Talk:1952: Backpack Decisions

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 21:39, 7 February 2018 by 162.158.88.236 (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

Great, now I can't decide how to write the transcript 108.162.216.40 15:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

And I now want a new backpack. I'm fine with the one I have, but *I want a new one dammit!* But I can't decide which one Jdluk (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The knapsack optimization problem is famous for being NP-hard (Knapsack problem). Seems to be an allusion to it. Sebastian --162.158.91.191 15:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope, see below. The knapsack problem is about optimizing the amount of stuff put into something, while Cueball goes through a buying decision process. 162.158.114.100 17:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This comic is an illustration of the law of triviality aka the bike-shed effect. 162.158.114.100 17:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe the bike-shed effect is related, since that would imply that he is focusing on unimportant issues instead of important ones. In this case, the problem is trying to satisfy a number of important needs that are not fully met by any one backpack, forcing him to decide which can be left unsatisfied by any particular backpack. Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. I had the comparison chart in mind and incorrectly connected the dots here. The correct description of the situation is of course analysis paralysis. Snap decisions apparently aren't infallible, either. :P 162.158.114.100 19:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The description completely identifies the author with his figure. Mixes them up. That's very bad form and impolite. --162.158.88.236 21:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)