimmy C]] ([[User talk:Castriff|talk]]) 21:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why the article says that the comic doesn't work in Safari on Mac OS X. It's working just fine here on Safari 7.0.6. I think if someone is going to make such claims, they should be careful to note which version of the software they're working with so others can compare appropriately. [[User:Yaztromo|Yaztromo]] ([[User talk:Yaztromo|talk]]) 23:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
:Works for me on Safari 8.0 on my Mac--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.192|108.162.216.192]] 19:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you get all these 'interesting' panels? No matter how much I scroll and pan I only get the space objects (including the Earth with 'BOOK LAUNCH' inscription), atoms and the MU panel (but never got either HOLISM or REDUCTIONISM). Firefox 26. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.29|108.162.254.29]] 07:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

;Adjacency list for the graph

I've created a quick hack to show what each image can contain [http://uber5001.github.io/turtles/ here]. Might be helpful in finishing off this page. [[User:Uber5001|Uber5001]] ([[User talk:Uber5001|talk]]) 22:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

;Mandelbrot?
Is the way the images are repeated being based on some math pattern, like the Mandelbrot set? [[User:Osias|Osias]] ([[User talk:Osias|talk]]) 02:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

; Quarks and strings?
Once when zooming I have found something that looked roughly like quark model of nucleon (below MU), then a loop - perhaps a string from the string theory --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 10:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The image certainly looks like a loop or a string but Randall has a very low opinion of string theory.
09:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

;Interactive graph
Hello, I've uploaded an interactive version of the graph [http://velt.info/xkcdpixels here] [[User:Raphv|Raphv]] ([[User talk:Raphv|talk]]) 15:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey has anyone seen the panel with black hat? He's standing next to a fire fighter and a burning vehicle saying, "to be fair, what else do you expect to come out of a "fire hydrant"?" I found it in one if the bird panels, next to a turtle panel. {{unsigned ip|103.22.201.207}}

----

;"scroll to zoom" is wrong and misleading

This may be nitpicking, but Randall's words "scroll to zoom" are misleading.
* When I visited http://xkcd.com/1416/ first on my smartphone, I scrolled the page and nothing zoomed.
* Next, when I visited http://xkcd.com/1416/ on my PC, I scrolled the page and nothing zoomed.
* Only when on the PC I use the mouse wheel, nothing scrolled but the image zoomed.

The text should really be "Use mouse wheel to zoom".

[http://xkcd.com/1373/ When someone posts a comic, I can't pay attention to the content if the words are misleading].

What do you think ?

--[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 11:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

----

910: Permanence

2014-06-06T15:10:09Z

MGitsfullofsheep: /* Explanation */ Explain how choosing a good name is difficult. Previous explanation only mentioned how changing it is complex.

{{comic
| number = 910
| date = June 10, 2011
| title = Permanence
| image = permanence.png
| titletext = This hostname is going in dozens of remote config files. Changing a kid's name is comparatively easy!
}}

==Explanation==

Choosing a name for a server is both an important and non-trivial task.
It is non-trivial enough that there are official communications on how to choose a good name and why many ideas are bad, for example [http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1178.txt RFC 1178 Name Your Computer].
It is important to pick a good name because changing it is costly once many reference to the existing name are widespread. For example, RFC 1178 states:

<blockquote>
if you later decide to change a name (to something
sensible like you should have chosen in the first place), you
are going to be amazed at the amount of pain awaiting you. No
matter how easy the manuals suggest it is to change a name, you
will find that lots of obscure software has rapidly accumulated
which refers to that computer using that now-ugly name. It all
has to be found and changed. (...)
</blockquote>

So [[Cueball]] wants to make sure that he chooses a great ''permanent'' name, that he can give to the server he is running.

When [[Megan]] quips on how quickly Cueball named their daughter Caroline (a living being - that is, the type of entity that would give the server purpose), Cueball reminds Megan that he had to choose a name quickly on account of Megan's wishes to name said daughter "Epidural", in honor of {{w|epidural|the painkiller drugs that were being injected into her spine at the time}}. Megan tries to justify this by explaining that those were very good drugs, but thus also confirms Cueball in that she was drugged and not in her right mind - wishing to name her daughter after the drug she was taking.

In the title text Cueball mentions that he thinks that it is easier to change a person's name than to change the hostname of a server because of the number of changes that would need to be made to each of the machines that would have saved the old name of the server. It seems, however, that Cueball has never had to wait in line at the Social Security Administration office or at the Department of Motor Vehicles, as both of those events typically take excruciatingly long amounts of time.

==Transcript==
:[A large panel the combined width of the four panels below it.]
:[A blue Linux terminal installer screen with a grey box that is labeled "[!]CONFIGURE THE NETWORK" in red. Below, in black, it reads "Please enter the hostname for the system." Below is an empty blue entry box with a cursor and dashed underscore, and below this it says "<GO BACK>".]

:[Cueball sits at his computer, Megan stands behind him.]
:Megan: You've been staring at that screen a while.
:Cueball: Picking a good server name is important.

:[Megan stares at him.]

:[She continues to stare.]

:[Cueball pushes his chair back, puts one elbow on the back of the chair and points with his other hand at the screen.]
:Megan: And yet you settled on "Caroline" for our daughter in like 15 seconds.
:Cueball: But this is a ''server!''
:Besides, I had to—you were trying to name her "epidural."
:Megan: Those ''were'' good drugs.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Linux]]

Talk:1377: Fish

2014-06-06T10:17:53Z

MGitsfullofsheep: Compare life with {{w|Cantor Dust}}.

I took it to mean that we are the camouflaged fish and the extraterrestrials are the shark. We have been naturally selected to be hard to find through some means, probably by distance from a predator life form or just being tiny, and have thus not encountered any of them. -- [[User:Irino|Irino]] ([[User talk:Irino|talk]]) 06:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

So, Fermi's paradox is a good defense for why you caught no fish, even though "there's plenty of fish in the sea." [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 09:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
:Not the Fermi paradox itself, that just questions why we could not find an evidence of extraterrestrial life out there, but this possible explanation of it. There are also other possible explanations, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Explaining_the_paradox_hypothetically see Wikipedia] for them. [[User:Sten|'''STEN''']] ([[User talk:Sten|talk]]) 15:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
:No, but it could explain why I can't find a girlfriend...
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.72|108.162.216.72]] 22:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
:: Maybe you just are actually sexually oriented towards guys and don't consciously know it. Wait, is that a possible new explanation for the paradox itself? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 04:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The most probable predator to civilizations is another civilization. There may be civilization out there which is so scary everyone is quiet so they don't find him. Wait ... WE may be that civilization. Half of civilization in our galaxy fears the battleships from our sci-fi shows because they thinks they are real and the other half fears that civilization with that kind of shows is going to build real battleships soon.
Ok, seriously, I already commented elsewhere ... we don't have anything so valuable it would be worth the resources needed for sending attack fleet here. We would need to REALLY piss someone off to be attacked. At least ... physically. Hey, those telescopes searching for signals from other civilization ... how good antivirus protection they have? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

:We don't have anything valuable so long as another civilization doesn't need and earth sized supply of calcium, potassium, sodium, nickle, and iron.--[[User:Bmmarti3|Bmmarti3]] ([[User talk:Bmmarti3|talk]]) 12:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

::We do have pet ferrets. They are cute, It is unlikely that there is another source of pet ferrets in the galaxy. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.77|108.162.219.77]] 13:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

:I've always found this to be terrible logic. In addition to sci-fi, we also broadcast news and documentaries. In addition to fictional triumphs, we also have real-life failures. We've broadcast that funding to NASA has been cut, and how he haven't been farther than the moon in what, 50 years? We have Mythbusters which is constantly debunking stupid stuff that humans believe, and also showing off the limits of our technology in a practical manner. We broadcast war, so they would be able to see just how deadly we actually are. Worst of all, we broadcast Fox News. I don't see aliens fearing us (if they're technologically advanced enough to spy on us without us seeing them), I see them wondering just what the Hell is going on here. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 18:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
::This all assumes that they didn't go through their own cultural phases similar to our own. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 18:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is that traditional SETI methods are of dubious effectiveness at actually detecting radio transmissions from other civilizations due to the low initial power of said transmissions which then only get weaker as they propagate. Switch to our new optical methods of planet detection which have detected scores of planets in just a few years and the "paradox" might need to be reevaluated. Optical detection also makes it doubtful that any civilization would be able to effectively hide. [[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 12:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the Chinese sci-fi writer {{w|Liu Cixin}} has published a {{w|Three Body (science_fiction)|trilogy}} called "Three Body", focusing on this idea (he called it "dark forest"): what if all the visible civilizations have been destroyed? What if revealing your neighbor's location to the universe is similar to the MAD ({{w|Mutual assured destruction}}) situation? The English version should hit the market this year. --[[User:Ent|Ent]] ([[User talk:Ent|talk]]) 15:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This is very similar to a *lot* of SF out there. Pellegrino's "The Killing Star" is one good example (with R-bombing and the problems associated with it), but it's certainly not the only one. Listing some of these might be good. Listing the "Central Park at night" example from "The Killing Star" might be a reasonable addition. [[User:Brdavis|Brdavis]] ([[User talk:Brdavis|talk]]) 16:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The real reason seems clear to me: existence of other life forms in the universe is probabilistically certain, but universe is so huge (in space and time) that we have no hope of reaching it. Regarding "huge in time", for example Mars might have been like nowadays's earth one billion years ago with elaborate civilisations and yet we now struggle to find a trace of life{{Citation needed}}. Regarding "huge in space", no hope of reaching it or even have definite proof of discovery. Or, err. Well, I have not said "never", right ? But the point remains: universe is so huge that a lot of life can be "statistically everywhere" and we just can't see it because its density is too small. Which is another way to say: life most certainly exists on many planets (and other types of systems) yet the fact that we don't detect it easily means that the kind of life we are looking for never had a chance to propagate quickly enough gain enough statistical density to be easily noticed. Compare life with {{w|Cantor Dust}}. [[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 10:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1377: Fish

2014-06-06T10:12:38Z

MGitsfullofsheep:

I took it to mean that we are the camouflaged fish and the extraterrestrials are the shark. We have been naturally selected to be hard to find through some means, probably by distance from a predator life form or just being tiny, and have thus not encountered any of them. -- [[User:Irino|Irino]] ([[User talk:Irino|talk]]) 06:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

So, Fermi's paradox is a good defense for why you caught no fish, even though "there's plenty of fish in the sea." [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 09:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
:Not the Fermi paradox itself, that just questions why we could not find an evidence of extraterrestrial life out there, but this possible explanation of it. There are also other possible explanations, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Explaining_the_paradox_hypothetically see Wikipedia] for them. [[User:Sten|'''STEN''']] ([[User talk:Sten|talk]]) 15:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
:No, but it could explain why I can't find a girlfriend...
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.72|108.162.216.72]] 22:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
:: Maybe you just are actually sexually oriented towards guys and don't consciously know it. Wait, is that a possible new explanation for the paradox itself? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 04:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The most probable predator to civilizations is another civilization. There may be civilization out there which is so scary everyone is quiet so they don't find him. Wait ... WE may be that civilization. Half of civilization in our galaxy fears the battleships from our sci-fi shows because they thinks they are real and the other half fears that civilization with that kind of shows is going to build real battleships soon.
Ok, seriously, I already commented elsewhere ... we don't have anything so valuable it would be worth the resources needed for sending attack fleet here. We would need to REALLY piss someone off to be attacked. At least ... physically. Hey, those telescopes searching for signals from other civilization ... how good antivirus protection they have? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

:We don't have anything valuable so long as another civilization doesn't need and earth sized supply of calcium, potassium, sodium, nickle, and iron.--[[User:Bmmarti3|Bmmarti3]] ([[User talk:Bmmarti3|talk]]) 12:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

::We do have pet ferrets. They are cute, It is unlikely that there is another source of pet ferrets in the galaxy. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.77|108.162.219.77]] 13:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

:I've always found this to be terrible logic. In addition to sci-fi, we also broadcast news and documentaries. In addition to fictional triumphs, we also have real-life failures. We've broadcast that funding to NASA has been cut, and how he haven't been farther than the moon in what, 50 years? We have Mythbusters which is constantly debunking stupid stuff that humans believe, and also showing off the limits of our technology in a practical manner. We broadcast war, so they would be able to see just how deadly we actually are. Worst of all, we broadcast Fox News. I don't see aliens fearing us (if they're technologically advanced enough to spy on us without us seeing them), I see them wondering just what the Hell is going on here. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 18:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
::This all assumes that they didn't go through their own cultural phases similar to our own. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 18:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is that traditional SETI methods are of dubious effectiveness at actually detecting radio transmissions from other civilizations due to the low initial power of said transmissions which then only get weaker as they propagate. Switch to our new optical methods of planet detection which have detected scores of planets in just a few years and the "paradox" might need to be reevaluated. Optical detection also makes it doubtful that any civilization would be able to effectively hide. [[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 12:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the Chinese sci-fi writer {{w|Liu Cixin}} has published a {{w|Three Body (science_fiction)|trilogy}} called "Three Body", focusing on this idea (he called it "dark forest"): what if all the visible civilizations have been destroyed? What if revealing your neighbor's location to the universe is similar to the MAD ({{w|Mutual assured destruction}}) situation? The English version should hit the market this year. --[[User:Ent|Ent]] ([[User talk:Ent|talk]]) 15:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This is very similar to a *lot* of SF out there. Pellegrino's "The Killing Star" is one good example (with R-bombing and the problems associated with it), but it's certainly not the only one. Listing some of these might be good. Listing the "Central Park at night" example from "The Killing Star" might be a reasonable addition. [[User:Brdavis|Brdavis]] ([[User talk:Brdavis|talk]]) 16:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The real reason seems clear to me: existence of other life forms in the universe is probabilistically certain, but universe is so huge (in space and time) that we have no hope of reaching it. Regarding "huge in time", for example Mars might have been like nowadays's earth one billion years ago with elaborate civilisations and yet we now struggle to find a trace of life{{Citation needed}}. Regarding "huge in space", no hope of reaching it or even have definite proof of discovery. Or, err. Well, I have not said "never", right ? But the point remains: universe is so huge that a lot of life can be "statistically everywhere" and we just can't see it because its density is too small. Which is another way to say: life most certainly exists on many planets (and other types of systems) yet the fact that we don't detect it easily means that the kind of life we are looking for never had a chance to propagate quickly enough to be easily noticed. [[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 10:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1377: Fish

2014-06-06T10:11:48Z

MGitsfullofsheep: Other life ? Sure, but universe. is. just. B I G.

I took it to mean that we are the camouflaged fish and the extraterrestrials are the shark. We have been naturally selected to be hard to find through some means, probably by distance from a predator life form or just being tiny, and have thus not encountered any of them. -- [[User:Irino|Irino]] ([[User talk:Irino|talk]]) 06:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

So, Fermi's paradox is a good defense for why you caught no fish, even though "there's plenty of fish in the sea." [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 09:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
:Not the Fermi paradox itself, that just questions why we could not find an evidence of extraterrestrial life out there, but this possible explanation of it. There are also other possible explanations, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Explaining_the_paradox_hypothetically see Wikipedia] for them. [[User:Sten|'''STEN''']] ([[User talk:Sten|talk]]) 15:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
:No, but it could explain why I can't find a girlfriend...
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.72|108.162.216.72]] 22:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
:: Maybe you just are actually sexually oriented towards guys and don't consciously know it. Wait, is that a possible new explanation for the paradox itself? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 04:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The most probable predator to civilizations is another civilization. There may be civilization out there which is so scary everyone is quiet so they don't find him. Wait ... WE may be that civilization. Half of civilization in our galaxy fears the battleships from our sci-fi shows because they thinks they are real and the other half fears that civilization with that kind of shows is going to build real battleships soon.
Ok, seriously, I already commented elsewhere ... we don't have anything so valuable it would be worth the resources needed for sending attack fleet here. We would need to REALLY piss someone off to be attacked. At least ... physically. Hey, those telescopes searching for signals from other civilization ... how good antivirus protection they have? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

:We don't have anything valuable so long as another civilization doesn't need and earth sized supply of calcium, potassium, sodium, nickle, and iron.--[[User:Bmmarti3|Bmmarti3]] ([[User talk:Bmmarti3|talk]]) 12:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

::We do have pet ferrets. They are cute, It is unlikely that there is another source of pet ferrets in the galaxy. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.77|108.162.219.77]] 13:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

:I've always found this to be terrible logic. In addition to sci-fi, we also broadcast news and documentaries. In addition to fictional triumphs, we also have real-life failures. We've broadcast that funding to NASA has been cut, and how he haven't been farther than the moon in what, 50 years? We have Mythbusters which is constantly debunking stupid stuff that humans believe, and also showing off the limits of our technology in a practical manner. We broadcast war, so they would be able to see just how deadly we actually are. Worst of all, we broadcast Fox News. I don't see aliens fearing us (if they're technologically advanced enough to spy on us without us seeing them), I see them wondering just what the Hell is going on here. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 18:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
::This all assumes that they didn't go through their own cultural phases similar to our own. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 18:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is that traditional SETI methods are of dubious effectiveness at actually detecting radio transmissions from other civilizations due to the low initial power of said transmissions which then only get weaker as they propagate. Switch to our new optical methods of planet detection which have detected scores of planets in just a few years and the "paradox" might need to be reevaluated. Optical detection also makes it doubtful that any civilization would be able to effectively hide. [[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 12:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the Chinese sci-fi writer {{w|Liu Cixin}} has published a {{w|Three Body (science_fiction)|trilogy}} called "Three Body", focusing on this idea (he called it "dark forest"): what if all the visible civilizations have been destroyed? What if revealing your neighbor's location to the universe is similar to the MAD ({{w|Mutual assured destruction}}) situation? The English version should hit the market this year. --[[User:Ent|Ent]] ([[User talk:Ent|talk]]) 15:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This is very similar to a *lot* of SF out there. Pellegrino's "The Killing Star" is one good example (with R-bombing and the problems associated with it), but it's certainly not the only one. Listing some of these might be good. Listing the "Central Park at night" example from "The Killing Star" might be a reasonable addition. [[User:Brdavis|Brdavis]] ([[User talk:Brdavis|talk]]) 16:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The real reason seems clear to me: existence of life on other life forms is probabilistically certain, but universe is so huge (in space and time) that we have no hope of reaching it. Regarding "huge in time", for example Mars might have been like nowadays's earth one billion years ago with elaborate civilisations and yet we now struggle to find a trace of life{{Citation needed}}. Regarding "huge in space", no hope of reaching it or even have definite proof of discovery. Or, err. Well, I have not said "never", right ? But the point remains: universe is so huge that a lot of life can be "statistically everywhere" and we just can't see it because its density is too small. Which is another way to say: life most certainly exists on many planets (and other types of systems) yet the fact that we don't detect it easily means that the kind of life we are looking for never had a chance to propagate quickly enough to be easily noticed. [[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 10:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1318: Actually

2014-01-17T08:50:09Z

MGitsfullofsheep:

I started reading the comic from the topmost line "Actually, measurements suggest it's flat." It seemed that he was talking about the planet, but it's also a response to the curved-space line from before. Upon further reading, I can't tell if the discussion is about a planet or a universe, and it looks like you can go around the circle twice and assume both. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.72|173.245.50.72]] 05:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

: It is about the shape of the Earth. The Earth exists in a curved universe. The alt text is referring to the fact that by being more and more specific you can always get the last word in but it may alienate you from your peers. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 05:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The transcript needs some way to show that Cueball is talking to the second Hairy in the end. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.71|108.162.216.71]] 08:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

: "show that Cueball is talking to the second Hairy in the end" -> Do you consider it done ? [[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 08:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed factual error about sum of angles of a triangle in a closed geometry. An example of closed geometry is spherical geometry, where sum of angles of a triangle is π < A + B + C<3π http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_trigonometry . Previous text wrongly stated that A+B+C would be smaller than π in closed geometry and greater in open geometry. [[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 08:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

1318: Actually

2014-01-17T08:46:15Z

MGitsfullofsheep: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 1318
| date = January 17, 2014
| title = Actually
| image = actually.png
| titletext = Protip: You can win every exchange just by being one level more precise than whoever talked last. Eventually, you'll defeat all conversational opponents and stand alone.
}}

==Explanation==
{{Incomplete|More detail and formatting should be added.}}

* The picture is designed to have us thinking about a planet (presumably Earth), such that when we read the first speaker's comment, we interpret it as "The Earth is flat", which was the earliest view of the planet. (The speaker does not explicitly state their subject, however, which leads to the comic's punchline.)
* The second speaker explains that the Earth is actually a sphere, tracking the progression of knowledge of the Earth's shape.
* The third speaker provides further detail on the shape, that rather than being spherical, the Earth is actually an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblate_spheroid oblate spheroid]. On Earth, this occurs because a rotating body tends to bulge at the equator (where the matter experiences greater centripetal forces - analogous to experiencing more force at the outside of a round-a-bout rather than the centre), and is known as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge equatorial bulge].
* A more accurate description is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGM96 Earth Gravitational Model 1996] which provided a detailed map of Earth's gravitational field. This therefore refines the oblate spheroid model even further.
* The next speaker notes that this is still a very high level model of the planet (necessary because of the sizes involved) and that the true shape of the planet is given by the actual local topography (i.e., mountains, hills, valleys, etc.) which can be thought as overlaid on the planet wide models.
* Changing tack, the remaining speaker notes that our planet sits in a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity curved space-time], where our planet's gravity, as well as all other objects, bend the space and time around them. On the largest scale, this has the potential to lead to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe curvature] of the four dimensional space-time of the universe, hence "universe that is curved". Such a universe can either be "open" or "closed", depending on how much mass and energy there is. In an "closed" universe, if you drew a large enough triangle in space, you would find that the angles did not add up to to 180 degrees (just like if it was drawn on the surface of a balloon - in this case, the angles would add up to more than 180 degrees).<ref>An example of closed geometry is spherical geometry, where sum of angles of a triangle is π < A + B + C<3π http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_trigonometry</ref> In an "open" universe, the angles would be less than 180 degrees.
* Finally, the first speaker comments again, and we now interpret this as referring not to the planet but to the universe itself - current observations suggest that the balance of matter and energy in the universe is such that the universe is, in fact, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe#Flat_universe flat] on the largest scales. (Whether this is coincidence or reflective of underlying laws is currently unknown.)
* The arguments could continue around the circle, now referring to the universe. They aren't generally applicable but going round the circle a second time suggests that some similar truth may apply at the scale of the universe, which in turn is again embedded in something else (a kind of meta-universe). The circular layout of the comics invites to continue without end, a nice example of meta-humor.

<references />

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript}}
:[Six people are standing upon a white circle as if it were a miniature planet. Each person is facing the reader and says something to the person on their right. All texts are displayed as a near-continuous stream over their heads to form one circle that encloses the whole picture.]
:[From topmost, going clockwise.]
::Cueball: '''''Actually,''''' measurements suggest it's flat.
::Ponytail: '''''Actually,''''' it's a sphere.
::White Hat: '''''Actually,''''' it's an oblate spheroid.
::Megan: '''''Actually,''''' it's a sphere defined by the EGM96 coefficients.
::Hairy 1: '''''Actually,''''' it's that plus local topography.
::Hairy 2: '''''Actually,''''' it's embedded in a universe that's curved.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]

1318: Actually

2014-01-17T08:43:03Z

MGitsfullofsheep: /* Explanation */ Distinguish a second turn from subsequent turns shows the meta-side of the joke.

{{comic
| number = 1318
| date = January 17, 2014
| title = Actually
| image = actually.png
| titletext = Protip: You can win every exchange just by being one level more precise than whoever talked last. Eventually, you'll defeat all conversational opponents and stand alone.
}}

==Explanation==
{{Incomplete|More detail and formatting should be added.}}

* The picture is designed to have us thinking about a planet (presumably Earth), such that when we read the first speaker's comment, we interpret it as "The Earth is flat", which was the earliest view of the planet. (The speaker does not explicitly state their subject, however, which leads to the comic's punchline.)
* The second speaker explains that the Earth is actually a sphere, tracking the progression of knowledge of the Earth's shape.
* The third speaker provides further detail on the shape, that rather than being spherical, the Earth is actually an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblate_spheroid oblate spheroid]. On Earth, this occurs because a rotating body tends to bulge at the equator (where the matter experiences greater centripetal forces - analogous to experiencing more force at the outside of a round-a-bout rather than the centre), and is known as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge equatorial bulge].
* A more accurate description is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGM96 Earth Gravitational Model 1996] which provided a detailed map of Earth's gravitational field. This therefore refines the oblate spheroid model even further.
* The next speaker notes that this is still a very high level model of the planet (necessary because of the sizes involved) and that the true shape of the planet is given by the actual local topography (i.e., mountains, hills, valleys, etc.) which can be thought as overlaid on the planet wide models.
* Changing tack, the remaining speaker notes that our planet sits in a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity curved space-time], where our planet's gravity, as well as all other objects, bend the space and time around them. On the largest scale, this has the potential to lead to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe curvature] of the four dimensional space-time of the universe, hence "universe that is curved". Such a universe can either be "open" or "closed", depending on how much mass and energy there is. In an "closed" universe, if you drew a large enough triangle in space, you would find that the angles did not add up to to 180 degrees (just like if it was drawn on the surface of a balloon - in this case, the angles would add up to more than 180 degrees).<ref>An example of closed geometry is spherical geometry, where sum of angles of a triangle is π < A + B + C<3π http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_trigonometry</ref> In an "open" universe, the angles would be less than 180 degrees.
* Finally, the first speaker comments again, and we now interpret this as referring not to the planet but to the universe itself - current observations suggest that the balance of matter and energy in the universe is such that the universe is, in fact, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe#Flat_universe flat] on the largest scales. (Whether this is coincidence or reflective of underlying laws is currently unknown.)
* The arguments could continue around the circle, now referring to the universe. They aren't generally applicable but going round the circle a second time suggests that some similar truth may apply at the scale of the universe, which in turn is again embedded in something else (a kind of meta-universe). The circular layout of the comics invites to continue without end, a nice example of meta-humor.

<references />

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript}}
:[Six people are standing upon a white circle as if it were a miniature planet. Each person says something and the text is displayed over their heads in a closed circle that encloses the whole picture.]
:[From topmost, going clockwise.]
::Cueball: '''''Actually,''''' measurements suggest it's flat.
::Ponytail: '''''Actually,''''' it's a sphere.
::White Hat: '''''Actually,''''' it's an oblate spheroid.
::Megan: '''''Actually,''''' it's a sphere defined by the EGM96 coefficients.
::Hairy 1: '''''Actually,''''' it's that plus local topography.
::Hairy 2: '''''Actually,''''' it's embedded in a universe that's curved.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]

1318: Actually

2014-01-17T08:37:30Z

MGitsfullofsheep: /* Explanation */ Fix factual error about sum of angles of a triangle in a closed geometry.

{{comic
| number = 1318
| date = January 17, 2014
| title = Actually
| image = actually.png
| titletext = Protip: You can win every exchange just by being one level more precise than whoever talked last. Eventually, you'll defeat all conversational opponents and stand alone.
}}

==Explanation==
{{Incomplete|More detail and formatting should be added.}}

* The picture is designed to have us thinking about a planet (presumably Earth), such that when we read the first speaker's comment, we interpret it as "The Earth is flat", which was the earliest view of the planet. (The speaker does not explicitly state their subject, however, which leads to the comic's punchline.)
* The second speaker explains that the Earth is actually a sphere, tracking the progression of knowledge of the Earth's shape.
* The third speaker provides further detail on the shape, that rather than being spherical, the Earth is actually an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblate_spheroid oblate spheroid]. On Earth, this occurs because a rotating body tends to bulge at the equator (where the matter experiences greater centripetal forces - analogous to experiencing more force at the outside of a round-a-bout rather than the centre), and is known as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge equatorial bulge].
* A more accurate description is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGM96 Earth Gravitational Model 1996] which provided a detailed map of Earth's gravitational field. This therefore refines the oblate spheroid model even further.
* The next speaker notes that this is still a very high level model of the planet (necessary because of the sizes involved) and that the true shape of the planet is given by the actual local topography (i.e., mountains, hills, valleys, etc.) which can be thought as overlaid on the planet wide models.
* Changing tack, the remaining speaker notes that our planet sits in a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity curved space-time], where our planet's gravity, as well as all other objects, bend the space and time around them. On the largest scale, this has the potential to lead to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe curvature] of the four dimensional space-time of the universe, hence "universe that is curved". Such a universe can either be "open" or "closed", depending on how much mass and energy there is. In an "closed" universe, if you drew a large enough triangle in space, you would find that the angles did not add up to to 180 degrees (just like if it was drawn on the surface of a balloon - in this case, the angles would add up to more than 180 degrees).<ref>An example of closed geometry is spherical geometry, where sum of angles of a triangle is π < A + B + C<3π http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_trigonometry</ref> In an "open" universe, the angles would be less than 180 degrees.
* Finally, the first speaker comments again, and we now interpret this as referring not to the planet but to the universe itself - current observations suggest that the balance of matter and energy in the universe is such that the universe is, in fact, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe#Flat_universe flat] on the largest scales. (Whether this is coincidence or reflective of underlying laws is currently unknown.)
* The arguments could continue around the circle, now referring to the universe, but aren't generally applicable.

<references />

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript}}
:[Six people are standing upon a white circle as if it were a miniature planet. Each person says something and the text is displayed over their heads in a closed circle that encloses the whole picture.]
:[From topmost, going clockwise.]
::Cueball: '''''Actually,''''' measurements suggest it's flat.
::Ponytail: '''''Actually,''''' it's a sphere.
::White Hat: '''''Actually,''''' it's an oblate spheroid.
::Megan: '''''Actually,''''' it's a sphere defined by the EGM96 coefficients.
::Hairy 1: '''''Actually,''''' it's that plus local topography.
::Hairy 2: '''''Actually,''''' it's embedded in a universe that's curved.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]

Talk:1226: Balloon Internet

2013-06-17T10:07:30Z

MGitsfullofsheep: Balloon size and distance.

Does the action take place in a desert ? Compare scenery with http://wikilivres.ca/wiki/File:Petit_Prince_etoile.jpg . Is Cueball reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_little_prince The Little Prince] ? See comics [http://xkcd.com/618/ #618], [http://xkcd.com/2/ #2] and what-if article [http://what-if.xkcd.com/26/ leap seconds] if you doubt that The Little Prince occupies a good share of Randall's mind. [[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 08:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
: The original articles about the project have also seen some comments from people who see this sort of thing as an intrusion into the last areas which are supposed to be a refuge from global connectability - much like cell phones have been decried by those accustomed to be able to elude attempts to be contacted when not around a fixed telephone. I think this may have similar overtones - a general idea that some areas are _supposed_ to be secluded like that. Only a guess though... --[[Special:Contributions/193.231.162.31|193.231.162.31]] 09:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a visual ambiguity as if the balloon is big and far (big enough to carry a person), or small and close.
First, transmission balloons are not meant to carry a person, only a small box containing electronic equipment.
The balloon is not shouting (no exclamation mark), rather speaking at normal level.
If the balloon was big and far, speaking normally, Cueball would not have startled and cried out "Augh!". So the balloon must be small and close, e.g. distance between observer and balloon is same as distance between observer and Cueball. [[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 10:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

1226: Balloon Internet

2013-06-17T10:00:38Z

MGitsfullofsheep: /* Transcript */ Transmission balloons are not big enough to carry a person. Cueball would not have startled if the balloon was big and far, so it must be small and close.

{{comic
| number = 1226
| date = June 17, 2013
| title = Balloon Internet
| image = balloon_internet.png
| titletext = I run a business selling rural internet access. My infrastructure consists of a bunch of Verizon wifi hotspots that I sign up for and then cancel at the end of the 14-day return period.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}
The comic references Google's new {{w|Project Loon}}, a balloon powered Internet for everyone. As usual, Randall is making fun of an endeavour in a way that questions its meaning. Internet access is widely considered a progress and balloons in this project are not meant to approach people or force anyone to use their services. On the contrary here it's caricatured as approaching Cueball and speaking so close to his ear that it startles Cueball, effectively becoming a nuisance in interrupting Cueball's reading of a book, then leaving Cueball wondering what happens.

==Transcript==
:[In a natural landscape, perhaps hills or sand dunes, Cueball reading.]

:[Cueball still reading. Small hot air balloon appears on top, descending.]

:[Cueball still reading. Balloon continues to descend, approaches Cueball's head closely from behind.]

:Balloon basket: ''Internet.''
:Cueball: Augh!

:[Hot air balloon ascends. Cueballs looks behind him as if not understanding where the voice came from.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Internet]]

Talk:1226: Balloon Internet

2013-06-17T08:34:15Z

MGitsfullofsheep: Is Cueball reading The Little Prince ?

1226: Balloon Internet

2013-06-17T08:01:03Z

MGitsfullofsheep: /* Explanation */ Spelling

{{comic
| number = 1226
| date = June 17, 2013
| title = Balloon Internet
| image = balloon_internet.png
| titletext = I run a business selling rural internet access. My infrastructure consists of a bunch of Verizon wifi hotspots that I sign up for and then cancel at the end of the 14-day return period.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}
The comic references Google's new {{w|Project Loon}}, a balloon powered Internet for everyone.
As usual, Randall is making fun of an endeavor in a way that questions its meaning.
Internet access is widely considered a progress and balloons in this project are not meant to approach people or force anyone to use their services.
On the contrary here it's caricatured as approaching Cueball and speaking so close to his ear that it startles Cueball, effectively becoming a nuisance in interrupting Cueball's reading of a book, then leaving Cueball wondering what happens.

==Transcript==


{{comic discussion}}

1226: Balloon Internet

2013-06-17T07:59:46Z

MGitsfullofsheep: Explain caricature of an Internet service becoming a nuisance.

{{comic
| number = 1226
| date = June 17, 2013
| title = Balloon Internet
| image = balloon_internet.png
| titletext = I run a business selling rural internet access. My infrastructure consists of a bunch of Verizon wifi hotspots that I sign up for and then cancel at the end of the 14-day return period.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}
The comic references Google's new {{w|Project Loon}}, a balloon powered Internet for everyone.
As usual, Randall is making fun of an endeavour in a way that questions its meaning.
Internet access is widely considered a progress and balloons in this project are not meant to approach people or force anyone to use their services.
On the contrary here it's caricatured as approaching Cueball and speaking so close to his ear that it startles Cuebal, effectively becoming a nuisance in interrupting Cueball's reading of a book, then leaving Cuebal wondering what happens.

==Transcript==


{{comic discussion}}