1052: Every Major's Terrible

1052: Every Major's Terrible

|< < Prev #1052 (May 7, 2012) Next > >|

Title text: Someday I'll be the first to get a Ph. D in 'Undeclared'.

|< < Prev Random Explanation Next > >|

Explanation

'Undeclared' is sometimes called "General Studies".

Here's a YouTube video of "I Am the Very Model of A Modern Major's General" [1] for those who need to get the tune.

Here's is Tom Lehrer's Elements.[2]

And here is Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious from Mary Poppins.

In panel 4, Methyl acetate is the solvent used to remove stamps from their envelope.

In panel 8, underwater basket weaving is a commonly used metaphor for any college major that is easy or worthless.

In panel 25, supermoon and zodiac are terms invented not by astronomers, but rather by early astrologists.

In panel 26, agronomy is the science of using plants as food or fuel, while the unrelated agoraphobia is the fear of wide open spaces.

And Sophie's Choice is any dilemma where choosing one cherished person or thing over the other will result in the death or destruction of the other, derived from the theme of the novel, and has also been turned into a romantic drama film.

  Add comment        Create topic (use sparingly)       Refresh 

Discussion

The video link 404's - here is a working archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20190610190844/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhaEjgnmy3c --172.68.174.82 17:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think Iambic Octameter has a stressed-unstressed pattern, not the other way around as this explanation says. 172.68.34.4 02:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

No, the explanation is correct, I misread the Wikipedia article. 172.68.34.4 13:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Panel 1's cueball is in the same pose as Rodin's "The Thinker"

Panel 4 background is the periodic table of elements.

Panel 5, Fowler's Toad emits a noxious secretion that irritates skin and mucous membranes (it was previously thought to cause warts)

Panel 6, Psychology = a serial killer with a chainsaw, Sociology = hobo; Social Psych = hobo serial killer with chainsaw.

Panel 15, LISP, Scheme, and other computer languages with an excess of parentheses.

Panel 16, biohazard symbol

Panel 19, bongos were played by Richard Feynman

Panel 27, fear of snakes, study of reptiles

Panel 28, a picture of a stomach, pun on "stomach" being slang for "tolerate"

Panel 30, words in all lowercase like e.e.cummings

-- 75.103.23.206 22:04, 7 December 2012‎

Hobo serial killer with chainsaw? Social psych sounds awesome!

24.2.217.188 22:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

---

In panel 22 (History), what's the theme connecting the years 1935, 1969, and 1991? Wwoods (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

1935 is certainly related to some event that lead to the WWII (a quick look at the Wikipedia page for 1935 show that was the year Hitler rearmed Germany), which paved the way to the Cold War. 1969 was Apollo 11, a high moment of the Cold War, as the USA essentially won the race to the Moon. And 1991 was the year that the USSR dissolved, officially ending the Cold War. Sir labreck (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

1935, Harlem race riot; 1969, race riot in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; 1991, Rodney King race riots... 2014-2016??? 173.245.54.62 03:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Although the race riot dates match, I think war related is more likely. 1935 (WWII), 1969 (Vietnam), 1991 (Gulf War) I'm not sure what the common thread is, though, and 'war' is too broad 172.69.250.4 20:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

WWII began in 1939. The Vietnam War was 1955-1975 and Gulf War is ambiguous. Just sayin... --Dgbrt (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

28 March 1935: Near Roswell, New Mexico, Robert H. Goddard successfully launched the first gyroscopically-stabilized liquid-fueled rocket. 1969, Apollo 11. 1991, ?. The only somewhat significant events I could find are the 5th Spacelab mission and the launch of the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory. Also, 1991 was the first year with less than 100 orbital launches since 1962. Chrullrich (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

---

This explanation is very small for that big comic. I am starting to add the transcript and after that I will do more investigations to that opera. This should be the key to explain all the panels.--Dgbrt (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The answer won't lie in the song, trust me. Pirates of Penzance is probably my favorite comic opera out there. Plus Randall gives that the lie in saying you can use the tune from the elements song (a well-known parody) or even Marry Poppins (similar tune, but not exactly the same). I think each panel is just a reference to the words, I don't think that Randall is actually involving The Pirates of Penzance in any way other than the tune. 173.245.52.211 20:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Feynman was also known for being a ladies' man, so the two girls in panel 19 are significant IMHO. --141.101.80.117 13:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Needs explanation what does it mean to choose a major, and what major is in this context. Note every reader is from U.S.A.; different countries have different higher education systems. --JakubNarebski (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

True that. 'Graduation' in Brazil means 'Undergraduation' in the US. 108.162.254.105 03:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

---

"Math's just physics unconstrained by precepts of reality" - that isn't a binary tree, its a bifurcation diagram from chaos theory. And, sorry, it has nothing to do with the Banach–Tarski paradox - that's just mindless name-dropping. Davidbak (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure it is not just an illustration of Banach-Tarski, arguably the most famous example where mathematical reality and (physical) intuition diverge? Why would the verse be illustrated by a bifurcation diagram (which I think, and I might be a bit ignorant here, is a concept pretty much only found in the "applied side" of mathematics, which is constrained by precepts of reality)? And even if it were a bifurcation diagram, why would the mass of the balls change? (again, I am perhaps showcasing my ignorance; if so, please be gentle) Finally, i would deem the bifurcation explanation a bit too obscure to be the real deal - a panel which is only understood by somewhat specialized mathematicians seems strange to me, especially given that all other frames contain understandable references. 108.162.229.183 13:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRexBMPeRToHalfhat (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That is distinctly a bifurcation diagram. Banach Tarski doesn't factor into this at all. Disagree-P 15:39, 20 Nov, 2020

Panel 30: possibly iambic septameter141.101.104.154

--- I think that the reason for not getting hugs in panel 16 is more to do with the fact that as a virus researcher you would be aware of how easy it is to get a virus/disease and so you would keep away from people and be worried about hugs because of that. (Sorry if I've done something wrong this is my first comment!) Yxquillio (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Another song I guess could provide a good match is "Can You Stop the Calvary?" by Jona Lewie (or "Where's the Modding API" if you're a YOGSCAST fan like me. :)) --JayRulesXKCD (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

"End of the first verse where Cueball tells his academic advisor that he is undecided as every major's terrible. He even throws away his study guide." Are you sure it's not a course catalog? 108.162.212.59 10:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I should add that Pratchett used that quote to prove that geography was not a boring science, as it is physics, which is exciting, with some trees on it. Just a thought.MrBookBoy (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, the cs parens are missing a close paren. Like literally. Lol. Sarah the Pie(yes, the food) (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

---

It should be noted that in panel 35, they're referring to "Sophie's Choice." A movie in which the protagonist has to decide which of her two children to save, and which one to kill. --108.162.245.245 16:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Is "Undecided" related to the alignment chart? 172.71.154.228 22:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Panel 31. While epidemiology may well involve the study of causes and trends and whatnot, so does history. Epidemiology is the study of diseases.

The thing for panel 14 is wrong. You can't use that argument to argue for the existence of a greatest possible vacuum cleaner or greatest possible pizza because those things imply limitations like limited size, limited age, able to be broken (for the pizza), etc. If it didn't have these or any limitations it wouldn't be a vacuum cleaner/pizza; it would just be God. "basically, if your pizza gets infinitely great it will turn into God" - Redeemed Zoomer 172.70.211.130 03:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Someone attempted to succinctly describe Guanilo's "On Behalf of the Fool" but I don't think it's possible to make it short enough for this page. I'm just going to edit it down to 'Anselm's argument doesn't work' and let anyone curious click the link.172.68.35.118 05:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, wild thing I learned recently: There's a Sullivan Appreciation Society, and there's a Gilbert and Sullivan Appreciation Society, and they have beef with each other.172.68.35.118 05:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

---

“Economists often claim that economics is a science like any other; however, as the predictive powers of all economic theories are exceedingly weak compared to those of any science, this is disputed by those outside the field at times.”

That is accidentally hilariously ignorant even to a layman with only a passing interest in economics, like me. Have you ever compared ‘the predictive powers of all economic theories’ with those of psychology and sociology? Moreover, within a few minutes I can find plenty of examples of economic theories whose ‘predictive powers’ are very clearly NOT ‘exceedingly weak’: from demand curves nearly always slope downwards, through the relation between interest rates and inflation†, to the gravity model of trade.

†Well except for Erdogan, it was not very clear to him. At first he had remained unconvinced that it is a terrible idea to combat inflation by lowering nominal interest rates instead of raising them; this had the expected results.

It is as if I were to claim that meteorology is not a science because meteorologists cannot predict the weather a few months ahead.

Note, I am not writing this to defend economics or something; I am perfectly willing to admit that the field of economics has some problems like it being too easy to get away with poor data and bad methodologies† or a vulnerability to fads. However, that is also the case for the other social sciences; but for some reason, unlike with economics, the internet is not filled with people attacking them with arguments so awful they only prove their ignorance†† about the subject.

†Something of which you can even find many economist complaining about.

††I had even once encountered somebody attacking ‘economists’ who was under the mistaken belief that ‘economists’ in general were Lafferists. However, as real professional economists virtually unanimously agree that Laffers claim that ‘tax cuts pay for themselves (under current US tax rates)’ is complete nonsense (to provide but one example among many: https://kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/tax-reform-2/); that would be as I were to state that ‘NASA believes in geocentrism, look how bad mainstream astronomy is’. 141.101.76.58 19:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

With regards to the title text, it appears that the text and video is linked in a similar style as comic #3081: PhD Timeline. In that comic, the title text that appears by hovering over the comic shows up below while the video that it redirects you once you click it is linked below. What is the discrepancy here then? @Favifake TomtheBuilder (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Huh, you're right. I tried this on my phone because my PC broke, and it seems the link and the title text are... separate? I don't know HTML enough to understand what's happening, but we should check the metadata of the comics. You can check it using the method in the page Transcript. Otherwise I'll look at this later once I get my pc back. --FaviFake (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't quite know what the problem is, but the following appears to be the HTML you 'need' to understand. I've rearranged its whitespace slightly, for comprehension, but it's functionally correct (except that you need to check the source to see the ampersand-encoded apostrophes/single-quotes, rather than them being rendered as their literals).

 <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhaEjgnmy3c">
  <img src="//imgs.xkcd.com/comics/every_majors_terrible.png"
       title="Someday I'll be the first to get a Ph. D in 'Undeclared'."
       alt="Every Major's Terrible"
       style="image-orientation:none"
   />
 </a>

The outer div-tag is just a handy contextual container, included here for reference only. (But apparently taken literally by this site, despite appearing on my initial previews, so it's not jow visible above.)

The inner img is 'fairly' typical of all comics:

• The src= is obviously necessary so it is the image.
• The title= is the source of our 'title text' (possibly, if it didn't exist, it would fall back to using any alt-text, as below, haven't checked very early era xkcds/archives to see if this was ever left to happen).
• The alt= is traditionally for what to display if the image isn't loaded (yet!), perhaps more relevent back in dial-up-internet era, but probably still also useful for pure-text browsers (Lynx) or screen-readers. Maybe might show in the "broken image" spot where the link is broken/rotted so the image isn't found, depending upon browser/settings. Above, it's given the comic name, but maybe it has also been given the 'title-text' as well/instead, at timesm
• The style= is irrelevent to this issue.
• Not shown here (starts to appear in a later era of xkcds) are further parameters configurations that appear to help serve the viewer with the _2x version of the image, instead, if deemed appropriate. May subtly change things I describe below, but not much.

The a href-tagging is not usually present. Sometimes used for link to xkcd's own 'large' version of a comic (e.g. 1000), or an onward/outward link (like here).

Anyway, a desktop browser (going by those I use) tends to provide just the title-text (falling back to the alt-text) as a hover-over tooltip. Whilst the link-onwards associated with anything the mouse is over will appear as a mini-hover-thing over (usually) the bottom-left of the page. Perhaps as legacy from when it used to appear in the lower status-bar, before that bit of permanently used screen real-estate got "reclaimed", as with the stretch of "File | View | ... | Help" menu bar at the top.

Touch-screen devices (phones, tablets, etc) that don't have 'a mouse' to 'hover' seem to defer (on personal experience) to responding only to long-press on an image (and/or link) of interest to popover a monolithic indicator that... does its own thing.

For example, Firefox and Chrome browsers on my Android do it subtly differently, but when I tried switching tabs/browsers to check exactly what it reverted this editing to the last Preview submission, so forgive me if I don't give you the details verbatim.

But they're likely to show title-text (perhaps ellipsesed, if too long), perhaps alt-text (fall-back or in addition), for any image. They also show the link-destination for any link. And then any more active options available (copy image/link locations to clipboard, open image/link in new tab, etc ...as variously applicable).

In at least one of my local browsers, this means I get (without explanation) the title-text and the link-destination given, then the complete set of save-to/open-in options (and others) below that, which might be right-click menu options in a more Windowslike intercace. If it is an image-without-link or a link-only-of-text it would have just the appropriate subset of information/actions.

I forget if the 'comic name' (i.e. alt-text) also notably features, as the popover-window header, in the same browser or in the other one, and I'm probably going to have to rewrite this whole explanation again if I switch over to check.

So, anyway, that's the (rough, probably highly browser-dependent) relationship between the HTML and whatever popover/hover-text you get, if that helps at all. Unlike page-rendering (gradually being standardised through webkit/etc standardisation), the 'off-page' bits of browser UIs are likely still to do things however they see fit, across browsers (Firefox decorate things differently from Chrome, from Edge, etc) and platforms (BrowserX has to do things slightly differently between desktop Windows, desktop iOS, Chromebook, Android, etc), though I'm sure you can also see the commonalities (if only of temporarily convergent UI paradigms) once you experience enough of them.

HTH, HAND. 82.132.245.173 12:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah ok at this point do whatever you all want, I'll avoid messing with this. Thanks for the explaination. --FaviFake (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
        Add comment