explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:139: I Have Owned Two Electric Skateboards

2014-01-02T14:42:49Z

Rmyere: signing

I can hardly believe that Randall yet had any thougt of Danish, as he introduced her in [[377: Journal 2]]. It's just a "chic", like "Megan-2", who only just happens to have a little longer hair. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
:We know Randall likes electric skateboards. And most of his early comics are not on a deeper sarcasm. This was just a fun comic. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you really want a longer explanation, if there's nothing more to explain? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 13:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
:Your link to [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/bitches-love-x bitches] is definitively wrong. I am sure it is related to this song: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicks_Dig_It Chicks DigIt] by Chris Cagle. The video was performed at a skate park and he tries to impress females, because the "chicks dig it". What do you think?--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
::Randalls arrows pointing towards "chicks" is probably not referencing anything else than the chicks. It's just a word. I don't know who linked to the "biches love X" meme, but I am quite sure it was just for the fun of it, and nothing more. :) –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 18:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
:::I was just checking the early history of this explain and this "bitches" are from "Revision as of 20:04, 17 September 2012 by Lcarsos". Maybe I did misunderstood you but this explain still does need some polish. So I will work on this soon.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
:::I feel that the connections are too vague for the conclusion that the comic was inspired by the "Chicks dig it"-song. The comic doesn't use the phrase "chicks dig it", and the song doesn't seem to touch upon skateboarding.

:::I don't think the comic has anything to do with the "bitches love X"-meme either, I think lcarsos only linked to it because it humorously related to the topic (like the song). I suggest that we have those two things somehow linked from the explanation or trivia without any claims that the comic was inspired by or references them. ––[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I did remove the "bitches" last week and now I found a proper sentence for the title text. The "incomplete" tag is removed.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 12:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
:Often it feels like explanations of self-evident stuff just describes or repeats the stuff concerned... Secondly, how about: "I suggest that we have those two things somehow linked from the explanation or trivia without any claims that the comic was inspired by or references them." ––[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 22:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
:Please never edit posts by other people! Ok? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
::Hey, I didn't edit your post, I indented it, only to help people follow the conversation. I assumed it was a reply, since you were talking about the "bitches"-meme. Sorry if I misinterpreted. Why did you remove "bitches love X"? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 12:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it Cueball or Randall talking in the title text? I always thought of it as Randall's side note, rather than the characters in the comic saying it. [[User:Alcatraz ii|Alcatraz ii]] ([[User talk:Alcatraz ii|talk]]) 23:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
:I agree. Unless it's a clear continuation of a thought expressed by a character, I tend to assume that the title text is directly from Randall. In this case no characters are talking so Cueball likely wasn't even assigned enough personality for this comic to have that kind of back story. He's just a guy with an electric skateboard.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.192|108.162.219.192]] 04:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This explanation seems to miss the main point. Electric skateboards get you from point A to point B and by the time you get there you will have a crowd of screaming chicks chasing after you (because the skateboard is just that awesome). What's all this talk about a song that was at no point clearly referenced?--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.192|108.162.219.192]] 03:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the above poster's point. Nowhere in the explanation does it even mention the entire point of the comic, which in my interpretation is an understated joke that if you use an electric skateboard just to get around, by the time you get to where you are going, there will be a group of chick cheering and following you are because electric skateboards are just that awesome. Also, I agree with the assertion that the title text is directly from Randall, especially because we know that Randall has had two electric skateboards break in the past from his weblag, and eventually bought a new one when he moved. Thus, the explanation should reflect these two points.[[User:Rmyere|Rmyere]] ([[User talk:Rmyere|talk]]) 14:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:139: I Have Owned Two Electric Skateboards

2014-01-02T14:40:41Z

Rmyere: explanation misses main point and title text is from Randall

1295: New Study

2013-11-26T04:33:13Z

Rmyere:

{{comic
| number = 1295
| date = November 25, 2013
| title = New Study
| image = new_study.png
| titletext = When the results are published, no one will be sure whether to report on them again.
}}

==Explanation==
This is another of Randall's jabs at modern news networks.

Some examples of how true this can be:

* A July 2011 hoax study correlated {{w|Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and Browser Usage}}, specifically asserting that Microsoft Internet Explorer users had a significantly lower I.Q. than other users. The study was reported by over 30 news outlets including NPR, ''Forbes'', CBS News, ''San Francisco Chronicle'', ''The Inquirer'', and ''CNN''. The perpetrator made little effort to conceal the deception by publishing it on a freshly created domain name with a parking lot as the corporate address, and was surprised that so many reputable outlets did no fact checking.
* [http://eldeforma.com/2012/08/27/samsung-paga-multa-de-1-billon-de-dolares-a-apple-en-monedas-de-5-centavos/#axzz2lfjwKjjt Samsung pays $1bn USD fine to Apple with 20 billion 5 cent coins]: widely reported on news networks in November 2013
* Even many low-tier scientific journals don't do proper checking. Over a hundred of them accepted a fake, error-ridden cancer study for publication in a spoof organized by Science magazine, as reported by National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131003-bohannon-science-spoof-open-access-peer-review-cancer/ Fake Cancer Study Spotlights Bogus Science Journals].

Related jokes:

* "87% of statistics are made up on the spot" (which is itself completely fictitious). This joke has most famously been referenced by the [http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-05-08/ May 8, 2008 Dilbert comic strip].
* "64 percent of all the world's statistics are made up right there on the spot, 82.4 percent of people believe 'em whether they're accurate statistics or not" - Statistician's Blues, by Todd Snider ([http://www.cowboylyrics.com/tabs/snider-todd/statistician-blues-10809.html lyrics]; [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUK6zjtUj00 video]).

The Title Text of this comic creates a whole new layer of irony. It implies that the study being reported on in the comic is itself part of an actual study to research whether news organizations will report on studies without fact checking. When the results of this real study are finally published, Randall implies that news organizations may be confused as whether to publish the results of this real study or not.

Side note: People making the substitutions in [[1288: Substitutions|a comic posted two weeks before this one]] will read this comic as one about {{w|Tumblr}} posts.

==Transcript==
:Reporter: ...And in science news, according to a new study, 85% of news organizations repeat "new study" press releases without checking whether they're real.
{{comic discussion}}

1295: New Study

2013-11-26T04:32:28Z

Rmyere:

{{comic
| number = 1295
| date = November 25, 2013
| title = New Study
| image = new_study.png
| titletext = When the results are published, no one will be sure whether to report on them again.
}}

==Explanation==
This is another of Randall's jabs at modern news networks.

Some examples of how true this can be:

* A July 2011 hoax study correlated {{w|Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and Browser Usage}}, specifically asserting that Microsoft Internet Explorer users had a significantly lower I.Q. than other users. The study was reported by over 30 news outlets including NPR, ''Forbes'', CBS News, ''San Francisco Chronicle'', ''The Inquirer'', and ''CNN''. The perpetrator made little effort to conceal the deception by publishing it on a freshly created domain name with a parking lot as the corporate address, and was surprised that so many reputable outlets did no fact checking.
* [http://eldeforma.com/2012/08/27/samsung-paga-multa-de-1-billon-de-dolares-a-apple-en-monedas-de-5-centavos/#axzz2lfjwKjjt Samsung pays $1bn USD fine to Apple with 20 billion 5 cent coins]: widely reported on news networks in November 2013
* Even many low-tier scientific journals don't do proper checking. Over a hundred of them accepted a fake, error-ridden cancer study for publication in a spoof organized by Science magazine, as reported by National Geographic: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131003-bohannon-science-spoof-open-access-peer-review-cancer/ Fake Cancer Study Spotlights Bogus Science Journals].

Related jokes:

* "87% of statistics are made up on the spot" (which is itself completely fictitious). This joke has most famously been referenced by the [http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-05-08/ May 8, 2008 Dilbert comic strip].
* "64 percent of all the world's statistics are made up right there on the spot, 82.4 percent of people believe 'em whether they're accurate statistics or not" - Statistician's Blues, by Todd Snider ([http://www.cowboylyrics.com/tabs/snider-todd/statistician-blues-10809.html lyrics]; [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUK6zjtUj00 video]).

The Title Text of this comic creates a whole new layer of irony. It implies that the study being reported on in the comic is itself part of an actual study to research whether news organizations will report on studies without fact checking. When the results of this real study are finally published, Randall implies that news organizations may be confused as to publish the results of this real study or not.

Side note: People making the substitutions in [[1288: Substitutions|a comic posted two weeks before this one]] will read this comic as one about {{w|Tumblr}} posts.

==Transcript==
:Reporter: ...And in science news, according to a new study, 85% of news organizations repeat "new study" press releases without checking whether they're real.
{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1295: New Study

2013-11-26T04:27:40Z

Rmyere:

There was a joke in Czech Republic a few years ago: American scientists discovered, that 80% Europeans believe in everything that starts with: "American scientists discovered". {{unsigned|‎Jiří Dobrý}}

The main reason why the Browser Usage hoax was so successful is that it's very plausible. Especially regarding the old versions of Internet Explorer. How can people still be using crap like IE 6.0?
:Because 86% of people just use computers as a tool that comes as-is, without wanting to understand how it works and/or could be modified.[[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
:"''How can people still be using crap like IE 6.0?''" That's like asking how people could still be using crap like a single-flux nonwidget carburetor. Don't they realize that's so out of date? Answer, of course not. To the VAST majority of people aren't, and don't need to be, aware of what version of a browser they use any more than teh vast majority of people don't know (or need to) what components are under the hood of their car. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.89|199.27.128.89]] 17:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
::But when the mechanic has a single-flux non-widget carburetor, there's a problem somewhere. I can personally vouch that all of Radioshack's POS computers run on Windows XP and use IE 6 for all operations except ringing up purchases and taking credit card payments. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.52|108.162.215.52]] 01:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
::IE6 or IE8? IE8, I could understand, being the highest level of IE normally installable upon XP (and, apart from the looming 'desupporting' date for XP, a solid enough platform for things that already work well on it). Although I could also understand IE6 if it involves some legacy proprietry scripting code that doesn't run well on IE>6, etc. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 03:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Note that I find hard to believe this was created due to something happening in 2011. While related, I would assume there was some other, more recent study this reacts to. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131003-bohannon-science-spoof-open-access-peer-review-cancer/] ? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

New to editing. Trying to add this line and it isn't showing up. I believe this is the event he's referring to. <nowiki>* [http://eldeforma.com/2012/08/27/samsung-paga-multa-de-1-billon-de-dolares-a-apple-en-monedas-de-5-centavos/#axzz2lfjwKjjt Samsung pays $1bn USD fine to Apple with 20 billion 5 cent coins]: widely reported on news networks in November 2013</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.54|108.162.216.54]] 15:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Eastwood
:But that story has nothing to do with a "new study" (or any "study," for that matter). [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 19:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind... figured it out. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.54|108.162.216.54]] 15:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Eastwood

I think the title text of this comic is particularly clever...in that it infers that that the news being reported in the comic IS the study itself, creating an infinite loop. This should absolutely be reflected in the explanation!!! Can someone add it? [[User:Rmyere|Rmyere]] ([[User talk:Rmyere|talk]]) 04:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
----
The TV reporter seems to have an impressive head of hair. Is it supposed to be a toupee? [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 21:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1295: New Study

2013-11-26T04:26:50Z

Rmyere:

There was a joke in Czech Republic a few years ago: American scientists discovered, that 80% Europeans believe in everything that starts with: "American scientists discovered". {{unsigned|‎Jiří Dobrý}}

The main reason why the Browser Usage hoax was so successful is that it's very plausible. Especially regarding the old versions of Internet Explorer. How can people still be using crap like IE 6.0?
:Because 86% of people just use computers as a tool that comes as-is, without wanting to understand how it works and/or could be modified.[[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
:"''How can people still be using crap like IE 6.0?''" That's like asking how people could still be using crap like a single-flux nonwidget carburetor. Don't they realize that's so out of date? Answer, of course not. To the VAST majority of people aren't, and don't need to be, aware of what version of a browser they use any more than teh vast majority of people don't know (or need to) what components are under the hood of their car. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.89|199.27.128.89]] 17:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
::But when the mechanic has a single-flux non-widget carburetor, there's a problem somewhere. I can personally vouch that all of Radioshack's POS computers run on Windows XP and use IE 6 for all operations except ringing up purchases and taking credit card payments. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.52|108.162.215.52]] 01:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
::IE6 or IE8? IE8, I could understand, being the highest level of IE normally installable upon XP (and, apart from the looming 'desupporting' date for XP, a solid enough platform for things that already work well on it). Although I could also understand IE6 if it involves some legacy proprietry scripting code that doesn't run well on IE>6, etc. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 03:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Note that I find hard to believe this was created due to something happening in 2011. While related, I would assume there was some other, more recent study this reacts to. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131003-bohannon-science-spoof-open-access-peer-review-cancer/] ? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

New to editing. Trying to add this line and it isn't showing up. I believe this is the event he's referring to. <nowiki>* [http://eldeforma.com/2012/08/27/samsung-paga-multa-de-1-billon-de-dolares-a-apple-en-monedas-de-5-centavos/#axzz2lfjwKjjt Samsung pays $1bn USD fine to Apple with 20 billion 5 cent coins]: widely reported on news networks in November 2013</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.54|108.162.216.54]] 15:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Eastwood
:But that story has nothing to do with a "new study" (or any "study," for that matter). [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 19:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind... figured it out. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.54|108.162.216.54]] 15:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Eastwood

----
The TV reporter seems to have an impressive head of hair. Is it supposed to be a toupee? [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 21:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the title text of this comic is particularly clever...in that it infers that that the news being reported in the comic IS the study itself, creating an infinite loop. This should absolutely be reflected in the explanation!!! Can someone add it? [[User:Rmyere|Rmyere]] ([[User talk:Rmyere|talk]]) 04:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)