Talk:1984: Misinterpretation

“covering your eyes and ears and yelling logically correct statements into the void” — isn’t this the definition of Twitter? 108.162.237.214 15:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Alas, no... Twitter doesn't have any requirement for logical correctness. 172.68.189.229 18:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Which is why the US president manages to use it so successfully... ;-) --Kynde (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Alas and alack .. Twitter is not connected to the void either.162.158.74.213 01:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

WOW, I am just about literally Cueball here, like I wonder if Randall has been stalking me, LOL! But I have to disagree with this off-panel person. All we can do is word things as clearly as possible. As it is, it seems like this desire to be understood leads to my writing large blocks of text to clearly, explicitly state things (which ends up making it worse from another direction, because then people get too lazy to read everything, so they STILL misunderstand.... Maybe you should have just paid attention in the first place, when I wrote less). :) NiceGuy1 (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

In modern media it's also easy to write something which 90% people understand and still get thousands people who didn't (being in those remaining 10%). Yet, if 90% of people understand, it was quite clear, wasn't it? -- Hkmaly (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the timing of this comic is a coincidence in light of the recent media attention to "terms and conditions" language being used by companies with an online presence, e.g. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-20/uber-paypal-face-reckoning-over-opaque-terms-and-conditions

172.68.141.28 04:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Does Cueball fail at communicating? Or does writing as a medium that lacks the subtle facial expressions and tone that talking has mean that a spoken sentence and that same sentence written out can be interpreted differently even by the same person? Ahem, Poe's law. 172.68.253.59 15:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I must say, I expected something else for 1984. 141.101.88.148

AFAIK, AFAIR, ISTM, IANAL but I reserve the right to be wrong... However, YMMV ;-) RIIW - Ponder it (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This one seems to have hit a sore spot among the kinds of people who comment on explainXKCD. Note that Cueball said “everyone” — if just about “everyone” misinterprets what I’ve said even when I'm being as clear as I know how, then yes, I am bad at communicating. Maybe that means I need to get better at writing so that I can refine my definition of “as clear as possible.” And don’t blame it on the ancient art of writing - more variables means more room for error as well, not to mention the opportunity to reflect and edit that is present when writing. Template:unsigned IP

Are you referring to any comments here above,because I cannot find anything relating to what you say about commentators here on xkcd... --Kynde (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

ID 1984

Am I the only one who is surprised that this comic has nothing to do with the novel 1984, given that there were already several jokes in regard to the comic id (e.g. comic 404)? Template:unsigned IP

No there was another above you, but here are so many meanings to all possible numbers and I have long stopped expecting Randall to do anything out of this. He did it with 1000, which is a milestone (but then not at 1024), and yes she did the April fool 404, but that was because it made sense. So I did not expect him to do anything and also do not expect anything special with regards to #2018 falling in this year. --Kynde (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)