https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=173.245.48.113&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T05:42:56ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=933:_Tattoo&diff=95848933: Tattoo2015-06-17T19:06:53Z<p>173.245.48.113: /* Explanation */ bicep is a word. English is not Latin</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 933<br />
| date = August 3, 2011<br />
| title = Tattoo<br />
| image = tattoo.png<br />
| titletext = I calculate that the electrons in radiation therapy hit you at 99.8% of the speed of light, and the beam used in a 90-second gamma ray therapy session could, if fired with less precision, kill a horse (they did not let me test this).<br />
}}<br />
==Explanation==<br />
An {{w|Oncologist}} is a doctor who specializes in the treatment of {{w|cancer}}. This comic is certainly related to the {{w|breast cancer}} issue that [[Randall]] is going through with his fiancé. [[Megan]] in this comic has a {{w|tattoo}} for the alignment lasers of the radiotherapy machine which will fire a beam of radiation with sufficient intensity to kill the cells in the targeted area. A common such machine is a linear accelerator or "Linac" which accelerates electrons to very high speed, these can then either be used to generate high energy Xrays to treat the patient, or the electron beam itself can be used (both are types of radiation). Commonly when radiotherapy is used as part of breast cancer treatment some combination of both is prescribed. In order to allow healthy tissue to recover better, rather than deliver all the radiation in one go, the treatment is delivered a little bit each day over the course of about a month. It is therefore vital that the radiation can be delivered to the correct target area day after day, and this is done by lining up the alignment lasers of the linac with the skin markers - that is Megan's tattoo dots. It may not be considered a "traditional" tattoo (because it says it was done by her Oncologist and not in a tattoo parlor).<br />
<br />
In the last frame, it is mentioned that [[Cueball]] has a barbed wire bicep tattoo, which is common in the US as a tattoo that people get when they want to seem tough, even if they aren't tough already.<br />
<br />
The joke in the comic is that Cueball got this barbed wire tattoo to look tough, but it pales in comparison to the tattoo from (or for) the cancer removal or treatment. This is ironic because people who get barbed wire tattoos believe themselves to be tough. It is kind of funny because Cueball has his whole shirt off just to show a biceps tattoo.<br />
<br />
The title text references gamma ray therapy after describing electron linear accelerator-based treatment systems; however, technically gamma ray therapy only refers to radionuclide (i.e., Cobalt-60) based radiation therapy systems. In regards to a 90-second session killing a horse, typical dose rates of modern radiation therapy systems are of the order of several Gray per minute for the field sizes used, for example, in the treatment of {{w|breast cancer}}. It is feasible that a single 90-second delivery of radiation could deliver over 10 Gy in a single instance to the specific areas of the body that could be fatal, such as neuropathy or radiation induced liver disease.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Megan is in the panel. Megan points at her chest.]<br />
:Megan: I just have one tattoo - it's six dots on my chest, done by my oncologist.<br />
<br />
:Megan: I need them for aligning the laser sights on a flesh-searing relativistic particle cannon,<br />
<br />
:Megan: So it will only kill the parts of me<br />
<br />
:[Dramatic zoom, the panel background is black, with white text.]<br />
:Megan: That are holding me back.<br />
<br />
:[The panel is larger, revealing who they're talking to.]<br />
:Megan: But your barbed wire bicep tattoo is pretty hardcore, too!<br />
:Cueball: No, it's OK. I'll just go put a shirt on.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics with inverted brightness]]<br />
[[Category:Cancer]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]</div>173.245.48.113https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1519:_Venus&diff=949711519: Venus2015-06-06T14:33:27Z<p>173.245.48.113: Remove supposed reference to venus butterfly sexual position; I'm pretty sure this is unrelated and the author was not aware of any such</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1519<br />
| date = May 1, 2015<br />
| title = Venus<br />
| image = venus.png<br />
| titletext = The sudden introduction of Venusian flowers led to an explosive growth of unusual Earth pollinators, which became known as the "butterfly effect."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|This explanation requires some touching up.}}<br />
[[Miss Lenhart]] is teaching a class scientifically incorrect information that opposes the majority of current scientifically acknowledged facts concerning the planet {{w|Venus}}, while using actual scientific terminology incorrectly to support her claims.<br />
<br />
In the first panel, we see Miss Lenhart teaching the history of Venus. Planetary scientists think that Venus may have had surface water billions of years ago, but it all evaporated due to stronger sunlight, and was eventually lost due to ultraviolet dissociation. However, there is no evidence that Venus ever had fields of flowers, or Venusians, or any other form of life.<br />
<br />
In the second panel, {{w|runaway greenhouse effect}} is a play on words. Miss Lenhart uses the term literally and claims the existence of sentient greenhouses actually running away. In reality, the effect caused Venus to develop a thick atmosphere of carbon dioxide, which raised its temperature to 460°C (860°F), hotter than daytime on Mercury. (Perhaps this caused destroyed all evidence of the once magnificent Venusian flower fields?)<br />
<br />
The third panel ties the previous distortion into the very real (but unconnected) {{w|Tulip mania|historic reputation}} of the Netherlands as {{w|Netherlands#Agriculture|flower growers}}, as a further fabrication by Miss Lenhart, suggesting the flower industry was in fact started by the Venusians, travelling to Earth.<br />
<br />
In the final panel we see that she is a month away from retirement and doesn't care about relaying accurate information anymore. She just want to have a laugh at the expense of the naive school children.<br />
<br />
The title text is an incorrect reference to the {{w|butterfly effect}} (a term used in chaos theory describing the way a tiny action can snowball to cause massive distruptuon, a common example being a butterfly flapping its wings in Japan can cause a Tornado in the U.S.), which of course has nothing to do with the fact that {{w|Butterfly|butterflies}} (referred to as "unusual Earth pollinators") help to pollinate flowers on Earth. This is a continuation of Miss Lenhart's false explanations of science and history.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Miss Lenhart is standing in front of an image, presumably a temperate Venus, with greenhouses, grass, flowers and a river flowing into a sea.]<br />
:Miss Lenhart: Venus once was temperate. It had seas and rivers, and Venusians cultivated vast fields of beautiful flowers.<br />
<br />
:[The image is now zoomed out to see the entirety of Venus, with continents and oceans. The greenhouses are shown fleeing ("running") away from Venus.]<br />
:Miss Lenhart: Until their greenhouses fled the planet due to the runaway greenhouse effect.<br />
<br />
:[Miss Lenhart is now standing in front of a classroom and addressing the students, we see one of these a girl with her hair in a bun, sitting at a desk.]<br />
:Miss Lenhart: The Venusians pursued their greenhouses to Earth, settling in the Netherlands and kickstarting the Dutch floral industry. Any questions?<br />
<br />
:Offscreen (Presumably Hair Bun Girl): Because you're retiring in a month, do you just not care what you say anymore?<br />
:Miss Lenhart: ''What?!'' I '''''ride the skies''''' atop a screaming bird of truth! Also, yes, I do not.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*It is not directly mentioned that it is Miss Lenhart teaching, but her looks and profession fits this character well enough to make this deduction.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]<br />
[[Category:Space]]<br />
[[Category:Puns]]</div>173.245.48.113https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:928:_Mimic_Octopus&diff=70771Talk:928: Mimic Octopus2014-07-02T22:55:51Z<p>173.245.48.113: </p>
<hr />
<div>How does the mimic octopus manage to mimic multiple fish? Does it split it's own body up or something? '''[[User:Davidy22|<span title="I want you."><u><font color="purple" size="2px">David</font><font color="green" size="3px">y</font></u><sup><font color="indigo" size="1px">22</font></sup></span>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 13:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"When under attack, some octopuses can perform arm autotomy, in a similar manner to the way skinks and other lizards detach their tails. The crawling arm serves as a distraction to would-be predators. Such severed arms remain sensitive to stimuli and move away from unpleasant sensations.[23]"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus#Defense]<br />
<br />
For the record, octopus is from the Greek ὀκτάπους, a compound of ὀκτά (eight) and πούς (foot); πούς is a third declension masculine noun, whose plural is πόδες. Therefore, the etymologically correct plural of octopus should be octopodes, not (as Orson Scott Card suggests) octopoda, since πούς is not a neuter.<br />
:Actually, it would be "octopuses", as it showed up ''after'' the regularization of English plurals to a final -s. As the video in the explanation explains, someone in the Victorian Grammarian Era "realized" it was "Latin" and pluralized it as such. This caught on and still haunts us to this day. "Octopdes" was coined around the same time by a more observant someone, who realized it was actually Greek. Personally, I avoid the whole trichotomy by saying "octopods". Unrelated etymologically, but has the same meaning and is unequivocally regular. Anonymous 08:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)</div>173.245.48.113https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1386:_People_are_Stupid&diff=70466Talk:1386: People are Stupid2014-06-27T08:01:57Z<p>173.245.48.113: </p>
<hr />
<div>On average yes, an individual is of average intelligence. But taken as a population of a whole, well, that's a different story entirely. Randall needs a vacation, ever since he jumped the shark with the dead baby it just feels like the downward trend is getting steeper. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.135|108.162.210.135]] 13:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I don't really think that he jumped the shark. I don't quite get what you are trying to say, and individual can't be of average intelligence. You must first define the average, if we take the mean intelligence of the whole population, then take a person from the sample, then we say that the individual is of average intelligence. You can't say people is stupid while referring to the whole population, because of the definition of stupid, if we take a sample of low IQ people then those people are going to be of average intelligence within the sample, the same goes to the whole population. So this comic is perfectly valid. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.192|108.162.212.192]] 04:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Isn't that a reference to the Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.119|103.22.200.119]] 04:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)krayZpaving<br />
<br />
White Hat being burned? This certainly will not end here.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.102.208|141.101.102.208]] 04:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''''Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.''''' This wiki is founded on the very principle that people are stupid. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.223.29|108.162.223.29]] 05:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: You make an intelligent point, which I both appreciate and like. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.50|108.162.222.50]] 13:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Awww, it's just a joke, it's not personal or anything! '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|#707|David}}<font color=#070 size=3>y</font></u><font color=#508 size=4>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 13:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This comment is one that makes me scratch my head and wonder... surely Randall is able to see that intelligence is not a relative but rather an absolute thing (if one were to kill the 10% most intelligent people the rest wouldn't get dumber, nor smarter). Surely intelligence is not to be measured in units of the common denominator. Surely it is obvious that 2nd panel is a pure strawman. Sigh...<br />
Oh and btw an IQ of 100 is the median, not the average. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 09:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: I am wondering if the explanation should not include a mention of the Median/Mean problem because it is entirely possible for a majority of a population to be above or below some mean (average) statistic depending on the distribution. Also stupidity is a standard that is not dependent on either median or mean.[[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 11:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: The IQ of 100 is actually defined to be the median AND the average (and also the mode). It is also defined that the distibution around the IQ of 100 is a perfect bell curve. The IQ just tells you how many people in the world have your IQ (It is also defined that two values that have same distance from hundred, e.g. 80 and 120 have the same amount of people, 'cause it's a perfect bell curve (this means that there are as many people with IQ 120 as people with IQ 80). If the overall population gets more intelligent they have to make the IQ tests harder, so that 100 is again the average and median (This really happened). This and some other things are reasons why I think that IQ tests are BS. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.93.219|141.101.93.219]] 14:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: "A test device with numerous correlates measures an amount of environmental influences beside innate determinants, therefore bullshit"... What are your other objections to I.Q. testing? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.221|141.101.89.221]] 14:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The mocking "award", which is an analogy of saying "intelligence isn't everything" (an EXTREMELY common cliche), reflects the fact that Randall, like just about anyone, is oblivious to the magnitude of the totality of positive correlates of intelligence, and even (TRIGGER WARNING, TABOO CONCEPT AHEAD) I.Q. Intelligence, I.Q., not only makes you happier, it also makes you more helpful to other people, more creative, more socially stable, better-to-do, less susceptible to mental illnesses, more likely to remember events in your life, etc. etc. etc... Basically, there isn't a positive trait or quality of life with which intelligence doesn't correlate. But people positively LOATHE awareness of how highly intelligence, in fact, matters. Hence the vehement denial whenever someone indicates its importance, all the "I know an intelligent person who is miserable/mean/...", all stressing of exceptions, all ridicule of the notion of intelligence in general, all the "don't think about it"-mentality, all writing off of I.Q. as "antiquated, grossly limited, racist, metric" rather than the extremely potent predictor that it is. tl;dr Randall at all, take time to actually STUDY intelligence or the g factor before you mock it like that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 09:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: In other words (and this is going to be my last addendum to this note, because it is a vast subject), whenever people say (or imply, as in the comic's case) that "intelligence isn't everything", the question to ask in return is, "okay, now what is the degree to which intelligence enables, facilitates, contributes to, 'the rest' to which you're opposing intelligence here?". People minimise the depth and breadth of the intellectual substrate of achievement. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 09:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Also, Randall (and everyone saying that) is being highly unjust in equating "people aren't smart" with "people aren't as smart as me". A perfectly valid alternative sense is, "people aren't as smart as to be rationally expected to contribute to rather than damage the discussion/situation/position at hand"--having the objective good, the objective recognition that certain situations (for instance, a certain online conversation which is expected to be competent) require certain minimal intellectual thresholds (for instance, an I.Q. of 120), in mind rather than egotic comparison. Lower intelligence, deny it all you please, comes with temperamental problems for instance. Selection for intelligence will largely filter them out. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 09:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
:: tl;dr of my entire production here: people must learn that BOTH situations of the Dunning-Kruger are equally harmful, the one that's less often considered perhaps actually even more so. Mistaken self-perception as intelligent is bad for the individual, but refusal to acknowledge the importance of one's own cognitive capacity (which is as good as universal in intelligent people--"I am not that smart" (who hasn't heard that one innumerable times?), "I just like doing thing x, my proficiency in it has nothing to do with my intelligence or I.Q.", "I have areas in which I'm 'stupid' too", "effort counts too") has societal consequences, of contributing to erroneous dismissal of the notions of intelligence & I.Q. & g etc. Shutting up for good now. Night. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 10:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: GAHHHHH just one more thing. Consider this: the fact that people dismiss I.Q. is the best indicator of how important a trait it really is. Thing is, people would not feel compelled by modesty to deny its importance had it not been vitally integral to many, many things. We deny what we value, so to give hope to those who lack that thing (to comfort those who lack intelligence). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 10:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::: Hey 141.101.89.211... I wonder if you have something to say, but despite my best efforts, I'm having trouble following everything you're saying - I have a feeling you were a bit emotional (perhaps tired?) when writing that, or you might have had fewer "more things" immediately following "I'm done" statements. If you're up for it, I'd appreciate you taking the time to make sure you're saying what you want to say, and ''then'' say it, because you seem to at least have good grammar (though there ''were'' a few British spellings... :-D), so I suspect you probably have a good point. It's also conceivable that I'm just not smart enough to get what you're saying (?) or perhaps it's just too ''early'' for me. BTW the best way of making sure I see what you're saying would probably be to let me know on my [[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk page]]... might even have the conversation there if you'd prefer. Thanks for your time. [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 11:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: I don't know why you think that 141.101.89.211... No where does the comic say that. The mocking award is simply mocking people who '''may or may not''' have higher intelligence than the people they're addressing taking a Better Than Thou attitude because they think they do. In other words: "Higher intelligence doesn't give you an excuse to act like a jerk." I'm sure you can agree with that too [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.218|108.162.245.218]] 04:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I would add one "people are stupid" angle not yet mentioned: judging by behavior, most groups of people are less intelligent that any member of that group individually. This is valid even for the "all people" group - just look at the planet. Surprisingly, judging by content of most wikis, the "editors of wiki" groups seems to immune. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Good point--conforming to pressures of one's group or one's position to the detriment of one's judgment is a separate personality trait. The phenomenon is remedied by intelligence, but independent from it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.211|141.101.89.211]] 10:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Beat me to it. I'd like to add that even individual people have their occasional stupid and intelligent moments, with the stupid ones typically being of greater magnitude. Thus, it's not unreasonable to say that the average actions of people are at least slightly less intelligent than the average intelligence of most people on most days. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.83|173.245.55.83]] 12:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Similar to the statement in the film "Men In Black". Agent J says, "Why the big secret [about the aliens among us]? People are smart. They can handle it." Agent K responds, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.45|108.162.221.45]] 01:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I can't believe people say things like that, man, people are stupid [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 10:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thanks for the Lake Wobegon references. Not only is it on-target, but I take personal joy seeing mentions of uniquely Minnesotan culture anywhere I can find them. --BigMal27, Minnesota-born, Minnesotan-raised // [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.88|173.245.55.88]] 11:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Instead of saying, "People are stupid," we would do better to say "People make poor decisions / statements / judgments." And this, for multiple reasons, few of them I suspect tied to basal intelligence. Stage of life, level of health and stress, experience relative to the topic, level of education and the quality of that education, cultural idiotic beliefs that interfere with optimal choices, and a zillion others. Plus, as a large percentage of humans are either just coming online in experience and education, or are winding down in health and mental function, we are guaranteed to see a large percentage of stupid decisions right across the IQ landscape. No help for it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.217|108.162.246.217]] 13:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: I.Q. affects level of health and stress, rate of acquisition of experience, level of education, quality of education obtained, preference of cultural beliefs. It doesn't seem to defy reason that it affects the zillion other factors, too. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.221|141.101.89.221]] 13:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
: Remember, in interaction between psychological and social factors, the question is never of *existence* of a connection, but of its magnitude. It is fine to posit a multitude of environmental factors that determine (ir)rationality, but as long as such position keeps people from connecting I.Q. with those factors' actual occurrence (how much I.Q. does it take to finish a good school? to develop a habit of reading a book every month? this is not at all trivial question, and it needs to be resolved with more than anecdotal evidence of "I know an intelligent illiterate person"), there might be an elephant buried underneath the room which no one knows about. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.221|141.101.89.221]] 13:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I know Cueball's explanation can be construed to illustrate otherwise; but I doubt the comic was meant to be a comment on the relative intelligence of humanity. It seems more likely, to me, that the purpose of the comic was to comment on the stonewalling that the mindset, "I'm better than you," induces. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.35|108.162.216.35]] 15:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The cartoon never mentions I.Q. at all, Just "Average Intelligence", so the Mean/Median discussion is moot. As for the other discussion on this page, I'm just going to quote Blaise Pascal: "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time" [[User:Jim E|Jim E]] ([[User talk:Jim E|talk]]) 16:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
As mentioned above, in other comments that it's hard to find a way to indent from, there's a difference between different 'average's. (To compare "the median" with "the average" is not a good way of doing it, because one needn't know whether you're talking mean or mode in the second sense. I could even say that I have more than the average number of arms, for a human.) The assumption that the median [i]and[/i] mean (and, perhaps, also mode) are a single location at which 100IQ can be placed is dependant upon the bell curve being symmetrical. Just one hyper-intelligent could skew the mean well above the median. (Ok, so we're talking about comic-book "hyper"ness, to make it significant, in a world's worth of population, but the principle still stands for any more manageable population.) And about IQ tests being recalibrated... there is already a common convention that there's a score-adjuster (or a look-up table, based on this) that gives you different IQs for the same number of correct answers but for people of different ages (and sometimes male/female). Which seems to me like "we give up trying to be demographically neutral, let's just find how well different people answer in our test and then work out where their own arbitrary sub-group's bell-curve stradles". That said, I like IQ tests. I do well in them, and have fun doing them, even if I don't actually believe in them any more than I believe in Sudoku puzzles! And, sorry, I ended up typing far more than I had intended... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.193|141.101.99.193]] 16:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I see a lot of discussion on intelligence, but nothing on "losing faith in humanity". The way I see it everywhere is not in response to stupid people, but to acts of inhumanity. Random acts of violence and hate, for example. Or not random, but large scale. "Restored my faith in humanity" comments often refer to the opposite (in my experience) which involve random acts of kindness, or large-scale altruism. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 08:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What about people using Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp and any other "social network web 2.0" thing? They certainly aren't an individual or small group, they are stupid and I've lost my faith in them. :) {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.166}}<br />
<br />
There are distributions where majority of the population would indeed be below average. Luckily for humanity, intelligence is on a bell curve! I am happy beyond words that this is the case. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.31}}<br />
<br />
This has to be one of the most entertaining boring conversations I've ever come across! Brilliant! (Or not.) [[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 14:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think when someone says "people are stupid", they actually usually mean something like "people systematically make mistakes that I feel are readily avoidable", rather than making an actual judgement regarding general intelligence. So this comic feels rather off to me. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.113|173.245.48.113]] 08:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)</div>173.245.48.113