Talk:1741: Work

Whoa, I've never been early enough to beat the explanation before. 173.245.50.82 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

To 173.245.50.82, please remember to sign your posts. --JayRulesXKCD (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I wrote the transcript. Feel free to change it so it's not so bare and write the explanation. Thanks. --JayRulesXKCD (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Done ;-) --Kynde (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

To prevent fire hazards, objects in California are not allowed to surpass a certain temperature, 140 °C if I'm correct . Can't find the actual law quick. 162.158.114.230 18:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think Randall underestimates the problem. I used to work for the research arm of the electronics multinational, Philips. When a product design was "finished", it had to go to a special committee who decided where, exactly, on the product did the word "PHILIPS" and their little shield logo go - and (rarely) whether these things should be done in black or white. It was VERY frequently the case that the committee would take longer to come to a conclusion than the product took to design. SteveBaker (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I often wonder about those tiny, cheap plastic toys that come in Xmas crackers (UK) or the 25 cent toy vending machines (USA). They are completely crappy things - but thinking that someone thought about what kind of toy should be made - then designed the shape of it, thought about the color of plastic to use, spent tens of thousands of dollars machining an injection mold for it - and STILL turned out a complete piece of junk...it's anyone's guess what effort that took. I know it costs around $40,000 to make a mold like that - but those toys look like someone who was being paid very, very little, spent no more than an afternoon designing each one! SteveBaker (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

What a coincidence. I just got out of my Product Development class. I remember having to deal with so many of these things that it's completely relatable. Jeudi Violist (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that curve would be a bitch to draw in AutoCAD. I still shudder... Papayaman1000 (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If anything, I'll bet the timeframes listed are shorter than they really took (only months of tip-over tests? only 9 hours of meetings on the arm?? David Lang 173.245.48.105 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I don't know anything about glass production, but is it true that "what compounds are allowed around the glass during production" matters? It sounds like those martini recipes where one waves a bottle of vermouth towards the glass. Miamiclay (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but if impurities gets into the glass the color or refraction may change or the strength. And if it is a drinking glass there may be any kind of toxic products that may be used in creating window glass etc. that could not be allowed to enter the production. --Kynde (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Randall may, indeed, be annoyed about the cord switch, but there is nothing in the comic or the title text to suggest that. He does, however, have a strong opinion on the "cord switch _firing_ incident". Perhaps that bit of the explanation should be amended? RoyT (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think they say that because he implied in the title text of a previous comic that having the switch on the cord is worse than having your dog possessed by a demon. 108.162.218.136 11:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Both are true. I have corrected the explanation to say that he is upset about the firing. And then by referring to the old comic makes sense of why he might have such a strong op--Kynde (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)inion.

Removed an abusive and trolling "disclaimer" asking us to evaluate our life choices and our support of the comic. Trolling is unwelcome. Enfield (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)