Talk:2235: Group Chat Rules
5884 × 9286 pixel image??
When I open this page (https://xkcd.com/2235, in case there's any confusion), I get an enormous image that bleeds far past the right and bottom of the page. Turns out that the image is 5884 × 9286 pixels. Has this been seen before? -- Dtgriscom (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like Randall must have uploaded the wrong image size. I assume he'll fix the comic shortly. 220.127.116.11 19:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
11) I don't care if any generalised 'group chat' software does newest-first or oldest-first as default (and if you can resort to the other order, most-upticked, or whatever) but if it allows inclusion of prior comments, please DO NOT ENCOURAGE TOP-POSTING, particularly when reply-pyramids can carelessly form with recless abandon, and often beyond the "this post is too long, click here to expand" point you often get. - Honestly, I just think a dose of more widespread peer-directed Usenet Netiquette (pre-Eternal September, definitely pre-Outlook Express) could do a lot of people good as well. Randomly split people up into 1990-ish sized cohorts for a 'training period' of socialisation until they can safely 'graduate' to the globally undelineated cohort. 18.104.22.168 20:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ok boomer, I'll be off your lawn in a moment. In the mean time I think there's a cloud up there which can't hear you. 22.214.171.124 20:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Hey, as long as IP_ADDRESS started an ancient flamewar (top vs bottom posting), how about using vi vs emacs when editing your chat stream? Also should we have a Designated Hitter or not? Cellocgw (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Eugh, Godwin's Law manifest. Oh, hang on, HitTer? Sorry, as you were.
Anyone got any ideas about (4)? The only group chat I know of which constantly changes their group names to different random nonsense is the Chapo Trap House Discord. 126.96.36.199 20:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- This might just be something that he has experienced personally. All of the large group chats of which I've been a member have exhibited this behavior. In fact, I thought it was pretty weird that no one on here had heard of this before. I related to it immediately. Moosenonny10 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- If there is a public example please add it. 188.8.131.52 23:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
In my experience, constantly changing irrelevant chat names is a behaviour of chats with large numbers of messages and nothing ever being important or relevant - the kind where noone needs a bot because the posters are already spamming enough irrelevant stuff. So for me, it fits well with the rest of the list.
Does anyone think that (10) means that all of the rules were sent as separate messages and the last one's just an apology for doing that? 184.108.40.206 22:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Good call. 220.127.116.11 22:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The initial explanation for 8 doesn’t seem right - the given examples of email notifications and source code commits are by definition not “junk that nobody asked for” (since such integrations require intentional setup) and are “algorithmically generated” only in a strictly literal sense. To me this is clearly a reference to social media platforms. 18.104.22.168 08:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree that it is talking about Facebook/Twitter and the "newsfeed" style random crap you might find interesting 22.214.171.124 12:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Occasionally I can see that my typing indicator has triggered without me actually typing anything, which is disconcerting, as I then feel obliged to type something... --126.96.36.199 10:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I was amused by “Alternatively, a person could be excluded from a chat to hide things from them, such as to plan a surprise for them.” By my estimation, one person is suddenly excluded from a group chat “to plan a surprise for them” approximately .2% of the time. The other 99.8% of the time, it is to gossip about that person. Miamiclay (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I am strongly opposed to the implication that the Ninth Amendment does not reasonably apply to any list of rules. 188.8.131.52 05:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I think number 5 may refer to the TV show commmunity, since in the series, the main characters participated in a "study group", same generic name. 184.108.40.206 15:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Why do we think the title text refers to Kibo? I don't see any evidence supporting that. 220.127.116.11 20:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)