explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:641: Free

2022-05-12T16:50:05Z

Nafedalbi:

"it doesn't contain a synthetic, lab-grown building material"

Actually asbestos is a natural material (so some marketers would have you believe it can't be bad). It used to be mined in Quebec.

:That's the danger in associating synthetic as evil. Synthetic oil does better than natural oil, for cars. GMO doesn't necessarily mean something bad. Cross breeding is essentially GMO, if you take the literal definition of the phrase "Genetically Modified Organisms". [[User:Cflare|Cflare]] ([[User talk:Cflare|talk]]) 14:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

----

Modified the above to switch the example from "cholesterol" to "fat". The statement:

:''A more realistic example can be found in various fruit- and vegetable-based foods that advertise themselves as "cholesterol-free," which is exactly what we would expect since cholesterol is only found in animals in nature.''

is false as plants do contain small amounts of cholesterol, although they tend to rely more on phytosterols for cellular function rather than cholesterol which animals rely upon (see [[wikipedia:Cholesterol#Physiology|Cholesterol:Physiology]]). For clarification, the term "cholesterol free" applies when there exists less than 2mg of cholesterol per serving (see [http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.62 FDA CFR Title 21 Subpart D 101.62], under ''(c)Fatty acid content claims''). [[User:Thokling|Thokling]] ([[User talk:Thokling|talk]]) 12:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is there just a random mention of redfarm and staypuft? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.58|108.162.215.58]] 00:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
^^I second this.

Is GenCo a reference to GeneCo from ''Repo: A Genetic Opera''? {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.117}}
:I took "GenCo" and the ring symbol (Ⓞ in the transcript) as a reference to Cheerios, made by '''Gen'''eral Mills. --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples|talk]]) 21:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
:: Or it could just be short for '''Gen'''eric '''co'''mpany. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 06:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Today, we have every poultry company advertising that their chicken has no antibiotics, even though they then have to admit in the fine print that it is against federal law to use antibiotics on chickens. [[User:Cosumel|Cosumel]] ([[User talk:Cosumel|talk]]) 04:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned this a Trope Namer on TVTropes?

Talk:1901: Logical

2022-05-06T12:43:03Z

Nafedalbi:

Potentially relevant: [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00224545.1954.9919125]
Potentially relevant: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA]
Potentially relevant: [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1821269?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents]
[[User:Joshupetersen|Joshupetersen]] ([[User talk:Joshupetersen|talk]]) 16:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

-- Link 1 points to a 1952 paper which demonstrates that "scientists" live longer with the top 6 occupations being Educators, Lawyers, Engineers, Naturalists, Historians and Inventors ... seems a pretty loose definition of scientist to me. --[[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 17:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Added the title text to the explanation and transcript. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|'''JayRules''XKCD''' ]][[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|what's up?]] 16:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record I believe the advantages of using statistics over intuition were thoroughly discussed in the Michael Lewis book [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball ''Moneyball''], also 538 has done studies comparing statistical approaches to election prediction to political punditry and finally the good old [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_Problem Monty Hall Problem].[[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 16:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"... inconclusive scientific evidence against White Hat's position"? Is "inconclusive" the best you can do? Or did you mean "''only'' inconclusive"? Randall is basically attempting to use an argument from silence against anyone asserting White Hat's basic position (for which there is some very good evidence). It's ironic that to argue against the position requires using the law of non-contradiction; hence is self refuting. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.52|198.41.238.52]] 22:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
: The joke isn't that rational decision-making is bad, it's that many of those who aggressively espouse the importance of rational decision-making and deride the influence of emotions are rarely as rational and logical in their decision-making as they like to think they are.

:If nothing else, a truly rational thinker would realize that for better or worse people ARE affected by emotional cues and that as such subtly insulting those you're speaking to is not a good way to influence opinions and change decisions.

:And a truly self-aware rational thinker would realize that the vehemence of his later complaints about how people are illogical and emotional might have less to do with the objective importance of rationality and more to do with his own feelings being hurt because his opinions were ignored or derided.

:But surely that doesn't apply to anybody here and any sensation of defensiveness that might occur comes from a place of pure logic and reason, right?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.178.165|162.158.178.165]] 15:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This comic is probably a response to the Nobel prize in economics awarded to Richard Thaler for finding ways to nudge people to decisions that the nudger believes to be more common sense.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.188|162.158.88.188]] 09:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem with generalizations is that all of them are idiotic.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.151|162.158.111.151]] 12:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
: ... including the one you just used :-). -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
:: *Whoosh!*[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.172|141.101.98.172]] 11:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
::: *Whoosh!* [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.190|172.68.34.190]] 03:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
:::: f [[User:Nafedalbi|Nafedalbi]] ([[User talk:Nafedalbi|talk]]) 12:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Nafedalbi

Talk:245: Floor Tiles

2022-05-03T19:25:59Z

Nafedalbi:

I wond what HE thinks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Jyu6eioZ4

;Obsession
The explanation fails to mention the link with Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Stepping on, or avoiding particular floor tiles can be an example of OCD-induced behaviour. Moreover OCD is positively correlated with high IQ and therefore within the "nerd" scope of XKCD.

The reason why Cueball simply denies walking funny (sic) instead of offering the correct explanation, apart from simplicity, may also be because he is embarrassed by the awareness of his own disorder.--[[Special:Contributions/158.169.131.14|158.169.131.14]] 10:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I have this walking obsession too. Curiously, my friends can understand my algorithm after observing me in my natural habitat for 2 minutes.

:(New editor, here, the above line being someone else unsigned, or somehow divorced from a prior signing.)
:While I'm bigger with longer legs now, I'm pretty sure my naturally long stride arose from nurturing a regular gait that would avoid cracks in awkwardly-sized paving slabs.
*....*....*....* Original natural gait
(Let's call that 100% of normal, for the sake of comparison, based purely on this ASCII.)

|---|---|---|---|---| Slabs
*...*...*...*...* Shortened gait, typically centered on one step per slab
(80% stride. Obviously shortened and somewhat awkward.)

|---|---|---|---|---| Slabs
*.......*.......* Too-long gait, typically centered on one step ''every other'' slab
(160% stride. ''Very'' akward)

|---|---|---|---|---| Slabs
*.....*.....*.....* Slightly lengthened gait, two slabs, miss one, repeat.
(120% stride. Obviously longer, but not too awkward once practiced. )

:The 120% version (or whatever proportion it is, IRL) effectively works by aiming the feet just after a crack, foot just before a crack, skipping the next slab entirely.
:That tactic was developed back when I was <10 years old (but the latent mathematician in me is proud of my younger self's approach to analysing the tiling), possibly back when I was 6 or 7. They were large rectangular slabs, meaning different strategies in different directions. But when shorter that might mean the above applied when travelling in the 'short direction', but 'long direction' walking was two steps per one slab (after crack, before next crack), one on the next (middle). As I grew up a bit it would have become 'every other slab' in the short-axis, and the above in the long axis. Growing up yet more and it changes again. Diagonal travel is finessed accordingly.
:As an adult, most newer paving slabs have tended to changed from the traditional large rectangular ones to smaller square ones, just big enough for feet to fit on without any possibility of finessing that. Luckily they tend to be monochrome, so it's just a whole number stepped over (when I notice what's under my feet enough to have to do something about it), sometimes involving a Pythagorean calculation... ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 03:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

;Sidewalk cracks

My edit/observation that the title text alludes to an {{w|Old wives' tale}} "if you step on a crack you will break your mother's back" was removed. I'm just hoping for additional discussion. "Sidewalk cracks ... out-of-sync with your natural stride" seems to be a clear reference to the wives' tale in question. As I reread my edit I realize this doesn't explain Cueball's behavior, so I was wrong on that point, but my assertion that the title text ''does'' point to the wives' tale seems valid enough. Thoughts?
--[[User:Smartin|Smartin]] ([[User talk:Smartin|talk]]) 00:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

: Additional: I am confounded why Wikipedia does not recognize "step on a crack" as a wives' tale, childrens' taunt, etc. Is there some [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pondian pondian] aspect to this I am missing? In the Midwestern US where I grew up, "step on a crack" is (or was) a common meme; it was even exposited in [http://www.metrolyrics.com/whip-it-lyrics-devo.html song] (sorry for the lame lyric link) --[[User:Smartin|Smartin]] ([[User talk:Smartin|talk]]) 04:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

:It's not so much referencing the step on a crack and break your mother's back child's game so much as many of those with obsessive compulsive tendencies are really annoyed that each footstep cannot be classified as a digital step, meaning that your foot is only one one tile at a time. It's not so much that you don't want to "break your mother's back" it's just a matter of personal pride that you don't walk on cracks. Same problem with steps that are just barely too long that you always end up taking the next one with the same foot. You just start to feel off kilter. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 07:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

:Never heard of the "mother's back" version. Though I'd do this for (referencing prior section title) probably vaguely OCD reasons without an actual mythology behind it, whenever there was a reason for it (e.g. in children's picture books) it was always something to do with bears. (Here in the UK, that is, without any unzooed bears roaming around. i.e. obviously ficticious ones.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 02:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

::http://www.dltk-kids.com/crafts/miscellaneous/mmilne-linesandsquares.htm

I feel we should have some mention of comic 207: what xkcd means here, and vice versa {{unsigned ip|108.162.214.15}}
: I agree, but in 207 it wasn't really referencing this; this had not been created yet. I think we should remove the reference note. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.231|108.162.237.231]] 23:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC) ( Classhole forgot to log in. )

'''Alternative explanation'''

The '''main''' reason he does not explain is embarrassment. In the first panel, he is being accused of walking funny. He considers explaining the reason for the behavior but realizes the explanation is even more embarrassing than the behavior itself. He quickly ends the exchange by stating, "I'm not walking funny.", thereby avoiding further embarrassment. {{unsigned|Flewk}}

Why does the explanation say the tile map is incorrect? The tile pattern looks fine to me, it’s just not rotated. Am I just being dumb? {{unsigned ip| 162.158.62.151}}
:in the graphic in Cueballs head, there is always 2 tiles between, in each direction, in the image it is only one tile in one direction. See this try at ASCII art with x for black tiles and o for white:
:In his head:
:xooxoox
:ooooooo
:ooooooo
:xooxoox
:Actual:
:xooxoox
:ooooooo
:xooxoox --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I always stepped on all the cracks. 69:420, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:652: More Accurate

2022-05-03T19:07:20Z

Nafedalbi:

MOST? You mean some aren't?

Our current level of artifical intelligence research is not really far and I doubt anyone would be trying to advance it inside armed machines. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

: Do you just not notice the high volume of news literature on the current state of drones? The Atlantic wrote a long feature about it recently. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The current level of our artificial intelligence research is high enough for Google to be testing {{w|google driverless car|driverless cars}} on the streets of the Bay Area. Given that, I'm sure the military is at least testing autonomous drones. [[User:Dawfedora|Dawfedora]] ([[User talk:Dawfedora|talk]]) 16:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

: As far as I knew, we already have autonomous drones, but there's a law that requires that a human must pull the trigger. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.196|108.162.212.196]] 23:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

:: Autonomy is still pre-programmed, just like driverless cars. The Terminator was also just a pre-programmed drone, at least until it started to develop feelings. There are also automated strikes. The only thing that is required is human verification of intel (which is not that great). [[User:Flewk|flewk]] ([[User talk:Flewk|talk]]) 13:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

At ''every'' moment of life we leave the present to enter the future...--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.44|108.162.229.44]] 18:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And the joke is on everyone when the "drone" turns out to be Soundwave. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 06:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think Randall hit too closely to home on this one. Uncomfortably close. I will never understand humanity's morbid fetishization of war, destruction, and death. [[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 18:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Like our sex drive, it's not a part of us that can be erased. Just hope our tendencies for compassion and organization are stronger. [[User:Nafedalbi|Nafedalbi]] ([[User talk:Nafedalbi|talk]]) 19:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2614: 2

2022-05-03T19:05:19Z

Nafedalbi:

Hello people. Anyone got an explanation for this? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.229|172.70.114.229]] 22:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
:dog walker in the coments section omg (shodul we replace this with a smaller version because i think whiel it is legitimite discussion and not vandaelism this time it shoudl not be so fuck god damn large) --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.229|172.70.114.229]] 07:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
::friends romans countrymen lend me your ears previously this comment had a picture of doug walker attached to it and i was not aware it was vandalism and not a part of the comment which explains my preivous comment; thank you for reaidng --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.247|172.70.114.247]] 07:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

To the person who has requested a citation that two is a number... here you go: https://youtu.be/dBVoIUASFS0?t=82. Can someone who knows how to add citations add it? :D --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.209|172.70.110.209]] 23:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
:The [citation needed] thing is a running joke here thanks to [[285: Wikipedian Protester]]. It's used for obvious statements of fact on this wiki as a joke (basically the opposite of its Wikipedia use). [[User:KirbyDude25|KirbyDude25]] ([[User talk:KirbyDude25|talk]]) 00:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
::I'm sorry to inform you that you probably became another victim of Poe's law (or "r/whooosh", as kids say these days). I was just playing the [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/game SMBC citation game]. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.209|172.70.110.209]] 02:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
:::And we try to limit the use to only very very funny situations or when there is actually need for a citation, so as to not ruin it by having it on every single explanation!!! ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey all, the group theory thing reminds me a lot of cyclic groups or ideals generated by the value 2. Also equivalence classes (which come up in group theory) can be written with [brackets] but may be confused with <cyclic groups> or (ideals).

The 2;2 notation looks like the notation \mu; \nu that is used for covariant derivatives of tensors in physics. Also 2,2 looks like \mu, \nu that is used for partial derivatives of tensors. And as mentioned above, (2) could be a cyclic subgroup or ideal generated by two or a special case of cycle notation for elements of symmetry groups used to mean an element that keeps 2 fixed. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.120|162.158.62.120]] 23:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I second the point about tensors. Maybe you could expand the summation notation slightly. It's common to use index sets or rules underneath large symbols for all sorts of things, like sums, products, direct sums, direct products, unions, intersections, integrals, and much, much more. So here, the large 2 in parentheses represents one of these symbols. Rather than adding or multiplying the elements or whatever, you are twoing them, whatever that means. You are twoing over all values of 2, apparently. It's sort of reminiscent of jokes with punchlines like "for sufficiently large values of 2." There are of course, different 2s out there. Like, there is the von Neumann ordinal 2, the integer 2, the rational number 2, the real number 2, the complex number 2, the residue class of 2 mod 3, etc. All of these may be represented by 2. Perhaps we are indexing over some collection of canonical representations of 2? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.161|172.70.130.161]] 00:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Explanation needs something about one of the 2s being cursed. Also, this should be added to the category for cursed stuff (I think it's cursed things, but did not look it up). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.72|172.70.211.72]] 01:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Superscript or subscripts before a thing can indicate tetration and pentation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.66.63|172.68.66.63]] 03:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Did anyone else think there should have been a 2 after everything else (after the parentheses) with an arrow pointing to it labeled “sequels”?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.65|172.70.126.65]] 06:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Damn there is (again?) some idiot that replaces the explanation with text :-/ Wish we could ban those persons! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
:What the vandal do those edit summaries mean? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.121|172.70.130.121]] 06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
::What do those "et tu" edit summaries mean? (The ones on all the edits replacing the text with "Friends, Romans, Countrymen...") [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.142|162.158.107.142]] 17:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

doug walker! the guy keeps chaging the image to doug fucking walker! awhat the fuck is up wiht that !!! --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.229|172.70.114.229]] 07:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
:ok im'm pretty sure janny is soem transphobic slur (for reference the vandalism edit at 07:36's comment was "clean it up janny") did dog wlaker do a transphobic thing and now some altright pople who find it worth there time to change the Exain Xkcd page inage to Dog WAlker are nutting there balls dry???? --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.75|172.70.230.75]] 07:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
::I assumed it was calling us, the people who clear up their mess, "janitors", i.e. menial cleaners/fixer-upperers. But I honestly don't know what dialect/culture uses that (sounds a bit Australian, but not exclusively, and it's a typical and not necessarily derogative kind of word-shortenning that anybody might use) and if they ''do'' mean to call us janitors then... I'm happy to be a janitor. It's a worthwhile occupation, and I consider that an important job that I'll willingly do in the face of such a moron.

[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.44|172.70.86.44]] 09:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
This should probably be added to Category:Comics sharing name[[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.199|172.70.178.199]] 15:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
:No there are not other comic called 2. The comic with number 2 is not the name of that comic. And the only other number only comics are year numbers like 2016.--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

There should be a category: comics featuring cursed items {{unsigned ip|172.70.230.63}}
:Can you list at least 5. Then I will consider it. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
::There's 5 here https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Category:Cursed_Connectors and one here [[2332]] [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 18:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Who put a Ukrainian flag at the top of the page? {{unsigned ip|172.70.230.63}}
: i agree with whoever did that, but maybe a bit smaller or on the bottom so it doesn't interfere with normal usage of this? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.170|172.69.69.170]] 18:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
:: Is it better now? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.15|108.162.245.15]] 18:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
:::Another vandal. Of course it should not be there. I support Ukraine but this page has nothing to do with that situation! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
:It’s one of very many cases of vandalism in recent days. As Kynde says, it should not be there. And of course we don’t take instructions from vandals. [[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 18:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
:::On behalf of the militant centrist wing of the ExplainXKCD community, I welcome the support for Ukraine but I worry as to who decides that this website supports a particular perspective. Ukraine's right to self determination is obvious, but another contributor could suggest something more suspect. [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 18:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
::::Yeah. I guess the vandal thought he would be any less obvious if his spam was disguised as support for Ukraine. Notice that it appeared at the same time as a new onslaught elsewhere at the site, as well as on this comic. [[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 18:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

== Vandals ==

Looks like there's some full scale vandalism happening - can anyone lock the site? [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 18:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
:( [[User:Nafedalbi|Nafedalbi]] ([[User talk:Nafedalbi|talk]]) 19:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Uh, whoops. Don't mind that. [[User:Nafedalbi|Nafedalbi]] ([[User talk:Nafedalbi|talk]]) 19:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2614: 2

2022-05-03T19:04:51Z

Nafedalbi:

Talk:122: Quirky Girls

2022-04-25T14:32:03Z

Nafedalbi: Fixed typo and added information on the Engineer Gaming article.

I'll just leave this link to ManicPixieDreamGirl here:
[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ManicPixieDreamGirl][[Special:Contributions/198.41.243.5|198.41.243.5]] 12:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

One of the few tropes that have a Wikipedia article. [[User:Nafedalbi|Nafedalbi]] ([[User talk:Nafedalbi|talk]]) 14:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Nafedalbi

Talk:534: Genetic Algorithms

2022-04-18T15:53:54Z

Nafedalbi: Created page with "This solves the problem until you reach a situation where destroying all humans is outvalued by 22222 bridge crossings. ~~~~Nafedalbi"

This solves the problem until you reach a situation where destroying all humans is outvalued by 22222 bridge crossings. [[User:Nafedalbi|Nafedalbi]] ([[User talk:Nafedalbi|talk]]) 15:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Nafedalbi

Talk:359: Rock Band

2022-04-15T19:08:20Z

Nafedalbi:

Ben heck managed to make a modification for this.. i cant remember what episode but it was cool.... i would do it, only a lightning storm shorted our rock-band guitar out. {{unsigned ip|108.162.249.210}}
:That's pretty fucking metal [[User:DPS2004|DPS2004'); DROP TABLE users;--]] ([[User talk:DPS2004|talk]]) 14:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
As I see it, cueball is accusing the others of playing music like this in order to look cool, like a real rock band, The others ignore him because they are doing it to have fun, not to look cool.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.123|108.162.241.123]] 20:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Woooo, a trope namer! [[User:Nafedalbi|Nafedalbi]] ([[User talk:Nafedalbi|talk]]) 19:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Nafedalbi

Talk:382: Trebuchet

2022-04-15T19:04:27Z

Nafedalbi:

It should probably be noted that a 1 kW laser is ludicrously powerful, as in, enough to vaporise stone in a localised area for etching
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.36|108.162.216.36]] 04:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

'''BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT''' [[User:Nafedalbi|Nafedalbi]] ([[User talk:Nafedalbi|talk]]) 19:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Nafedalbi

Talk:414: Mistranslations

2022-04-15T18:57:53Z

Nafedalbi:

My copy of the Kama Sutra used to be next to my copy of the Bible. Then I decided to get rid of that disgusting book, now I don't have a Bible anymore. [[User:The Cat Lady|-- The Cat Lady]] ([[User talk:The Cat Lady|talk]]) 22:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

...all jokes aside, I do wonder what's about to happen. [[User:Nafedalbi|Nafedalbi]] ([[User talk:Nafedalbi|talk]]) 18:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Nafedalbi

Talk:569: Borders

2022-04-15T18:52:32Z

Nafedalbi:

Unfortunately, yarbis is not a Turkish word. Its only relation with Turkish is as an acronym for "'''Y'''ıldız '''AR'''astirmaci '''BI'''lgi '''S'''istemi" which means "Yildiz Researcher Information System" in English. Yildiz is the name of a university in Turkey.{{unsigned|88.247.98.10}}

I don't think the last paragraph is correct. I think they're just random fantasy sounding names like one might find in many modern games. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.28|108.162.221.28]] 07:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
:While I don't think it's a reference to something Turkish, I doubt it's just a random fantasy name. --[[User:Alex|Alex]] ([[User talk:Alex|talk]]) 20:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Are there actually any computer games that allow carrying multiple flags at once, enabling a player to get "a kajillion points" in one run? Usually CTF is played with only two teams anyway, but some games do offer multi-team setups. I'm not aware of any game that allows a player to carry more than one flag at once, though. --[[User:YMS|YMS]] ([[User talk:YMS|talk]]) 21:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the scenery in the background Jerusalem? I noticed some landmarks like the Holy Sepluchre, the Hurva, the Church of the Redeemer and Dor Mition, as well as the building with the flag seems to be situated in place of the Dome of the Rock.
:That's just one of the five skyboxes man [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.139|141.101.76.139]] 10:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

From what I've seen, 24-Hour ctf_2Fort lobbies end up forming microsocieties at some point or another. [[User:Nafedalbi|Nafedalbi]] ([[User talk:Nafedalbi|talk]]) 18:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Nafedalbi

Talk:823: Guest Week: David Troupes (Buttercup Festival)

2022-04-15T18:43:17Z

Nafedalbi:

Could the 'Woman' be Megan? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.190|173.245.54.190]] 16:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
:Maybe David Troupes wants to make the woman be Megan but can't because he doesn't know how to draw the typical Megan hair we use to identify her. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.215|103.22.200.215]] 02:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Or she could just be a generic person. It seems like a better idea to presume that a character is a generic unless specifically indicated. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.205|108.162.249.205]] 02:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:Any woman in xkcd with long black hair is Megan by definition. Megan is not the same person from comic to comic but the generic every woman to Cueballs everyman. Read on the pages for Megan and Cueball. As well as on Multiple Cueballs (see the categories) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
If someone threw a moon rock at me, I would pay them. [[User:HisHighestMinion|HisHighestMinion]] ([[User talk:HisHighestMinion|talk]]) 22:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

In Megan's first speech the "I ..." surely stands for "I'm over the Moon ."
Sorry. [[User:Winter06|Winter06]] ([[User talk:Winter06|talk]])

"Megan is perfectly happy sitting on the moon (which is impossible)" What exact part of it is impossible? Moon has a proper gravitational field and it's solid. Heck, people even walked on it! As for "happily" part, ''I'' would be perfectly happy to sit on the moon (for somewhat longer if provided with space suit, but happy in any case). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.48|141.101.104.48]] 19:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

David Troupes' comics are always a beauty to behold [[User:Nafedalbi|Nafedalbi]] ([[User talk:Nafedalbi|talk]]) 18:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Nafedalbi

Talk:2607: Geiger Counter

2022-04-15T18:41:37Z

Nafedalbi: talked

Vanilla joke, but funny. [[User:Nafedalbi|Nafedalbi]] ([[User talk:Nafedalbi|talk]]) 18:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Nafedalbi

Talk:527: Keynote

2022-02-15T15:46:31Z

Nafedalbi:

Of course, with the benefit of hindsight we can be fairly sure that this all arose either because of more severe health problems than hinted at or more severe ''medication'' to attempt to overcome what was happening. [[Special:Contributions/31.111.87.233|31.111.87.233]] 08:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
:I don't think voodoo was the cause.
:And I am not vindictive enough to believe that any man deserves a shit liver because he is greedy and rich.
:But... Nobody strapped him to a chair and forced rich food down his gullet.
[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 19:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
::Huh? He died of cancer, not gout. I don't think you can blame a cancer victim for their cancer. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.99}}
:::He didn't eat a lot of "rich people food". From what I've read, he didn't eat much and fasted a lot. He died because he didn't take cancer treatment. {{User:Nafedalbi}} 12:45 AM UTC 2/15/2022

This comic now seems somewhat unfortunate. Randall has been known to edit comics after they are posted, though not (as far as I know) for such reasons. I have the faint wish he would do so for this one. Just something to make it less ... flippant. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 23:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:527: Keynote

2022-02-15T15:46:12Z

Nafedalbi:

Of course, with the benefit of hindsight we can be fairly sure that this all arose either because of more severe health problems than hinted at or more severe ''medication'' to attempt to overcome what was happening. [[Special:Contributions/31.111.87.233|31.111.87.233]] 08:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
:I don't think voodoo was the cause.
:And I am not vindictive enough to believe that any man deserves a shit liver because he is greedy and rich.
:But... Nobody strapped him to a chair and forced rich food down his gullet.
[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 19:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
::Huh? He died of cancer, not gout. I don't think you can blame a cancer victim for their cancer. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.99}}
:::He didn't eat a lot of "rich people food". From what I've read, he didn't eat much and fasted a lot. He died because he didn't take cancer treatment. {{Nafedalbi}} 12:45 AM UTC 2/15/2022

This comic now seems somewhat unfortunate. Randall has been known to edit comics after they are posted, though not (as far as I know) for such reasons. I have the faint wish he would do so for this one. Just something to make it less ... flippant. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 23:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:642: Creepy

2021-12-08T14:11:44Z

Nafedalbi:

Is the real-life example unwarranted? [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 15:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

:Admirably done. I like the link. In future, though, the wiki-engine doesn't know what single returns means, so if you want a paragraph break hit enter twice. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A hint for girls, we all have the SAME fears, don't be afraid to find out who we are on the inside :) - [[User:E-inspired|E-inspired]] ([[User talk:E-inspired|talk]]) 04:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

:Uh...men typically don't have to worry about getting harassed, assaulted, or killed like women do. At least not to the same degree. Your nervousness about being turned down is not the same as the woman's fear of being attacked. [[Special:Contributions/15.211.201.83|15.211.201.83]] 20:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

::Thank you for making this comment. It perfectly outlines the exact type of conceited, one sided views that are being used by tumblr feminists in their crusade for "safety" and "equality". The idea that men are all some sort of all powerful being, incapable of being abused or raped is not only factually wrong, but actually perpetuates the abuses against them as more and more men stop coming forward for fear of looking weak. You speak as if you have knowledge in this field, but that just can't be the case. If you did, you would be much better educated as to the real breakdowns of sexual violence per gender, and know just how ridiculous your claims are. [[Special:Contributions/205.211.113.69|205.211.113.69]] 20:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

:::[citation needed] {{unsigned|Comment police}}

::::Men are more likely to be murdered than women. [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/386:_Duty_Calls You are wrong on the internet.] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.123|108.162.216.123]] 18:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

:::Why is this so hard for you people to understand. Men get murdered more than Women. Women get raped (forcibly penetrated) 22 times more than Men. For other kinds of sexual violence (forcibly penetrating someone else, coercion, stalking) the gender gap is smaller but still significant. Men represent 80% of murder victims. They are at higher risk for non-sexual violence. Source for rape stats [https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf] skip to page 11 for the executive summary. Source for men having higher non sexual crime victimization [[https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=955]] [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.242|172.69.62.242]] 16:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

:::Quite frankly, the rates of violence against men are much lower, and almost all of it is committed by men (as you can tell by googling "literally anything about crime statistics"). Men are less harmed and less affected by these issues (see, eg, Moradi and Huang 2008); further, what you just posted is a strawman, because what was posted above does not claim that men cannot be harmed or raped, only that one fear is greater than the other.

:::Given that feminism is the entire reason the legal definition of rape in america includes men - see the Feminist Majority Foundation and Ms. Magazines Rape Is Rape campaign, I think you maybe want to inform yourself more. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.12|141.101.99.12]] 19:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

:What girl wants to be with a guy who is so introspective and nervous that he can't talk to girls? A hint for guys, grow a pair. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 02:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that the comic intends to point out the paralyzing paranoia men can have about interacting with women, and the description as it is seems to refuse to explain the comic out of sheer disagreement. {{unsigned ip|207.98.247.127}}

The comments here, with the call for men to "grow a pair" combined with the (false) claim that women are at greater danger of being attacked than men (seemingly offered as justification for unreasonable female caution or hostility toward men), are a perfect illustration of why this anomie exists.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.71|173.245.50.71]] 03:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

:I think that there are younger girls who don't get a lot of male attention and are too inexperienced to be familiar with the neckbeard/fedora types. They think a "nice guy" sitting by himself is like them and just needs someone to be with. They haven't learned that all the guys who complain about lack of girls despite being surrounded are just sex hounds who claim they want a relationship. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.123|108.162.216.123]] 18:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

:...What? The claim that women are in greater danger of being attacked than men is NOT false. In 2010, Women were 21 times more likely to be the victim of sexual crimes than men, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (0.1 cases per 1000 males, and 2.1 cases per 1000 females per year). Not only that, but the vast majority of cases of male sexual assault victims were assaulted by another male. Debate on the subject is fine, but let's at least get our facts straight. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.63|173.245.55.63]] 03:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Greg
::You are right, but this comic is more about women using this fact to cover their own capabilities to talk to a "interesting" man. And because your facts are correct it must be mentioned at this explain. But this comic is also about the "strange" behave done by women to men; hard to understand by a man. And because this comic is still even more complicated this gets an incomplete tag with your mentions. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
::I agree with Greg. Let us indeed 'get our facts straight'. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html| More men are raped in the US than women, figures on prison assaults reveal] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]] 22:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
::: As a point of departure, The Daily Mail isn't exactly known for its sterling reporting record, and the article cited above is no exception. It cherry picks from two different sources (prison and non-prison populations) as well as two different definitions (sexual abuse and rape) in order to concoct a sensational and ultimately inaccurate headline. We are comparing two entirely different sets of populations: incarcerated vs. non-incarcerated (even ignoring the fact that it's also men in US prisons who are the bad actors). I'm surprised I even need to point out the difference. One should hope that the daily atmosphere in US society writ large is not marked by the same hyper-aggression and mental illness that exists in federal prisons. Further, according to BJS, in 2010 approximately 270,000 women experienced and reported sexual assault, compared to 17,400 men, and, yes, the 218,000 inmates in 2008 (not specified whether male or female in the Daily Mail article). I appreciate honest attempts to move a conversation forward, but please let's try to be consistent and intellectually rigorous in our arguments and rebuttals. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 07:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::: I hope that the Daily Mail reference was a joke. That publication certainly is. Is this continuing debate the only reason the explanation is incomplete? I'm not sure it applies. What is the definition of incomplete anyway? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.218|141.101.99.218]] 15:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

::2.1 in a 1000? That still leaves 997.9 in a 1000. If those odds are enough to make you shun an entire half of the human population, then you might be paranoid. And those 2.1 probably tend to occur in certain situations and certain places, although I'm loathe to actually make any claims without the data to back me up. Yes, there is still misogyny in our society, Tumblr feminists, but the majority of us would never knowingly hurt anybody, females included. So while carrying mace in your purse is understandable, not speaking to a cute non-psychotic guy because you think that the moment you show any interest in him, he won't let you go until he has had your way with you, that's a bit too much. And ironically, it still ends up placing the blame on the victims of such encounters. "Oh, but you talked to him first, you shouldn't have recognized his existence. Everybody knows you don't recognize a male's existence or else you're asking for it."[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.56|141.101.104.56]] 14:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

:::Here's a fun statistic. Somewhere between 1 in 20 and 1 in 200 men has raped somebody, based on a simple calculation of the number of american rapes versus the number of american men. It's 1 in 20 if you assume that the average American rapist accounts for ten victims; in truth, the average american rapist accounts for only six, meaning that 1 in 20 is a lower bound. 1 in 200 is roughly the figure you get for a lower bound if you pretend that every rape is reported.

:::How's that for risk? {{unsigned|Comment police}}

::::Thank you so much for not citing any sources whatsoever. That is completely, striaght-up, flat-out false. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.6|172.68.47.6]] 09:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

::: I feel like you also might be missing that the figure of 2.1 in 1000 is IN A WORLD WHERE WOMEN ARE HYPERCAUTIOUS ABOUT THIS. it does not work as an argument for them being less vigilant. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.12|141.101.99.12]] 19:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

::: According to the UN, its more like 333 out of 1000: [http://www.un.org/en/women/endviolence/pdf/VAW.pdf "On average, at least one in three women is beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused by an intimate partner in the course of her lifetime."] --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.93.216|141.101.93.216]] 17:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

:::: PS: There is not a single excuse for rape and also no way to "ask for it". Except to actually ''ask'' for it (consensual non-consent); but then its not called rape anymore. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.93.216|141.101.93.216]] 17:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this cartoon elegantly captures the age-old challenge of dating: how to make contact with someone you find attractive, without contravening the social mores of your time - be it not talking to someone you have not been introduced to in the Victorian times, not making eye-contact in a bar unless you are "available" late last century, as well as the practice using any number of props such as witty opening lines, proclaiming a shared interest in poetry, accidentally running into each other at second hand book fairs or the joining the local skydiving club. The specific example here flags out the fears of "cyber social rejection" as another component to how we arbitrarily constrain the dynamic of "boy wants to meet girl, girl wants to meet boy" {{unsigned|ZenDad}}

I don't think this should be tagged as incomplete. The explanation looks pretty complete to me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.208.199|108.162.208.199]] 02:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think men often like to imagine that women in public are just sitting there thinking, 'I hope this man notices me. Everything I'm doing is so that he'll notice me.' Whereas most women in public are just living their lives -- commuting or reading or writing their blog, because they want to commute or read or write their blog, not because they hope that by doing that action they will attract a man's attention. There have been endless articles in recent years about how women generally don't want to be bothered in public, and how they are frustrated with men who persist in trying to talk to them when they are clearly uninterested, which can feel threatening. The page, "when women refuse" is vital in understanding the fear many women rightly have about rejecting even a polite seeming man, and why many would rather not be bothered in the first place. Regardless though, even women who are open to being approached in a public setting still do not live their whole lives thinking about how their actions will attract a man. Just look at any recent article of women explaining why they wear makeup. Don't assume women are doing things in order to seem more attractive to you. They're just living their lives. [[User:Sr|sr]] ([[User talk:Sr|talk]])

:Okay. This has nothing to do with the comic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.58.171|162.158.58.171]] 10:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
::This has everything to do with the comic. This is typical male wish-fulfilment fantasy on Randall's part. Women do not want to be approached in public by men, as the very well-written comment by sr above explains. Context is everything! If a woman is sitting by herself in a singles bar then feel free to approach. If she's just out in public going about her day, leave her the fuck alone! [[User:The Cat Lady|-- The Cat Lady]] ([[User talk:The Cat Lady|talk]]) 13:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
:::Most of the time, sure, but definitely not all the time. "Leave her the fuck alone" is the right approach in general, but it causes minor anguish for girls like the one in the comic. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.221.5|172.68.221.5]] 19:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
::::The point is that "girls like the one in the comic" are a male wish fulfillment fantasy and do not exist in real life. If a woman is sitting on a bus, it's because she needs to get to wherever the bus is going.

I hate to say anything in this type of conversation because I usually make things worse, but just a PSA that nobody's personal experience is representative of more than 3 billion people. Lots of good assessments of this comic have been made, but I think we shouldn't lose sight of the origin of this comic. It's a *lighthearted* way of bringing up the issue of being anxious in public. The characters in this comic are not unrealistic; they may not be like you, or most people, but they are perfectly plausible. And this comic isn't Randall indulging his fantasy; it's just encouraging openness because most people are fine with starting conversations. Randall isn't being creepy here, and I think the explanation for the comic explains it nicely. But I guess it's likely for the oh-so-intelligent readers of XKCD to use it that way, so fair point. ([[User:Nafedalbi|Nafedalbi]]) 2:00 PM, December 8, 2021 (UTC)

Talk:642: Creepy

2021-12-08T14:11:09Z

Nafedalbi: Response.

Is the real-life example unwarranted? [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 15:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

:Admirably done. I like the link. In future, though, the wiki-engine doesn't know what single returns means, so if you want a paragraph break hit enter twice. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A hint for girls, we all have the SAME fears, don't be afraid to find out who we are on the inside :) - [[User:E-inspired|E-inspired]] ([[User talk:E-inspired|talk]]) 04:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

:Uh...men typically don't have to worry about getting harassed, assaulted, or killed like women do. At least not to the same degree. Your nervousness about being turned down is not the same as the woman's fear of being attacked. [[Special:Contributions/15.211.201.83|15.211.201.83]] 20:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

::Thank you for making this comment. It perfectly outlines the exact type of conceited, one sided views that are being used by tumblr feminists in their crusade for "safety" and "equality". The idea that men are all some sort of all powerful being, incapable of being abused or raped is not only factually wrong, but actually perpetuates the abuses against them as more and more men stop coming forward for fear of looking weak. You speak as if you have knowledge in this field, but that just can't be the case. If you did, you would be much better educated as to the real breakdowns of sexual violence per gender, and know just how ridiculous your claims are. [[Special:Contributions/205.211.113.69|205.211.113.69]] 20:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

:::[citation needed] {{unsigned|Comment police}}

::::Men are more likely to be murdered than women. [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/386:_Duty_Calls You are wrong on the internet.] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.123|108.162.216.123]] 18:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

:::Why is this so hard for you people to understand. Men get murdered more than Women. Women get raped (forcibly penetrated) 22 times more than Men. For other kinds of sexual violence (forcibly penetrating someone else, coercion, stalking) the gender gap is smaller but still significant. Men represent 80% of murder victims. They are at higher risk for non-sexual violence. Source for rape stats [https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf] skip to page 11 for the executive summary. Source for men having higher non sexual crime victimization [[https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=955]] [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.242|172.69.62.242]] 16:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

:::Quite frankly, the rates of violence against men are much lower, and almost all of it is committed by men (as you can tell by googling "literally anything about crime statistics"). Men are less harmed and less affected by these issues (see, eg, Moradi and Huang 2008); further, what you just posted is a strawman, because what was posted above does not claim that men cannot be harmed or raped, only that one fear is greater than the other.

:::Given that feminism is the entire reason the legal definition of rape in america includes men - see the Feminist Majority Foundation and Ms. Magazines Rape Is Rape campaign, I think you maybe want to inform yourself more. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.12|141.101.99.12]] 19:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

:What girl wants to be with a guy who is so introspective and nervous that he can't talk to girls? A hint for guys, grow a pair. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 02:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that the comic intends to point out the paralyzing paranoia men can have about interacting with women, and the description as it is seems to refuse to explain the comic out of sheer disagreement. {{unsigned ip|207.98.247.127}}

The comments here, with the call for men to "grow a pair" combined with the (false) claim that women are at greater danger of being attacked than men (seemingly offered as justification for unreasonable female caution or hostility toward men), are a perfect illustration of why this anomie exists.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.71|173.245.50.71]] 03:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

:I think that there are younger girls who don't get a lot of male attention and are too inexperienced to be familiar with the neckbeard/fedora types. They think a "nice guy" sitting by himself is like them and just needs someone to be with. They haven't learned that all the guys who complain about lack of girls despite being surrounded are just sex hounds who claim they want a relationship. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.123|108.162.216.123]] 18:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

:...What? The claim that women are in greater danger of being attacked than men is NOT false. In 2010, Women were 21 times more likely to be the victim of sexual crimes than men, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (0.1 cases per 1000 males, and 2.1 cases per 1000 females per year). Not only that, but the vast majority of cases of male sexual assault victims were assaulted by another male. Debate on the subject is fine, but let's at least get our facts straight. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.63|173.245.55.63]] 03:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Greg
::You are right, but this comic is more about women using this fact to cover their own capabilities to talk to a "interesting" man. And because your facts are correct it must be mentioned at this explain. But this comic is also about the "strange" behave done by women to men; hard to understand by a man. And because this comic is still even more complicated this gets an incomplete tag with your mentions. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
::I agree with Greg. Let us indeed 'get our facts straight'. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html| More men are raped in the US than women, figures on prison assaults reveal] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]] 22:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
::: As a point of departure, The Daily Mail isn't exactly known for its sterling reporting record, and the article cited above is no exception. It cherry picks from two different sources (prison and non-prison populations) as well as two different definitions (sexual abuse and rape) in order to concoct a sensational and ultimately inaccurate headline. We are comparing two entirely different sets of populations: incarcerated vs. non-incarcerated (even ignoring the fact that it's also men in US prisons who are the bad actors). I'm surprised I even need to point out the difference. One should hope that the daily atmosphere in US society writ large is not marked by the same hyper-aggression and mental illness that exists in federal prisons. Further, according to BJS, in 2010 approximately 270,000 women experienced and reported sexual assault, compared to 17,400 men, and, yes, the 218,000 inmates in 2008 (not specified whether male or female in the Daily Mail article). I appreciate honest attempts to move a conversation forward, but please let's try to be consistent and intellectually rigorous in our arguments and rebuttals. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 07:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::: I hope that the Daily Mail reference was a joke. That publication certainly is. Is this continuing debate the only reason the explanation is incomplete? I'm not sure it applies. What is the definition of incomplete anyway? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.218|141.101.99.218]] 15:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

::2.1 in a 1000? That still leaves 997.9 in a 1000. If those odds are enough to make you shun an entire half of the human population, then you might be paranoid. And those 2.1 probably tend to occur in certain situations and certain places, although I'm loathe to actually make any claims without the data to back me up. Yes, there is still misogyny in our society, Tumblr feminists, but the majority of us would never knowingly hurt anybody, females included. So while carrying mace in your purse is understandable, not speaking to a cute non-psychotic guy because you think that the moment you show any interest in him, he won't let you go until he has had your way with you, that's a bit too much. And ironically, it still ends up placing the blame on the victims of such encounters. "Oh, but you talked to him first, you shouldn't have recognized his existence. Everybody knows you don't recognize a male's existence or else you're asking for it."[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.56|141.101.104.56]] 14:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

:::Here's a fun statistic. Somewhere between 1 in 20 and 1 in 200 men has raped somebody, based on a simple calculation of the number of american rapes versus the number of american men. It's 1 in 20 if you assume that the average American rapist accounts for ten victims; in truth, the average american rapist accounts for only six, meaning that 1 in 20 is a lower bound. 1 in 200 is roughly the figure you get for a lower bound if you pretend that every rape is reported.

:::How's that for risk? {{unsigned|Comment police}}

::::Thank you so much for not citing any sources whatsoever. That is completely, striaght-up, flat-out false. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.6|172.68.47.6]] 09:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

::: I feel like you also might be missing that the figure of 2.1 in 1000 is IN A WORLD WHERE WOMEN ARE HYPERCAUTIOUS ABOUT THIS. it does not work as an argument for them being less vigilant. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.12|141.101.99.12]] 19:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

::: According to the UN, its more like 333 out of 1000: [http://www.un.org/en/women/endviolence/pdf/VAW.pdf "On average, at least one in three women is beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused by an intimate partner in the course of her lifetime."] --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.93.216|141.101.93.216]] 17:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

:::: PS: There is not a single excuse for rape and also no way to "ask for it". Except to actually ''ask'' for it (consensual non-consent); but then its not called rape anymore. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.93.216|141.101.93.216]] 17:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this cartoon elegantly captures the age-old challenge of dating: how to make contact with someone you find attractive, without contravening the social mores of your time - be it not talking to someone you have not been introduced to in the Victorian times, not making eye-contact in a bar unless you are "available" late last century, as well as the practice using any number of props such as witty opening lines, proclaiming a shared interest in poetry, accidentally running into each other at second hand book fairs or the joining the local skydiving club. The specific example here flags out the fears of "cyber social rejection" as another component to how we arbitrarily constrain the dynamic of "boy wants to meet girl, girl wants to meet boy" {{unsigned|ZenDad}}

I don't think this should be tagged as incomplete. The explanation looks pretty complete to me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.208.199|108.162.208.199]] 02:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think men often like to imagine that women in public are just sitting there thinking, 'I hope this man notices me. Everything I'm doing is so that he'll notice me.' Whereas most women in public are just living their lives -- commuting or reading or writing their blog, because they want to commute or read or write their blog, not because they hope that by doing that action they will attract a man's attention. There have been endless articles in recent years about how women generally don't want to be bothered in public, and how they are frustrated with men who persist in trying to talk to them when they are clearly uninterested, which can feel threatening. The page, "when women refuse" is vital in understanding the fear many women rightly have about rejecting even a polite seeming man, and why many would rather not be bothered in the first place. Regardless though, even women who are open to being approached in a public setting still do not live their whole lives thinking about how their actions will attract a man. Just look at any recent article of women explaining why they wear makeup. Don't assume women are doing things in order to seem more attractive to you. They're just living their lives. [[User:Sr|sr]] ([[User talk:Sr|talk]])

:Okay. This has nothing to do with the comic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.58.171|162.158.58.171]] 10:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
::This has everything to do with the comic. This is typical male wish-fulfilment fantasy on Randall's part. Women do not want to be approached in public by men, as the very well-written comment by sr above explains. Context is everything! If a woman is sitting by herself in a singles bar then feel free to approach. If she's just out in public going about her day, leave her the fuck alone! [[User:The Cat Lady|-- The Cat Lady]] ([[User talk:The Cat Lady|talk]]) 13:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
:::Most of the time, sure, but definitely not all the time. "Leave her the fuck alone" is the right approach in general, but it causes minor anguish for girls like the one in the comic. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.221.5|172.68.221.5]] 19:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
::::The point is that "girls like the one in the comic" are a male wish fulfillment fantasy and do not exist in real life. If a woman is sitting on a bus, it's because she needs to get to wherever the bus is going.

I hate to say anything in this type of conversation because I usually make things worse, but just a PSA that nobody's personal experience is representative of more than 3 billion people. Lots of good assessments of this comic have been made, but I think we shouldn't lose sight of the origin of this comic. It's a *lighthearted* way of bringing up the issue of being anxious in public. The characters in this comic are not unrealistic; they may not be like you, or most people, but they are perfectly plausible. And this comic isn't Randall indulging his fantasy; it's just encouraging openness because most people are fine with starting conversations. Randall isn't being creepy here, and I think the explanation for the comic explains it nicely. But I guess it's likely for the oh-so-intelligent readers of XKCD to use it that way, so fair point. ([[User talk:Nafedalbi|talk]]) 2:00 PM, December 8, 2021 (UTC)