Talk:2235: Group Chat Rules

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 08:21, 30 November 2019 by (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

5884 × 9286 pixel image??

When I open this page (, in case there's any confusion), I get an enormous image that bleeds far past the right and bottom of the page. Turns out that the image is 5884 × 9286 pixels. Has this been seen before? -- Dtgriscom (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Randall must have uploaded the wrong image size. I assume he'll fix the comic shortly. 19:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

11) I don't care if any generalised 'group chat' software does newest-first or oldest-first as default (and if you can resort to the other order, most-upticked, or whatever) but if it allows inclusion of prior comments, please DO NOT ENCOURAGE TOP-POSTING, particularly when reply-pyramids can carelessly form with recless abandon, and often beyond the "this post is too long, click here to expand" point you often get. - Honestly, I just think a dose of more widespread peer-directed Usenet Netiquette (pre-Eternal September, definitely pre-Outlook Express) could do a lot of people good as well. Randomly split people up into 1990-ish sized cohorts for a 'training period' of socialisation until they can safely 'graduate' to the globally undelineated cohort. 20:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok boomer, I'll be off your lawn in a moment. In the mean time I think there's a cloud up there which can't hear you. 20:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Anyone got any ideas about (4)? The only group chat I know of which constantly changes their group names to different random nonsense is the Chapo Trap House Discord. 20:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This might just be something that he has experienced personally. All of the large group chats of which I've been a member have exhibited this behavior. In fact, I thought it was pretty weird that no one on here had heard of this before. I related to it immediately. Moosenonny10 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
If there is a public example please add it. 23:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone think that (10) means that all of the rules were sent as separate messages and the last one's just an apology for doing that? 22:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Good call. 22:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The initial explanation for 8 doesn’t seem right - the given examples of email notifications and source code commits are by definition not “junk that nobody asked for” (since such integrations require intentional setup) and are “algorithmically generated” only in a strictly literal sense. To me this is clearly a reference to social media platforms. 08:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)