Talk:2394: Contiguous 41 States

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

Missing contiguous states: Delaware, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota 172.69.42.92 23:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I knew something was off, but I couldn't pinpoint anything until reading the explanation. That's so weird. 172.69.22.66 07:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I know. This is really well done! I actually came here expecting how the gag was somehow that it was just a regular map. 162.158.75.218 08:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm from Denmark, but played a game when I was a kid where you should name the states just by seeing the contour and location. It was a very early computer with only limited graphics. Like really early! But I could manage to get all 50, and I'm proud that it has stuck, so I could actually find the 7 states my self. And now that I'm thus better at naming states than most Americans ;-) --Kynde (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I did manage to find those 7, but I kept looking for the other two, because 41 is 50 minus 9. I double checked a few times before realizing that the other two were Alaska and Hawaii (*^^*) Erin Anne (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Contiguous has more specific meaning that "share borders" - it means that you can travel (on land in the case of map) from any point to any point, and there would be no breaks and spaces in the territory. --JakubNarebski (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This definition would seem to exclude any states that contain islands, because there would be some point in that state (namely, on the island) from which you could not travel on land to any point in another state. Though I can't prove it, a quick look at Wikipedia seems to confirm that every US state includes at least one island. So, if this is the definition of "contiguous," then NONE of the US states are contiguous with each other... which suggests (via Occam's Razor) that this can't possibly be the actual definition. 172.69.42.124 21:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I know acting like descriptivism is the objectively correct approach to language is all the rage these days, but I don't think you can describe a linguistic event (a word catching on) as "descriptivist" or "prescriptivist", as the page proposed for "conterguous". That's like referring to an economic occurrence as "normative" or "positive". It's not either of those, it just happens. Descriptivism refers to a quality of linguistics itself, not to language; it means, well, describing language. It doesn't stand for organic growth (or the explicit endorsement thereof, which would actually be prescriptive, and there's nothing wrong with that). So I nixed the reference to it; I think the supplied top-down and bottom-up are apt enough to stand on their own for that tangent. 172.68.206.92 12:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I wondered. "Prescriptive" and "descriptive" identify, I reckon, 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' processes, both are required to allow a language to grow while remaining comprehensible to all its speakers, and, at the time, the idea of linking an absurd "rage" with an absurd word seemed too good to pass on. Thanks for the correction. 172.68.129.132 16:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This is like a puzzle with almost fitting pieces, so by carefully removing some states, it results in a fake border, as shown here: https://imgur.com/a/W8RMKMF . 162.158.134.40 15:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. There are borders throughout the map, and a lot of them appear to be messed up, not just that area of the map. Why does this particular vertical line in particular matter to you? Educate me! 162.158.166.207 23:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
This map https://imgur.com/a/rmXWwoF shows where Randall found two interior borders that looked very similar and collapsed them. This is how he was able to do this with only minimal distortion of the shape of states on these red and and blue borders. I think that might be what the previous poster was trying to say. ---Vroo (talk) 06:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Living in Rhode Island, the smallest state, I thought it was humorous that RI was *not* omitted! Guess that would have been too easy... Davidhbrown (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Also those small states around there would be the first place people would look. Only Delaware, maybe one of the lesser mentioned states, is missing. But PA missing is huge. --Kynde (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Randall, you were searching for the word "contagious". 162.158.159.24 10:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Someone should add a "citation needed" to the alaska bordering with canada sentence near the top of the explanation, with a link to comic 2082.\n I have no idea how to do this, so im putting it here. 162.158.78.170 14:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Added --Erin Anne (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The District of Columbia can not become a state without a Constitutional Amendment, which is highly unlikely to happen (since it would require ratification by 3/4 of the states). For this reason, we should remove the "yet" link, despite all of the talk about DC statehood in the news. See also Heritage Foundation: The Constitution and the District of Columbia. Shamino (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The most recent bill worked around that by shrinking the capital down to a few critical buildings and turning the rest of the land into a new state. 162.158.155.228 01:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the district does not have a specific size requirement, so the federal gov't portion around the mall could be preserved and the rest of the territory apply for admission.

WHAT ABOUT TERRITORIES KNOWN AS DOMINIONS????? Cwallenpoole (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Created a map showing missing states https://imgur.com/a/dVMq8BR 162.158.106.180 19:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)