explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1293: Job Interview

2013-11-20T18:35:27Z

Theo:

{{comic
| number = 1293
| date = November 20, 2013
| title = Job Interview
| image = job_interview.png
| titletext = When you talk about the job experience you'll give me, why do you pronounce 'job' with a long 'o'?
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}
Following on from [[1032: Networking|his attempts at networking]], [[Beret Guy]] conducts an interview for a programmer position (someone to "write on our computers") at his mysteriously successful company.

The comic makes fun of a virtual economy where any actual connection to goods or services vanishes. The purported "company headquarters" is nondescript, but appears to have a standard lunchroom although the online soup (a take on soup.io[http://soup.io]?) makes it somewhat more nerdy.

The label is a variation on the countless humorous signs near wall outlets and faucets.

The title text makes reference to the story of [[wikipedia:Job (biblical figure)|Job]] ("Job" pronounced with a long O), who was put through some horrendous ordeals by God to test his faith. This suggests that taking the job will make the interviewee feel like Job.

Another job interview was portrayed in [[1094: Interview]]

==Transcript==
:[Beret Guy ushers a prospective employee into a room.]
:Beret Guy: Welcome to our company! We're headquartered right here, in this real building I found.

:[They sit down at a table carrying dishes. There is a wall outlet with a lopsided sign SOUP.]
:Interviewee: What do you...''do''?
:Beret Guy: We make stuff for phones!
:Beret Guy: Like apps and stickers.

:Beret Guy: We want to hire you to write stuff on our computers.
:Beret Guy: We can offer you a bunch of paychecks!
:Beret Guy: There are ghosts here.

:Interviewee: Are you sure this is a company?
:Beret Guy: I hope so!

:[Beret Guy plugs a cable into the wall outlet, a liquid pours into a soup bowl.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]

1273: Tall Infographics

2013-10-04T12:46:08Z

Theo: Demonstrated graphs

{{comic
| number = 1273
| date = October 4, 2013
| title = Tall Infographics
| image = tall_infographics.png
| titletext = 'Big Data' doesn't just mean increasing the font size.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}

This comic shows how some very basic information is displayed in a very large, and often unhelpful infographic including unneeded forms of data such as Venn diagrams and graphs.

In the pie chart, the areas represent the proportion of letters in each word.
The bracket that stems from 'IN' encompasses 'THIS'
In the Venn diagram, the intersection is the intersection of 'Clear' and 'Concise'
In the lowermost bar graph, the bar height shows the position of the individual letters of the word "format" in the English alphabet.

==Transcript==
:By the year
:(2018)2019(2020)
:All information
:[Graph representing all information]
:6 years from now (72 months)
:[In a pie chart] will be
:Megan: communicated
:Guy in scruffy hair: Yes!
:in THIS
:[In a Venn diagram] clear and concise
:[On the x axis of a bar graph]
:format

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]

Talk:1050: Forgot Algebra

2013-08-30T21:06:56Z

Theo:

Actually, I always use Megan's argument whenever I'm in World History Class.--[[User:Castriff|Jimmy C]] ([[User talk:Castriff|talk]]) 21:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It allways seems strange to me that there are places in the world where preparing your own meals is not an everyday task to most people. Living in Norway it just seems extremely decadent![[Special:Contributions/85.164.251.29|85.164.251.29]] 20:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
:I don't think that by "learning to cook" he means to prepare food, but to do it well and to enjoy it. Many people can prepare very limited food, causing them to not enjoy cooking and to believe that they cannot cook. [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 21:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1257: Monster

2013-08-28T12:43:36Z

Theo:

My first contribution, woo! I'm writing the transcript now. If there's an official one, please throw mine out and let me know :) [[User:Matega|Matega]] ([[User talk:Matega|talk]]) 06:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's done. Is it okay to refer to person 2 as Cueball and person 4 as Ponytail? As far as I know, Cueball is identified by not wearing anything... [[User:Matega|Matega]] ([[User talk:Matega|talk]]) 06:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
:Official transcripts tend to be days behind us. And yeah, we usually follow that naming convention for characters. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 06:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This comic should be based on Pacific Rim(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1663662/) and the dictionary of numbers(http://blog.xkcd.com/2013/05/15/dictionary-of-numbers/) [[User:Tianshuo|Tianshuo]] ([[User talk:Tianshuo|talk]]) 08:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
: I've not seen Pacific Rim so I may be missing something obvious, but why? I don't see any obvious references to either. It's certainly in someways a continuation of the dictionary of numbers, but it looks at it from the other direction as a too often used cliche. [[Special:Contributions/131.123.61.160|131.123.61.160]] 10:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I like to relate this to 1047:Approximations(http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1047:_Approximations/) and 526:Converting to Metric(http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=526:_Converting_to_Metric/) [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 12:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:901: Temperature

2013-08-22T18:13:21Z

Theo:

Apparently, male pregnancy is a thing. It requires surgery and artificial implantation, but it's a legitimate thing that yields live babies. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 02:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Link? That's really difficult to believe. [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 18:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

1254: Preferred Chat System

2013-08-21T12:37:25Z

Theo:

{{comic
| number = 1254
| date = August 21, 2013
| title = Preferred Chat System
| image = preferred chat system.png
| titletext = If you call my regular number, it just goes to my pager.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}

As more options become available for communication, people are becoming pickier about which communications to use. In this case, Cueball attempts to call someone to clarify how they prefer their communication options, because sometimes, a phone call allows the quickest and clearest communication. The person he has called did not answer, so he is stuck leaving a voicemail (for which he apologizes). He explains that each attempt to contact this person ends in a response through a different medium. Finally, he explains that the problem is his lack of understanding of how the other individual uses technology. Upon hanging up, an owl appears with a letter explaining that google voice is the best way to call the individual
==Transcript==
:[Cueball talks on a cell phone.]
:Cueball: Sorry for the voicemail, but I'm confused about how to reach you.
:Cueball: When I text you, you reply once on GChat, then go quiet, yet answer IRC right away. I emailed you, and you replied on Skype and mentioned that the email "woke you up".
:Cueball: You're very responsive - I just haven no sense of how you use technology.
:[An owl appears in the sky.].
:[Cueball reads the letter brought by the owl.]
:did you try to call me? use my google voice number next time.

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

Talk:1252: Increased Risk

2013-08-16T17:06:40Z

Theo:

I think this is to address the old chestnut of "<something> will ''double'' your risk of getting cancer!", or the like, where the risk of getting that cancer (in this example) is maybe 1 in 10,000, so doubling the risk across a population wouldmake that a 1 in 5,000 risk to your health... which you may still consider to be an acceptable gamble if it's something nice (like cheese!) that's apaprently to blame and you'd find abstinence from it gives a barely marginal benefit for a far greater loss of life enjoyment. Also, this sort of figure almost always applies towards a ''specific form'' of cancer, or whatever risk is being discussed, meaning you aren't vastly changing your life expectancy at all. In fact, the likes of opposing "red wine is good/bad for you" studies can be mutually true by this same principle (gain a little risk of one condition, lose a little risk from another). (Note: I don't know of any particular "cheese gives you cancer!" stories doing the rounds, at the moment. I bet they have done, but I only mention it because I actually quite like cheese. And I probably ''wouldn't'' give it up under the above conditions.)

It's also possible that this covers the likes of "<foo> in <country> is 10 times more dangerous than it is <other country>" statements. Perhaps ''only'' ten incidents happened in the former, and a single instance in the latter, out the ''whole'' of each respective country. Or a single incident occured in both, but the second country is ten times the size, so gets 'adjusted for population' in the tables. And, besides which, that was just for one year and was just a statistical blip that will probably revert-towards-the-mean next year.

Finally, for a given risk of some incident happening on the first two trips, with no 'memory' or build-up involved, it pretty much is half-as-likely-again for the incident to have happened (some time!) in three separate trips. (Not quite, if those that lose against the odds and get caught by the incident the first or second trip never get to ''have'' a (second or) third trip... but for negligable odds like thegiven example, of the dog with the handgun, it's near-as-damnit so.) [[Special:Contributions/178.104.103.140|178.104.103.140]] 11:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Where did "dogs with shotguns" come from? I only saw "handgun" in the comic. Besides, I interpreted the risk as being hit by a negligent discharge from the handgun, not being deliberately attacked by the dog. Also, since probabilities are the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 inclusive, there are an uncountable number of them. "A x% increase in a tiny risk is still tiny" is an inductive statement, which means it could only be used to argue that a countable set of numbers is tiny. [[Special:Contributions/76.64.65.200|76.64.65.200]] 12:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

:If induction base is uncountable, you can prove it for the whole [0; 1]. For example your induction base may be "every risk under 0.00000000000000000001% is tiny". --[[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 12:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that this comic doesn't [[985|distinguish between percentages and percentage points]]. --[[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 12:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it the case that doing something three times increases risk by 50% over two times inherently? I feel like this is the case, but it's early, here. Also, I'm not sure Randall is attacked by a dog, he may be using it as a diversion. I think that he's done this before. [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 12:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
:(First, good point, DiEvAl, about the percentages/percentage-points. I ''knew'' I'd missed something out in my first thoughts. I actually tend to assume ''against'' percentage points, which is somewhat the opposite from what I've seen in the general public.)
:Actually, depends on how you count it. But I was using the "encounter 'n' incidents per trip", "encounter '2n' incidents per two trips", "encoutner '3n' incidents per three trips" measure, where 3n==2n+50%. But that works best with a baseline of >>1 incidents per trip assumed. In reality, if the chance is a fractional 'p' for an occurance in one instance, it's (1-p) that it ''didn't'' occur thus (1-p)n that it didn't occur in any of 'n' instances and 1-(1-p)n that it did (at least once, possible several times or even all). Not so simple, but for p tending to zero it 'does' converge on 1.5 times for across three what you'd expect for two (albeit because 0*1.5=0). Like they say, "Lies, Damn Lies...", etc. ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.104.103.140|178.104.103.140]] 14:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Randall is being attacked by a dog at all. What he's saying is that if you are going to think getting attacked by a shark is so likely, then you better be watching out for that never-gonna-happen dog scenario too. [[User:Jillysky|Jillysky]] ([[User talk:Jillysky|talk]]) 13:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Is 0.000001% really "one in a million"?
;If 1% = 1 in 100, then
:0.1% = 1 in a 1,000
:0.01% = 1 in a 10,000
:0.001% = 1 in a 100,000
:0.0001% = 1 in a 1,000,000
:0.00001% = 1 in a 10,000,000
:'''0.000001% = 1 in a 100,000,000'''
Would it be more accurate to leave off the % sign?
Assuming I'm right, I think it'd be less confusing to leave it and reduce the numbers by a couple orders of magnitude.
--Clayton [[Special:Contributions/12.202.74.87|12.202.74.87]] 14:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

''If the chance of the dog attack is 0.000000001% (one in a billion) on each visit to the beach, then the chance of attack over two visits is 0.000000002% whereas in three visits it becomes 0.000000003%''
Um, no. Following that logic, if I go to the beach a billion times then I '''will''' get shot by a dog that is packing. Rather, each visit to the beach has it's own odds, like the rolling of dice? On any particular visit there's a one-in-a-billion chance. And that's true on each subsequent visit as well. Tuesday's visit to the beach isn't twice as dangerous just because I was at the beach on Monday. [[User:CFoxx|CFoxx]] ([[User talk:CFoxx|talk]]) 16:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
:For each visit that is the case. Because it's one visit, that's true. However, if (time not being a factor) one were to have a billion visits planned, the odds over all would be increased. Pretty sure that overall this means that you got the joke faster than I did. Thanks for the clarification! [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 17:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1252: Increased Risk

2013-08-16T12:56:37Z

Theo:

1252: Increased Risk

2013-08-16T12:53:30Z

Theo: handguns not shotguns

{{comic
| number = 1252
| date = August 16, 2013
| title = Increased Risk
| image = increased_risk.png
| titletext = You may point out that strictly speaking, you can use that statement to prove that all risks are tiny--to which I reply HOLY SHIT WATCH OUT FOR THAT DOG!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}
The panel satirises the common misunderstanding of the concept of percentage. Quoting a percentage figure, without mentioning the base which this ratio acts on is meaningless (outside of arithmetic for arithmetic's sake). Most everyday communication however, succumbs to such incompleteness. In the aftermath of this ambiguity, people tend to conflate relative and absolute changes.

If the probability of a shark attack at the North beach is 0.000001 (one in a million), then the probability of shark attack at the South beach is still 0.0000012 (1.2 in a million). The difference between these values is not enough to normally justify choosing one beach over the other. [[Cueball]] parodies the concern by noting that by going a third time their chance of attack by dogs with handguns increases by 50%. If the chance of the dog attack is 0.000000001 (one in a billion) on each visit to the beach, then in after two visits the chance of attack is is about 0.000000002 whereas after three visits it becomes 0.000000003.

But this is also just a common misunderstanding on statistics, while they had no attacks at the first two visits the risk on this single trip is also only 0.000000001. The third visit doesn't increase the risk at this trip.

[[Beret Guy]] further misunderstands probability by believing that - since they haven't been attacked in their first two trips, the chance of attack by dogs with handguns is much higher on their third outing.

The title text discusses the argument that, if a tiny risk increased by 50% is still tiny, then since any probability can be reached by repeatedly increasing by 50%, then any probability is "tiny". [[Randall]] is about to debate this when he is apparently attacked by a dog.

==Transcript==
:Ponytail: We should go to the north beach. Someone said the south beach has a 20% higher risk of shark attacks.
:Cueball: Yeah, but statistically, taking three beach trips instead of two increases our odds of getting shot by a swimming dog carrying a handgun in its mouth by '''''50%!'''''
:Beret Guy: Oh no! This is our third trip!
:[Reminder: A 50% increase in a tiny risk is ''still tiny''.]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Friday comics]]
[[Category:Comics from August]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Math]]

Talk:946: Family Decals

2013-08-14T20:53:22Z

Theo:

So I can get sacks of money if I sell my children? I need to find a girl who's willing to have loads of kids, fast. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|purple|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the title text is referencing?[[Special:Contributions/108.101.176.132|108.101.176.132]] 19:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
:I don't know, so I did mark it as incomplete. Furthermore I'm sure there must be a pun on that adult pictures, it's much more common to show only the children (often with names) on it.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
::I checked the forum, and could not find a convincing argument either. The theory that in my eyes came closest to an explanation was the attractive power a small kitten can have on little girls. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 15:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually saw a car that had a guy and bags of money! At the time it made me mad, but I guess he's getting the last laugh! [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 20:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:456: Cautionary

2013-08-14T20:46:16Z

Theo:

Isn't 'Talk to your kids about...' from a famous Unilever ad? [[Special:Contributions/101.174.52.183|101.174.52.183]] 09:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this Megan? Her hair seems awfully curly and it says she's his cousin. Is there an official transcript? [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 20:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

176: Before Sunrise

2013-08-14T17:25:30Z

Theo: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 176
| date = October 27, 2006
| title = Before Sunrise
| image = before sunrise.png
| titletext = It's an amazing time of day; the light is great for photography.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}
This is another example of Randall's propensity towards "your mom" jokes. The second panel contains an eloquent prosaic description of an idyllic sunrise over an unfamiliar landscape analogizing the uncertainty and excitement of the life that lies ahead. This is designed to put the reader off-guard for the "your mom" stinger in the third panel.

[[Cueball]] wants to settle down on his own, but every time when he tries, he still ends up at the reader's Mom's.

At the title text he just ignores this problem he has, stating that he did get great photos of the reader's Mom at sunrise.

==Transcript==
:Cueball: Every morning for a week now I've gone out driving before sunrise.
:I wanted to get lost in the dark, park my car, listen to music, and sip from a warm drink as dawn broke around me, gradually revealing a landscape I'd never before seen. A chain of unique beginnings forcing wonder into the seeds of each day.
:Cueball: But I guess I need more willpower, because each sunrise just found me at your mom's apartment again.

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

1251: Anti-Glass

2013-08-14T13:06:43Z

Theo:

{{comic
| number = 1251
| date = August 14, 2013
| title = Anti-Glass
| image = anti_glass.png
| titletext = 'Why don't you just point it at their eye directly?' 'What is this, 2007?'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}
[[Black Hat]] makes a modification to apparently normal glasses so that they shine a laser light at people using {{w|Google Glass|Google Glasses}}, which will keep them from recording the person with the laser, defeating the purpose of the glasses in the first place and potentially blinding them. By mailing one to the children of every Google executive (presumably owning Google Glasses), he's potentially killing the entire Google Glass project because they'll think the video isn't working. Silicon Valley is a place where many technologically up-to-date people live and Google Glasses will be in abundance.

The "viral marketing campaign" excuse probably refers to how crazy some can get, and he then tries to get them to look into a laser light.

The title text shows the irony between Black Hat's needlessly complicated solution, and his apparent hate of Google Glasses, which are new technology. In addition, he remarks that he wouldn't do something as barbaric and old fashioned as shine a laser in peoples' eyes as this does not live up to his technical expertise.

==Transcript==
:[Two police officers are at Black Hat's door. One is holding a pair of glasses with a suspicious-looking attachment attached to it.]
:Officer 1: Police. Open up. Did you make this glasses attachment?
:Black Hat: Oh, yeah.
:Officers: What's it do?
:Black Hat: It detects when someone near you is wearing Google Glass and shines a laser pointer at their eyepiece.
:Officers: Why??
:Black Hat: The best defense is an indiscriminate offense.
:Officer 2: It seems you've mailed these devices to people across Silicon Valley, including the children of every Google executive.
:Black Hat: Yeah. It's a viral marketing campaign for an upcoming movie.
:Officer 2: What movie?
:Black Hat: Haven't decided yet. Anything good coming out this fall?
:Officer 2: Sir, open the door.
:Black Hat: First stare at the peephole for a sec.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:1251: Anti-Glass

2013-08-14T13:04:42Z

Theo: We know Black Hat. He wants to blind us.

Could someone explain the title text, please? I'm afraid I don't understand the irony mentioned. [[Special:Contributions/115.70.105.180|115.70.105.180]] 11:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And also why 2007? Not like him to pick a random year. Was it something to do with the new laser classification and warning/labeling regulations that went into place that year? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_safety)

I don't think that the explanation needs to include the description of Black Hat. He has his own page. Regarding his desire not to blind people, he's about to shine a laser in the police officers' eyes. He has no problem blinding people. In addition, I don't think the title text is ironic. Black Hat is a hacker. He's always embraced technology. He just embraces it his way.

Talk:545: Neutrality Schmeutrality

2013-08-13T21:06:36Z

Theo:

What if instead of word count, it was determined by letter count. so insert a word with multiple spellings like "colour/color" and people will repeatedly edit and re-edit the word over and over until the servers crashed ? --[[User:ParadoX|ParadoX]] ([[User talk:ParadoX|talk]]) 09:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)ParadoX

I think that the idea is that the edit and re-editing would overload the servers without it being a change to a single word. [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 21:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:545: Neutrality Schmeutrality

2013-08-13T21:06:09Z

Theo:

What if instead of word count, it was determined by letter count. so insert a word with multiple spellings like "colour/color" and people will repeatedly edit and re-edit the word over and over until the servers crashed ? --[[User:ParadoX|ParadoX]] ([[User talk:ParadoX|talk]]) 09:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)ParadoX
I think that the idea is that the edit and re-editing would overload the servers without it being a change to a single word. [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 21:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:451: Impostor

2013-08-13T13:22:33Z

Theo: Created page with "It could be that no one understands the literary criticism, even if they read it. The panel shows a student listening to Cueball. A fun, alternative explanation is that Cueb..."

It could be that no one understands the literary criticism, even if they read it. The panel shows a student listening to Cueball. A fun, alternative explanation is that Cueball has found his real niche! A natural genius in literary criticism! (I know that's not what he's driving at. Stick with my first explanation.)[[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 13:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1053: Ten Thousand

2013-08-12T19:38:47Z

Theo:

Regarding: "This also assumes that 10,000 people learn of something every day from the day they are born." That's not accurate. Whatever the any distribution of "age you learn" is, the average will hold. For example, if everybody learns some particular fact on their 21st birthday, it holds simply becuase there are roughly 10,000 people having their 21st birthday each and every day.

I think it also may be referring, in a tongue-in-cheek manner, to the fact that people who call people idiots because they don't know something, and yet fail to explain it, are creating ignorance to criticise it.

Person A says, "What is x?"

Person B responds, "You're an idiot for not knowing x."

Person B is now responsible for the idiocy he claims Person A to have, thus making Person B the ''real'' idiot. In this comic, he makes this point by refusing to be Person B, while at the same time making subtle references to still having the sadistic glee person B has.[[Special:Contributions/76.29.225.28|76.29.225.28]] 22:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think he's getting the pleasure of seeing the look on Person A's face when Person A learns/sees something incredible! I think it's more of a positive.

Talk:449: Things Fall Apart

2013-08-12T16:39:35Z

Theo:

Aaaand this is up, This is one of my favorite comics of xkcd. [[User:StuckInReality|StuckInReality]] ([[User talk:StuckInReality|talk]]) 07:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
:Please start only pages with a proper explanation.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 14:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
::I do understand, Sir. [[User:StuckInReality|StuckInReality]] ([[User talk:StuckInReality|talk]]) 00:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that there is a bit of "the Cueball doth protest too much" in here. He's fighting Megan's explanations without giving his own.

1250: Old Accounts

2013-08-12T15:20:00Z

Theo:

{{comic
| number = 1250
| date = August 12, 2013
| title = Old Accounts
| image = old accounts.png
| titletext = If you close an account while it's still friends with people, it contributes to database linkage accumulation slowdown, which is a major looming problem for web infrastructure and definitely not a thing I just made up.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}
In this comic, Cueball is very slowly following the described process of removing himself from a social network. Such actions are not necessary on any well-designed web site and actively unfriending people individually could be perceived rude or antisocial.

"Database linkage accumulation slowdown" is in fact a thing that Randall just made up.

==Transcript==
:The internet is filled with derelict accounts aggregating news about friends long forgotten.
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>Click*
: Uhh, is everything OK?
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>Click*
: Dude, what the hell?
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>Click*
:When you find yourself drifting away from a community, remember to clean up after yourself by slowly unfriending everyone, one by one, in the reverse order that you added them.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Social networking]]