Talk:1358: NRO

Could what if #32 be valid here? https://what-if.xkcd.com/32/ --Mralext20 (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Nah. Spy satellites are usually on geosynced orbits, so they always hover over the same area of the ground, meaning no blur. 108.162.219.56 14:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Spy satellites are not usually in geosynchronous orbits, as this would be much too far away from earth to be of much use, Spy satelites are normally in very low polar orbits to maximize the areas they can spy on. 108.162.216.65 22:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Not only he is using the satellites, he is also using the software - probably something which will highlight recognized target on photo. -- Hkmaly (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I always thought this was a reference to the Governments Facial Recognition software they're working on. Combine that with the NSA's spy satellites and you can locate anyone anywhere. Maybe the NRO is a combination of such organizations and technologies (very very deadly) and they're testing it out using a Where's Waldo book. Not only testing the cameras on the satellite's resolution but the facial recognition software's ability to pick out a specific person in a crowd. Glitch (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The sentence "He usually is quite hard to find, which makes it challenging." is really bothering me. I'm not sure what to do with it. I considered deleting it or shortening it, but none of those feel right. 108.162.237.218 18:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

What was bothering you about it? It was a quick and dirty explanation at the time, so it doesn't matter. Fizzle (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy. "The hard thing is challenging." "The big thing was huge." 108.162.237.218 09:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Would "Government Facial Recognition" work at all via satellite? Wouldn't they do better with Governments Scalp Recognition? 108.162.245.117 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Possible reference to xkcd.com/970? -CyanLights 108.162.238.223 17:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that. 970: The Important Field is about private guns, but this comic is about real military items. --Dgbrt (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

similar to http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3222#comic but SMBC goes much deeper and darker. 173.245.63.174 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

The USA murdering children from the sky is not a fit subject for humour. I find this comic repugnant. -- The Cat Lady (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Well...while there is an NRO Kids section at the NRO's website, no child labor is mentioned in xkcd's official transcript. This estimation is a bit blunt to me, considering that I've found Randall's humor to be fine and precise (I mean...it's why we have explainxkcd)...and it seems rather important to the joke to take these as adult employees of the org, with their expanded adult capabilities. Elvenivle (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Would the description of the NRO's location map to any sort of actual Wheres Waldo image? 72.138.52.174 17:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I presume you're asking if "Left edge, two inches down" is a valid solution to any actual Where's Waldo(/Wally) illustration that Randall has 'cribbed' from, rather than just making up a location out of thin air? (The first few times I read it, I went down a grammatical Garden Path with "location map" as a compound noun, and then the rest of the question didn't make sense!)

Going by the typical size of the books (I found quoted roughly 6"x7.5" or 10"x12", closed book, and I think most scenes are double-page spreads) any given scene has perhaps between 96(-ish) and 240 possible 'inch squares'. ("Left edge" is maybe between the left margin and the 1"-from-left vertical, though it could be 0-0.5", and all non-zero N-inches would be N±0.5"... So adjust your grid-counts accordingly. And you would likely change to a count from the right/bottom for any location not in the top-left quadrant. Possible even counting either side from the central-fold for "more middling" locations. But there'd be roughly the same number of inch-squares.)

Apart from any tendency to have Wally/Waldo/Wenda/Whoever not right at the edge of the page (I don't see why not, it might be the last place you'd look, as much as the first place, if the 'reader' is trying to be methodical ...and probably more likely to be set as the 'solution' than exact dead-centre), that's not so many possible locations that the number of puzzle-book versions multiplied by their puzzle-page counts might never have this particular position represented by at least one page-spread.

I leave it to someone else to count up the possible number of images (to calculate the exact chances), or an actual collector to go through their bookshelves and give the chapter-and-verse (or book-and-page-number) of any actual match(es). I'm only susceptible to a certain degree of nerd-sniping. 82.132.213.24 20:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)