Difference between revisions of "1650: Baby"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Transcript)
(Transcript)
Line 11: Line 11:
  
 
==Transcript==
 
==Transcript==
 +
 +
[Cueball (#1) facing Cueball (#2) and Megan; All three are standing, and Cueball #2 is holding a baby wrapped in a blanket.]
  
 
Cueball #1's thoughts: <s>(Wow, it's getting so big! Unlike most babies, which stay the same size forever.
 
Cueball #1's thoughts: <s>(Wow, it's getting so big! Unlike most babies, which stay the same size forever.

Revision as of 08:16, 2 March 2016

Baby
Does it get taller first and then widen, or does it reach full width before getting taller, or alternate, or what?
Title text: Does it get taller first and then widen, or does it reach full width before getting taller, or alternate, or what?

Explanation

Ambox notice.png This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page.
If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

Transcript

[Cueball (#1) facing Cueball (#2) and Megan; All three are standing, and Cueball #2 is holding a baby wrapped in a blanket.]

Cueball #1's thoughts: (Wow, it's getting so big! Unlike most babies, which stay the same size forever.

Hi! I'm talking to a baby!

What brand is it?

Wow, definitely much smaller than a regular person!

You sure did make that.

★★★★☆ great baby

It doesn't really look like you since you're not a baby.

So, did they learn words one at a time alphabetically or can you pick the order or what?

I hope it does a good job.)

Cueball #1: Wow, that's a really cool baby!

Cueball #1's thoughts: (dammit.)


comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!

Discussion

In second sentence, it says bobble instead of bubble. 162.158.252.233 10:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed it. This referred to the transcript which was the only part of the explanation at that time. You could also just have done it yourself, even faster than writing here. It is a wiki, and correcting spelling errors in explanations is always appreciated. Not everyone who writes here is a native English speaker (I'm not, and I know I make several mistakes.) Hopefully the explanations make up for this, and others will fix the bad spelling/grammar. ;-) --Kynde (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"Good job getting it outside" ... Talking to people about their baby is basically something like talking with collector about his hobby you don't share. Well ... at least they can't show you two things looking exactly same and talk about how they differ. Unless they have twins. -- Hkmaly (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

the pressures of a new baby are such that it's very tempting just to stay inside and deal with them. having to gather up all the stuff you think is essential to take them outside and then actually do it is absolutely a big deal. if you see people with a newborn, congratulate them, they'll appreciate it. --162.158.153.29 13:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I meant outside of Megan. Which, while certainly something worth congratulating (despite Megan not really having so much choice), is usually not said directly, so it would match other "weird" responses. -- Hkmaly (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Say something creepy, maybe they'll keep the baby away from you... Seipas (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Small talk category

How about introducing a category "Small talk"? Containing e.g., 222, 1640 (I didn't do an exhaustive search) --198.41.242.240 12:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Could be interesting. Would that then also include all those where two people walk together, or should it specifically be when it is a subject like the weather he cannot find out to discuss like people expect? (There is also one like that with the weather... 1324: Weather ) But it is difficult to search for this I think? If anyone care to list anyone they can think of here it would be interesting. --Kynde (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I would find that appealing. The focus should be the socially awkward smalltalk, like just lately 1643 --TheHolgi (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
That is three in less than a month. I have included this in the explanation. If there are enough of these for a category, we could link to that instead of individual comics. But I think for this a little sketchy category, there should be some more than five... Maybe if we can find ten it would be relevant? --Kynde (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Would this new one 1652: Conditionals also belong in this category and if so what about this 1576: I Could Care Less --Kynde (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)



In answer to the question posed in the title text, you can't generalise about children. but it's mostly true that they alternate between putting on weight and using that weight to get taller. so they'll get chubbier and chubbier and then suddenly lose the weight and get tall and thin. or, if they don't eat, they stay small. or, if you feed them sugary crap, they stay fat. but not necessarily. each one is different. --162.158.153.29 13:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Have included almost a copy of the above in the table. Thanks. Fell free to add it yourself ;-) --Kynde (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

In an earlier comic RM outright trashed the idea of humans reproducing. I'll link to it if I can find it. As a father of two I was outraged, but I was over it until the comic today raised his prejudice against parents again. Today he's oblique, but still reprehensible. tbc (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Could it be some of these? 441: Babies, 583: CNR or 674: Natural Parenting ;-) --Kynde (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
How on Earth is this "raising his prejudice against parents"? He's basically admitting his own incompetence in dealing with a somewhat common social interaction, not attacking parents. Even in his other comics involving babies, it's far more likely he's making jokes about the incompetence or malice of the individual characters, not a general comment on parents. I am curious which comic you've interpreted as "outright trashing the idea of humans reproducing", especially since 387: Advanced Technology implies he finds it fascinating. -Pennpenn 108.162.250.162 00:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's a newborn baby, since he refers to it as "getting big". Can someone correct this? --173.245.54.29 15:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you could do it yourself, when you can post here? Anyway I agree so I have changed this. --Kynde (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It would also be socially inept to suggest that the baby looks more like a child of Hairy than Cueball 2, so I won't. (On the other hand, less embarrassing than the possibility of it being Cueball 1's...) 162.158.153.101 16:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Well it would be inept, but since the mother has a lot of hair, it would not be strange for the baby to have that too. Maybe Cueball was not bald as a kid, and generally Cueball is not necessarily a bald guy. But just a generic every man so he could in principle have hair, as well as clothes, facial expression and hands and feet and body... ;-) --Kynde (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

At the end of the comic, where Cueball says "That's a cool baby", and them immediately reprimands himself for saying something dumb- possible reference to the same habit Trunks has in Dragon Ball Z Abridged? --108.162.245.178 20:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

""I can never figure out what to say about babies. "" :

My father in law used to look at babies and to say :" Our babies are much more beautiful" 162.158.90.159 22:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I am so using one of these lines the next time someone shows me a baby. --108.162.216.23 20:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)