Difference between revisions of "Talk:456: Cautionary"
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
The last paragraph is taking quite a leap. While she has obviously learned over the 3 months, we have no idea if she is actually building her kernel in a critical and meaningful way. Does not fit with actual comic. [[User:Flewk|flewk]] ([[User talk:Flewk|talk]]) 19:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC) | The last paragraph is taking quite a leap. While she has obviously learned over the 3 months, we have no idea if she is actually building her kernel in a critical and meaningful way. Does not fit with actual comic. [[User:Flewk|flewk]] ([[User talk:Flewk|talk]]) 19:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | The part where it says man pages use simple unambiguous language made me laugh[[User:Thaledison|Thaledison]] ([[User talk:Thaledison|talk]]) 17:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC) | ||
+ | : It's called mansplaining for a reason... {{unsigned ip|172.68.59.186}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | Shouldn't it be explained outright that Randall is Cueball (since title text confirms it's a true story)? {{unsigned}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | The [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=456:_Cautionary&oldid=226935 "There's no learning curve..." edit" is not quite right. Though all Man Pages should be accessible, do you remember the first time you came across something like: | ||
+ | URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] | ||
+ | hier-part = "//" authority path-abempty / path-absolute / path-rootless / path-empty | ||
+ | ...and wondered what it meant, or how to parse it? Some of the Man Pages out there are even more technically-inclined, presupposing prior knowledge (or where to go to get it), which may not be their intended philosophy but is nonetheless a fact. Not changing anything, but pointing this out. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.20|141.101.99.20]] 13:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 13:22, 12 February 2022
Isn't 'Talk to your kids about...' from a famous Unilever ad? 101.174.52.183 09:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Is this Megan? Her hair seems awfully curly and it says she's his cousin. Is there an official transcript? Theo (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Official transcripts, if they do exist, do not contain names in general. These names are just an invention by some communities like this wiki. So, if you have a better stick figure which would match her, talk about this.--Dgbrt (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- She is clearly not Megan. I propose to call her cousin. Xhfz (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- There exists an official transcript for each comic, available to see in the page's source code. According to a comment in 1037:_Umwelt, Randall does apparently not type those, but is seemingly done by Davean, his friend maintaining the server. (Note: this is just a guess) Vgr (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that this is Megan either. I propose to call her Alice, though, in reference to cryptography. Official.xian (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think we're all forgetting something very important here: It's a true story, therefore she has a real name. If we really wanted her correct name, we'd be pestering Randall for it. Anonymous 23:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- And since it's a true story Cueball here's probably meant to be Randall himself. Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- And the hair not reminiscent of Megan.173.245.55.25 17:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Then why has nobody fixed it to say Cousin instead of Megan?... 173.245.54.166 19:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- And the hair not reminiscent of Megan.173.245.55.25 17:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- And since it's a true story Cueball here's probably meant to be Randall himself. Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think we're all forgetting something very important here: It's a true story, therefore she has a real name. If we really wanted her correct name, we'd be pestering Randall for it. Anonymous 23:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The last paragraph is taking quite a leap. While she has obviously learned over the 3 months, we have no idea if she is actually building her kernel in a critical and meaningful way. Does not fit with actual comic. flewk (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The part where it says man pages use simple unambiguous language made me laughThaledison (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's called mansplaining for a reason... 172.68.59.186 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Shouldn't it be explained outright that Randall is Cueball (since title text confirms it's a true story)? -- [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]]) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
The [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=456:_Cautionary&oldid=226935 "There's no learning curve..." edit" is not quite right. Though all Man Pages should be accessible, do you remember the first time you came across something like:
URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] hier-part = "//" authority path-abempty / path-absolute / path-rootless / path-empty
...and wondered what it meant, or how to parse it? Some of the Man Pages out there are even more technically-inclined, presupposing prior knowledge (or where to go to get it), which may not be their intended philosophy but is nonetheless a fact. Not changing anything, but pointing this out. 141.101.99.20 13:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)