explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2140: Reinvent the Wheel

2019-04-22T23:41:17Z

108.162.215.154: /* Transcript */ add category

{{comic
| number = 2140
| date = April 22, 2019
| title = Reinvent the Wheel
| image = reinvent_the_wheel.png
| titletext = Right now it's a bicycle wheel, so we've had to move to lighter vehicles, but the reduced overhead is worth it. There was one week when a wheel of cheese got dangerously close to the first page, though.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a WHEEL OF CHEESE. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

"{{w|Reinventing the wheel}}" is a metaphor that refers to duplicate effort to recreate something that has already been created or perfected previously without adding any value in the process. The phrase relates to the idea that the round wheel was invented a long time ago, and nobody has come up with a better shape for the wheel since that original concept. While the phrase includes the word "wheel", it isn't typically directly associated with the wheel but instead uses the word "wheel" because of the belief that the round wheel was an ancient invention.

In this comic, Beret Guy works for an automotive company (or this is his [[:Category:Beret Guy's Business|own company]]), and he is explaining to Ponytail their decision to not reinvent the wheel for the automobiles that they produce, using the phrase in a literal sense instead of figuratively. Instead, they use a daily Google image search for "wheel" to determine the highest ranked wheel and simply use that wheel on the vehicles they produce that day.

The point of the comic is to make fun of programmers who take the idea that you should never reinvent the wheel too seriously. When these people have a problem, they may google to find a solution to that problem, and when they find a piece of online code, they use it in their own code, even if it wasn't initially designed to handle the task for which it is being used.


The title text indicates that Beret Guy is currently using bicycle wheels for his vehicles, requiring them to be lighter as bicycle wheels cannot carry a lot of weight. Finally, the narrator (supposedly Beret Guy) explains that at one point a wheel of cheese was near the top of the google images search. If it had reached the top, it would have been disastrous as a wheel of cheese is completely unsuited for use as a vehicle's wheel.

==Transcript==

:[Beret Guy is talking to Ponytail.]
:Beret Guy: We don't want to reinvent the wheel, so every day we Google image search "wheel", and whatever object comes up, that's what we attach to our vehicles.
:Beret Guy: Sure, external dependencies carry risks, but so far they've all been pretty good wheels.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Beret Guy's Business]]

2140: Reinvent the Wheel

2019-04-22T23:40:03Z

108.162.215.154: /* Explanation */ maybe his own weird company

{{comic
| number = 2140
| date = April 22, 2019
| title = Reinvent the Wheel
| image = reinvent_the_wheel.png
| titletext = Right now it's a bicycle wheel, so we've had to move to lighter vehicles, but the reduced overhead is worth it. There was one week when a wheel of cheese got dangerously close to the first page, though.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a WHEEL OF CHEESE. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

"{{w|Reinventing the wheel}}" is a metaphor that refers to duplicate effort to recreate something that has already been created or perfected previously without adding any value in the process. The phrase relates to the idea that the round wheel was invented a long time ago, and nobody has come up with a better shape for the wheel since that original concept. While the phrase includes the word "wheel", it isn't typically directly associated with the wheel but instead uses the word "wheel" because of the belief that the round wheel was an ancient invention.

In this comic, Beret Guy works for an automotive company (or this is his [[:Category:Beret Guy's Business|own company]]), and he is explaining to Ponytail their decision to not reinvent the wheel for the automobiles that they produce, using the phrase in a literal sense instead of figuratively. Instead, they use a daily Google image search for "wheel" to determine the highest ranked wheel and simply use that wheel on the vehicles they produce that day.

The point of the comic is to make fun of programmers who take the idea that you should never reinvent the wheel too seriously. When these people have a problem, they may google to find a solution to that problem, and when they find a piece of online code, they use it in their own code, even if it wasn't initially designed to handle the task for which it is being used.


The title text indicates that Beret Guy is currently using bicycle wheels for his vehicles, requiring them to be lighter as bicycle wheels cannot carry a lot of weight. Finally, the narrator (supposedly Beret Guy) explains that at one point a wheel of cheese was near the top of the google images search. If it had reached the top, it would have been disastrous as a wheel of cheese is completely unsuited for use as a vehicle's wheel.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[Beret Guy is talking to Ponytail.]
:Beret Guy: We don't want to reinvent the wheel, so every day we Google image search "wheel", and whatever object comes up, that's what we attach to our vehicles.
:Beret Guy: Sure, external dependencies carry risks, but so far they've all been pretty good wheels.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]

2140: Reinvent the Wheel

2019-04-22T23:36:03Z

108.162.215.154: /* Explanation */ ce

{{comic
| number = 2140
| date = April 22, 2019
| title = Reinvent the Wheel
| image = reinvent_the_wheel.png
| titletext = Right now it's a bicycle wheel, so we've had to move to lighter vehicles, but the reduced overhead is worth it. There was one week when a wheel of cheese got dangerously close to the first page, though.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a WHEEL OF CHEESE. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

"{{w|Reinventing the wheel}}" is a metaphor that refers to duplicate effort to recreate something that has already been created or perfected previously without adding any value in the process. The phrase relates to the idea that the round wheel was invented a long time ago, and nobody has come up with a better shape for the wheel since that original concept. While the phrase includes the word "wheel", it isn't typically directly associated with the wheel but instead uses the word "wheel" because of the belief that the round wheel was an ancient invention.

In this comic, Beret Guy apparently works for an automotive manufacturer, and he is explaining to Ponytail their decision to not reinvent the wheel for the automobiles that they produce, using the phrase in a literal sense instead of figuratively. Instead, they use a daily Google image search for "wheel" to determine the highest ranked wheel and simply use that wheel on the vehicles they produce that day.

The point of the comic is to make fun of programmers who take the idea that you should never reinvent the wheel too seriously. When these people have a problem, they may google to find a solution to that problem, and when they find a piece of online code, they use it in their own code, even if it wasn't initially designed to handle the task for which it is being used.


The title text indicates that Beret Guy is currently using bicycle wheels for his vehicles, requiring them to be lighter as bicycle wheels cannot carry a lot of weight. Finally, the narrator (supposedly Beret Guy) explains that at one point a wheel of cheese was near the top of the google images search. If it had reached the top, it would have been disastrous as a wheel of cheese is completely unsuited for use as a vehicle's wheel.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[Beret Guy is talking to Ponytail.]
:Beret Guy: We don't want to reinvent the wheel, so every day we Google image search "wheel", and whatever object comes up, that's what we attach to our vehicles.
:Beret Guy: Sure, external dependencies carry risks, but so far they've all been pretty good wheels.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]

1425: Tasks

2019-04-18T18:56:24Z

108.162.215.154: /* Explanation */ fix link

{{comic
| number = 1425
| date = September 24, 2014
| title = Tasks
| image = tasks.png
| titletext = In the 60s, Marvin Minsky assigned a couple of undergrads to spend the summer programming a computer to use a camera to identify objects in a scene. He figured they'd have the problem solved by the end of the summer. Half a century later, we're still working on it.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] appears to be asking [[Ponytail]] to write an app that determines if a given picture is (1) taken in a national park, and (2) a picture of a bird. The first question is generally harder for a human to answer, but easy for an app that has access to location information and a {{w|geographic information system}} (GIS). The second one is easy for a human but much harder for a computer. This illustrates {{w|Moravec's paradox}} from the 1980s in a modern context. By the 1950s computers were useful for tasks like {{w|trajectory optimization}}, {{w|automated theorem proving|generating novel mathematical proofs}}, and {{w|English_draughts#Computer_players|the game of checkers}}, so such high-level computation and reasoning tasks that were hard for humans turned out to be relatively easy for them. On the other hand, it turns out to be hard to "give them the skills of a one-year-old when it comes to perception", as Moravec wrote.

In order to determine whether the user is in a national park, Ponytail plans to determine the user's location using the mobile device. This location will then be cross checked with a {{w|geographic information system}} (GIS) which will be able to determine whether the coordinates lie within a national park boundary.

Determining whether an image is of a given kind of natural object is far more difficult. This task falls into the area of {{w|computer vision}}. One of the goals in computer vision is to detect and classify objects within an image. This is a very challenging task for a number of reasons.

:Firstly, humans use size, edge-assignment, movement, and stereoscopic vision when looking at a scene (not a picture of a thing, but the thing itself) to discern individual objects and then categorize them as foreground or background.<ref>{{w|Figure-ground_(perception)}}</ref> A photograph, however, is a static, monoscopic image that can only provide size and edge-assignment clues. Humans are only able to discern objects from background in photographs by comparing the photo against all of the things they've seen and everything they've learned about those things over the course of their life and identifying matching patterns.<ref>{{w|Visual_perception}}</ref>

:Secondly, the quality of the photograph will have an impact on a computer's ability to match patterns. For example, the object in the photograph might be partially visible or occluded. In the case of a living bird, additional complications arise from the variations among individual birds of the same species and differences in pose (flying, perching in a tree, etc.). Differentiating between visually similar objects can result in false positives. For example, is it a photo of a bird in flight or a plane (or superman!)? Ponytail's estimate of 5 years may be overly optimistic (see [[678: Researcher Translation]]).

Today's state-of-the-art algorithms for solving this kind of task mostly use local features (e.g. {{w|Scale-invariant feature transform|SIFT}} or {{w|Speeded up robust features|SURF}} in combination with a {{w|support vector machine}} or {{w|convolutional neural network}}).

The subtitle refers to "CS", which is a common acronym for "{{w|Computer Science}}", of which {{w|artificial intelligence}} and {{w|computer vision}} are sub-disciplines.

The title text mentions [http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/6125/AIM-100.pdf The Summer Vision Project] and {{w|Marvin Minsky}} of MIT. In the summer of 1966, he asked his undergraduate student {{w|Gerald Jay Sussman}} to "spend the summer linking a camera to a computer and getting the computer to describe what it saw" ([http://szeliski.org/Book/]). {{w|Seymour Papert}} drafted the plan, and it seems that Sussman was joined by {{w|Bill Gosper}}, {{w|Richard Greenblatt (programmer)|Richard Greenblatt}}, {{w|Leslie Lamport}}, Adolfo Guzman, Michael Speciner, John White, Benjamin, and Henneman - in case the multiple Wikipedia links don't give it away, know that this is sizable cross-section of the AI researchers of the period). The project schedule allocated one summer for the completion of this task. The required time was obviously significantly underestimated, since dozens of research groups around the world are still working on this topic today.

A month after this comic came out, {{w|Flickr}} [http://code.flickr.net/2014/10/20/introducing-flickr-park-or-bird/ responded] with a [http://parkorbird.flickr.com/ prototype online tool] to do something similar to what comic describes, using its automated-tagging software. According to them, the bird solution "took us less than 5 years to build, though it's definitely a hard problem, and we've still got room for improvement".

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail sitting at a computer with Cueball standing behind her.]
:Cueball: When a user takes a photo, the app should check whether they're in a national park...
:Ponytail: Sure, easy GIS lookup. Gimme a few hours.
:Cueball: ...and check whether the photo is of a bird.
:Ponytail: I'll need a research team and five years.
:In CS, it can be hard to explain the difference between the easy and the virtually impossible.

==References==
<references/>

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]

1425: Tasks

2019-04-18T18:54:47Z

108.162.215.154: /* Explanation */ ce

{{comic
| number = 1425
| date = September 24, 2014
| title = Tasks
| image = tasks.png
| titletext = In the 60s, Marvin Minsky assigned a couple of undergrads to spend the summer programming a computer to use a camera to identify objects in a scene. He figured they'd have the problem solved by the end of the summer. Half a century later, we're still working on it.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] appears to be asking [[Ponytail]] to write an app that determines if a given picture is (1) taken in a national park, and (2) a picture of a bird. The first question is generally harder for a human to answer, but easy for an app that has access to location information and a {{w|geographic information system}} (GIS). The second one is easy for a human but much harder for a computer. This illustrates {{w|Moravec's paradox}} from the 1980s in a modern context. By the 1950s computers were useful for tasks like {{w|trajectory optimization}}, {{w|automated theorem proving|generating novel mathematical proofs}}, and {{w|English_draughts#Computer_players|the game of checkers}}, so such high-level computation and reasoning tasks that were hard for humans turned out to be relatively easy for them. On the other hand, it turns out to be hard to "give them the skills of a one-year-old when it comes to perception", as Moravec wrote.

In order to determine whether the user is in a national park, Ponytail plans to determine the user's location using the mobile device. This location will then be cross checked with a {{w|geographic information system}} (GIS) which will be able to determine whether the coordinates lie within a national park boundary.

Determining whether an image is of a given kind of natural object is far more difficult. This task falls into the area of {{w|computer vision}}. One of the goals in computer vision is to detect and classify objects within an image. This is a very challenging task for a number of reasons.

:Firstly, humans use size, edge-assignment, movement, and stereoscopic vision when looking at a scene (not a picture of a thing, but the thing itself) to discern individual objects and then categorize them as foreground or background.<ref>{{w|Figure-ground_(perception)}}</ref> A photograph, however, is a static, monoscopic image that can only provide size and edge-assignment clues. Humans are only able to discern objects from background in photographs by comparing the photo against all of the things they've seen and everything they've learned about those things over the course of their life and identifying matching patterns.<ref>{{w|Visual_perception}}</ref>

:Secondly, the quality of the photograph will have an impact on a computer's ability to match patterns. For example, the object in the photograph might be partially visible or occluded. In the case of a living bird, additional complications arise from the variations among individual birds of the same species and differences in pose (flying, perching in a tree, etc.). Differentiating between visually similar objects can result in false positives. For example, is it a photo of a bird in flight or a plane (or superman!)? Ponytail's estimate of 5 years may be overly optimistic (see [[678: Researcher Translation]]).

Today's state-of-the-art algorithms for solving this kind of task mostly use local features (e.g. {{w|Scale-invariant feature transform|SIFT}} or {{w|SURF}} in combination with a {{w|support vector machine}} or {{w|convolutional neural network}}).

The subtitle refers to "CS", which is a common acronym for "{{w|Computer Science}}", of which {{w|artificial intelligence}} and {{w|computer vision}} are sub-disciplines.

The title text mentions [http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/6125/AIM-100.pdf The Summer Vision Project] and {{w|Marvin Minsky}} of MIT. In the summer of 1966, he asked his undergraduate student {{w|Gerald Jay Sussman}} to "spend the summer linking a camera to a computer and getting the computer to describe what it saw" ([http://szeliski.org/Book/]). {{w|Seymour Papert}} drafted the plan, and it seems that Sussman was joined by {{w|Bill Gosper}}, {{w|Richard Greenblatt (programmer)|Richard Greenblatt}}, {{w|Leslie Lamport}}, Adolfo Guzman, Michael Speciner, John White, Benjamin, and Henneman - in case the multiple Wikipedia links don't give it away, know that this is sizable cross-section of the AI researchers of the period). The project schedule allocated one summer for the completion of this task. The required time was obviously significantly underestimated, since dozens of research groups around the world are still working on this topic today.

A month after this comic came out, {{w|Flickr}} [http://code.flickr.net/2014/10/20/introducing-flickr-park-or-bird/ responded] with a [http://parkorbird.flickr.com/ prototype online tool] to do something similar to what comic describes, using its automated-tagging software. According to them, the bird solution "took us less than 5 years to build, though it's definitely a hard problem, and we've still got room for improvement".

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail sitting at a computer with Cueball standing behind her.]
:Cueball: When a user takes a photo, the app should check whether they're in a national park...
:Ponytail: Sure, easy GIS lookup. Gimme a few hours.
:Cueball: ...and check whether the photo is of a bird.
:Ponytail: I'll need a research team and five years.
:In CS, it can be hard to explain the difference between the easy and the virtually impossible.

==References==
<references/>

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]

1948: Campaign Fundraising Emails

2018-01-30T04:01:10Z

108.162.215.154: /* Explanation */ incomplete notice

{{comic
| number = 1948
| date = January 29, 2018
| title = Campaign Fundraising Emails
| image = campaign_fundraising_emails.png
| titletext = The establishment doesn't take us seriously. You know who else they didn't take seriously? Hitler. I'll be like him, but a GOOD guy instead of...
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Consolidate all explanation into table. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
{{incomplete|Add address, website, or phone number to use to donate to one of these campaigns, in case anyone actually wants to do so (it could happen).}}

Many politicians and organizations in the United States have taken to using aggressive fundraising campaigns by email to seek campaign contributions.

This comic shows a caricature of many people's email inboxes right now. Signing a petition or expressing interest in a cause can lead to being added to a myriad of mailing lists for similar groups, all looking for support. It seems Randall has a history of donating to questionable candidates with poorly thought out campaigns, and that's gotten him onto some interesting email lists. The emails get more and more absurd as the list goes on. For example, the last one combines a request for campaign contributions with the infamous Nigerian Prince phishing scheme.

{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"
! E-mail Body !! Explanation
|-
|'''Donate now.''' It's crunch time, and we're low on cash. If you chip in just $5 by midnight, we...
|This is the classic formula, and may be a real example. It is always "crunch time" during a campaign (at least between filing for candidacy and election day), and campaigns are always "low" on cash relative to the unlimited funding they would prefer. The ends of financial reporting periods, often at midnight, are conflated with "deadlines" of significant consequence. Further, the donation requested is less about the actual money - even if $5 each from several thousand voters can add up - but to get a donor to have their money placed on a candidate, making it more likely that donor will vote for the candidate (via encouraging [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy the "sunk cost" fallacy]).
|-
|'''Donate $35.57 now!''' Our data team has determined that we should ask you for $35.57 to optimize the...
|While fundraisers will try and work out how to gain money as possible, they would never explain this to their supporters. Such a precise amount would come about as a result of running the numbers through a computer simulation, and the obvious lack of humanity behind the calculated dollar amount would probably be offputting to a lot of would-be supporters. This may also be an exaggeration of Senator Sanders' presidential campaign, which sent e-mails asking for $27 because it was the average amount of their contributions up to that point.
|}

'''HELP''' and '''WE'RE BROKE''' are honest about the campaign's incompetence, but are not likely to get much sympathy except from those already sympathetic to the candidate. Any campaign reduced to this level has probably already lost, though.

'''WASHINGTON IS BROKEN''' may be another real example. This appeal to emotion promises specific action that is unlikely to accomplish much, and is honestly probably unlikely to happen even if the candidate wins, while suggesting the candidate vaguely cares about issues of importance to most voters, as measured by the polls.

'''ARE YOU FAMILIAR''' compares a political opponent's plan to the works of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieronymus_Bosch Hieronymus Bosch], which are famous for depictions of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell Hell] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo Limbo] as brutal places of highly imaginative torments.

'''OUTRAGEOUS'''. When a politician makes an offensive comment, it's common for the politician's opponents to send out fundraising emails pointing out the politician's offensiveness as a reason to give money to an opponent. Here, the sender's reaction and e-mail fundraising effort appears to be unusually delayed, as it refers to an alleged comment by {{w|Gerald Ford}}, whose term as President of the United States ended in 1977 and who died in 2006.

'''WHOOPS'''. The email apologies for running months of attack ads against American actor {{w|Tom Hanks}}. Hanks is generally a popular and uncontroversial figure,{{Citation needed}} making him an unusual target for attack ads.

'''THEY SAY WE CAN'T WIN''' may refer to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore#U.S._Senate_special_election_campaign Roy Moore's attempts to overturn his loss in the December 2017 election for one of Alabama's US Senate seats], which came about a month before this comic and made national headlines. After the initial election count had him losing, he demanded a recount. That initial count said he had lost by a large enough margin that Alabama law required him to pay up front for a recount, and his campaign did not have enough funds available.

'''OUR CAMPAIGN'S ONLY CHANCE'''. This e-mail alludes to [https://secure.actblue.com/ ActBlue], a political action committee that collects donations online for Democratic candidates. In reality, there is no Actblue family nor any "Jennifer Actblue" who is the heir to its fortune; the name ActBlue comes from the words "act" and "blue", referring to the {{w|Red states and blue states|color currently associated with the Democratic Party}}.

'''DOOM''' This is an excerpt from {{w|J. R. R. Tolkien|Tolkien's}} poem ''[http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Lament_for_the_Rohirrim Lament of the Rohirrim,]'' appearing in ''{{w|The Two Towers}}'': 
Where now the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? 
Where is the helm and the hauberk, and the bright hair flowing? 
Where is the hand on the harpstring, and the red fire glowing? 
Where is the spring and the harvest and the tall corn growing? 
They have passed like rain on the mountain, like a wind in the meadow; 
The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. 
Who shall gather the smoke of the dead wood burning, 
Or behold the flowing years from the Sea returning? 

'''WARMEST GREETINGS''' The opening line is designed to sound like spam for an {{W | Advance-fee scam}}. These scams typically involve impersonating someone rich, often a Nigerian prince, who claims to be in trouble and promises to share a large sum of money if the victim helps him by sending a small fee in advance electronically. However, the second sentence of this email switches to sounding like a political fundraising email instead of an outright scam. This is either to establish a degrading comparison between flagrant scams and fundraising emails, or just to create a bait-and-switch joke.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
'''Donate now.''' It's crunch time, and we're low on cash. If you chip in just $5 by midnight, we... 
'''Donate $35.57 now!''' Our data team has determined that we should ask you for $35.57 to optimize the... 
'''Help.''' Our campaign made some mistakes and we need a lot of money ASAP. Any kind, but cash is... 
'''Washington is broken.''' When I win, I'll look those other senators in the eye and tell them: "Jobs." Then I... 
'''Hopeless.''' It's bad. Really bad. If you don't chip in now, the darkness spreading across the land will... 
As the first woman to fly a fighter jet through our state's formerly all-male university, I learned... 
'''We're broke.''' No paid staff. No ads. And the cafe has told us to stop using their wifi to send fundraising... 
When Amy decided to run for Congress, I was like "Huh?" but I checked Wikipedia, and apparently it's a branch of... 
'''Are you familiar''' with the dutch painter Hieronymous Bosch? His work illustrates my opponent's plan for... 
Being a single mom running a small business while going to law school while being deployed to Iraq taught me... 
'''I will lead the fight''' against the big banks, special interests, the Earth's climate, and our children. I... 
'''Wow.''' Have you seen this video of the squirrel obstacle course? Incredible! Anyway, I'm running because I... 
'''Outrageous.''' Granted, this was a few years ago, but did you hear what President Ford said about... 
'''Whoops.''' Due to a typo, we spent months running attack ads against Tom Hanks. Now, we need to make up for... 
'''They say we can't win-''' that we're "underdogs" with "no money" who "lost the election last week." But they don't... 
'''Our campaign's only chance''' is to seduce Jennifer ActBlue, heir to the ActBlue fortune. For that, we need a fancy... 
'''Doom.''' Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? They have passed, like rain on... 
'''Warmest greetings.''' I am the crown prince of Nigeria. I am running for Congress because I believe that...

{{comic discussion}}

1926: Bad Code

2017-12-08T16:41:01Z

108.162.215.154: Just a start

{{comic
| number = 1926
| date = December 8, 2017
| title = Bad Code
| image = bad_code.png
| titletext = "Oh my God, why did you scotch-tape a bunch of hammers together?" "It's ok! Nothing depends on this wall being destroyed efficiently."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created be a bad coder, very incomplete - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Cueball is writing more bad code. He is trying to defend his coding when he learns that the wall will collapse. Cueball writing bad code has been featured before.
==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}

913: Core

2015-10-17T23:08:10Z

108.162.215.154: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 913
| date = June 17, 2011
| title = Core
| image = core.png
| titletext = If you're a geologist or geophysicist and you don't introduce yourself by saying your name, then gesturing downward and saying "... and I study that", I don't know what you're doing with your life.
}}

==Explanation==

This comic reflects on the fact that no matter where you are on {{w|Earth}}, its core is always directly under you, while incredibly hot and under huge amounts of pressure. Yet most of the time, we ignore this completely unless there is a volcanic eruption (which by the way has nothing to do with the core, but mainly with the friction between the tectonic plates).

[[Cueball]] is presumably reading a geology book with diagrams and various facts about the Earth's interior, such as the core being subdivided into an {{w|inner core}} and an {{w|outer core}}, that the inner core is a solid ball, the size of the moon, that the outer core is at a pressure of 30 million {{w|Pounds per square inch}} (approximately 2 million times atmospheric pressure at sea level) and the outer core is made of molten metal in a constant turbulent motion - a bit like a pot of boiling water. But every time he gets 15 minutes in to such a book he freaks out, realizing this deadly stuff is right beneath him, and he bends over to look down to the Earth.

The title text makes a note of how cool it would be to study this without getting too terrified. So if you do - then let everyone you meet know what you do for a living as soon as you introduce yourself! (Despite most geologists and geophysicists don't study the core.)

Alternately, the title text may be a reference the fact that someone gesturing downward would looks like he's pointing to his genitals, which could be considered inappropriate.

==Transcript==
:[A cutaway diagram of the Earth, with colored layers including a labeled outer core and inner core.]

:[A closeup of the stylized outer core, labeled "Turbulent molten metals at 30 million PSI" with turbulence lines, and of the inner core, labeled "moon-sized iron sphere."]

:[Cueball reading a book pulls legs up tight under office chair, peering downwards.]

:I freak out about fifteen minutes into reading anything about the Earth's core when I suddenly realize it's RIGHT UNDER ME.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

1587: Food Rule

2015-10-12T05:34:00Z

108.162.215.154: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1587
| date = October 7, 2015
| title = Food Rule
| image = food_rule.png
| titletext = I won't eat invertebrates, because I can fight a skeleton, but I have no idea what kind of spooky warrior a squid leaves behind.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Please improve connections and smooth out flow - have tried since this was written, but please improve further though...}}

[[Randall]] presents a list (see [[#Items on the list|details]] below) of allowed and forbidden food in his diet. For example, he eats meat from typical-looking animals like beef, pork, chicken, and fish. He will also eat plants like fruit, vegetables and grain. But he refuses to eat some of the more odd-looking creatures from the sea like squids, shrimps and oysters.

Below the list he explains his rule for what can be eaten: ''I won't eat something if I have to Google to figure out whether or not it has a face''.

The rule is a joke on the {{w|Vegetarianism|vegetarian}} rule that says ''[http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/910-dont-eat-anything-with-a-face don't eat anything with a face]''. There are various vegetarian diets which restrict certain foods for ethical or personal concerns. Real vegetarians do not eat any kind of meat, but some only refrain from eating red meat, although this means they are not true vegetarians. Vegetarianism can go as far as to not eating (or even using) any kind of products coming from an animal (i.e. {{w|veganism}}). The face rule, though, is very difficult to follow, because it is subjective whether people think a given animal has a {{w|face}}. Thus people may begin to discuss which animals have a face and could thus be eaten. Which was of course not the point of that rule in the first place.

The rule may also be a joke on the modern {{w|Paleolithic_diet|paleo diet}} trend, which emphasises eating fruit, vegetables, and meat ("anything with a face").

As can be seen from Randall's list, he is willing to eat food disregarding if it once had a face or not. But if he needs to use Google to figure out whether it came from something who had a face, then he will not eat it. While it's clear, at least to Randall, that a cow has a face and an apple does not, some beings are harder to classify into one of these categories. For Randall this goes for shrimp, oysters and squids. For example, the squid has eyes and mouth, but it would be hard to tell whether that counts as a face. This would be a problem for the vegetarian standard rule of "nothing with a face" and thus openly mocks this rule. Some people might argue that for instance an oyster has no eyes and that it thus should be clear that it has no face. However, this may be [https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080613194541AAwlN90 debated on-line] and the face question can be found asked on-line (using Google) for both [http://www.chacha.com/question/do-shrimp-have-a-face shrimps], [http://www.chacha.com/question/do-clams-and-oysters-and-mussels-have-faces oysters] and [http://www.chacha.com/question/do-octopus-have-faces octopuses] (that are closely related to squids). So from the list it can be seen that Randall needed to Google the face question to find out for these kind of animals, and thus he declines from eating these animals. Similar discussions could go for many types of strange fish, but Randall seems to put the whole group fish as one, so if just some of these clearly have faces, then he will eat the rest as well.
The title text gives another rule that also would make these same three omissions. This rule is about not eating {{w|Invertebrate|invertebrates}} (animals without a {{w|vertebral column}}, i.e. spineless creatures). As the first four items on the list are meat from four different animals of the type {{w|Vertebrate|vertebrates}} (with vertebral column) and the last three items are from {{w|Plant|plants}} that explains why these are all OK to eat. But the middle three items are three different animals of the type invertebrates. Randall does thus not eat these!

These rules are somewhat absurd in that both of them would permit the eating of fellow humans!

He then proceeds to explain why he do not ease these kind of animals. Invertebrate animals do not have a typical skeleton as would be used in a horror movies with living dead creatures (as there is no central structure to keep the rest of any other possible bony structures together, like a {{w|Mollusc shell|shell}} or another type of {{w|exoskeleton}}). Randall is joking about how the animals he eats might come back to haunt him, and in the case of a cow or fish (or any other vertebrates), he imagines that they would come back as animated skeletal structures. Any {{w|undead}} creature that returns as a skeleton he believes he will be able to fight. But since he has no idea how an undead squid or oyster (or any other invertebrate) would look, he feels unprepared to fight such a spooky creature and thus declines from eating them.

Randall has previously mentioned his dislike of certain foods (namely {{w|lobster}} - another invertebrate) in [[1268: Alternate Universe]].

===Items on the list===
Here is a list with explanation for each item on Randalls food list:
*{{w|Red meat}}, includes meat from most adult {{w|mammals}}, but many people will probably think of {{w|beefsteak}} from {{w|cattle}}.
*{{w|Pork}}, is meat from from {{w|Domestic pig|pigs}}. As this is actually a type of red meat this supports that Randall was thinking of beef, when mentioning red meat above.
*{{w|Poultry}} are domesticated birds, most people will think of {{w|Chicken (food)|chicken}}.
*{{w|Fish}} covers a very large group of animals, most of them are not eaten on a regular basis, but a large group of fish are {{w|Fish as food|used as food}}.
*{{w|Shrimp}} is used to refer to {{w|Decapoda|ten-footed}} {{w|crustacean}} and some of these are {{w|Shrimp (food)|used for food}}. In the UK they often go under the name {{w|prawns}}.
*{{w|Oysters}} refers to a family of {{w|mollusca}} within the class {{w|bivalvia}} (i.e. body enclosed in shells consisting of two hinged parts). Most people will probably think of the {{w|Ostreidae|true oysters}} specifically the {{w|Ostrea edulis|edible oyster}}, which are not the only edible oyster!. Note that {{w|pearl oyster}} is not a true oyster.
*{{w|Squid}} are {{w|cephalopods}} (also of the mollusca family ) with eight arms arranged in pairs and two longer tentacles. They are closely related to {{w|cuttlefish}} and {{w|octopuses}}.
*{{w|Fruit}} is a part of a flowering plant. Common fruits are {{w|apples}}, {{w|oranges}}, {{w|bananas}} and {{w|pear|pears}}. But in principle anything that comes from a flower is a fruit, including grains. Although in a culinary sense there is a distinction between vegetables and fruit, any part of a flower is actually a vegetable. See below and also see [[388: Fuck Grapefruit]].
*{{w|Vegetables}} are any kind of plant. But in everyday it refers to any part of a plant that is consumed by humans as food as part of a {{w|Umami|savoury}} meal. Thus excluding both fruit, {{w|Nut (fruit)|nuts}} and cereal grains. For instance a {{w|tomato}} would be seen as a vegetable due to its taste and as a fruit botanically – see the Venn diagram {{w|Fruit#Botanic fruit and culinary fruit|here}}.
*{{w|Grain|Grains}} are small, hard, dry {{w|seeds}}. Usually when mentioning these people will think of breakfast {{w|cereal}} grains. Typical grains are {{w|corn}}, {{w|rice}} and {{w|wheat}}. As mentioned above grains are botanically both a fruit and a vegetable.

==Transcript==
:[There is a caption above a list of food with indication whether it is OK or not to eat. Below is another caption.]

:My food rule:
:{| class="wikitable" style="border: 0px;"
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Red meat
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Pork
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Poultry
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Fish
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Shrimp
| style="border: 0px; color:red;" | X
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Oysters
| style="border: 0px; color:red;" | X
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Squid
| style="border: 0px; color:red;" | X
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Fruit
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Vegetables
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Grains
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|}
:I won't eat something if I have to Google to figure out whether or not it has a face.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]

1587: Food Rule

2015-10-11T23:13:30Z

108.162.215.154: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1587
| date = October 7, 2015
| title = Food Rule
| image = food_rule.png
| titletext = I won't eat invertebrates, because I can fight a skeleton, but I have no idea what kind of spooky warrior a squid leaves behind.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Please improve connections and smooth out flow - have tried since this was written, but please improve further though...}}

[[Randall]] presents a list (see [[#Items on the list|details]] below) of allowed and forbidden food in his diet. For example, he eats meat from typical-looking animals like beef, pork and chicken, and fish. He will also eat plants like fruit, vegetables and grain. But he refuses to eat some of the more odd-looking creatures from the sea like squids, shrimps and oysters.

Below the list he explains his rule for what can be eaten: ''I won't eat something if I have to Google to figure out whether or not it has a face''.

The rule is a joke on the {{w|Vegetarianism|vegetarian}} rule that says ''[http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/910-dont-eat-anything-with-a-face don't eat anything with a face]''. There are various vegetarian diets which restrict certain foods for ethical or personal concerns. Real vegetarians do not eat any kind of meat, but some only refrain from eating red meat, although this means they are not true vegetarians. Vegetarianism can go as far as to not eating (or even using) any kind of products coming from an animal (i.e. {{w|veganism}}). The face rule, though, is very difficult to follow, because it is subjective whether people think a given animal has a {{w|face}}. Thus people may begin to discuss which animals have a face and could thus be eaten. Which was of course not the point of that rule in the first place.

As can be seen from Randall's list, he is willing to eat food disregarding if it once had a face or not. But if he needs to use Google to figure out whether it came from something who had a face, then he will not eat it. While it's clear, at least to Randall, that a cow has a face and an apple does not, some beings are harder to classify into one of these categories. For Randall this goes for shrimp, oysters and squids. For example, the squid has eyes and mouth, but it would be hard to tell whether that counts as a face. This would be a problem for the vegetarian standard rule of "nothing with a face" and thus openly mocks this rule. Some people might argue that for instance an oyster has no eyes and that it thus should be clear that it has no face. However, this may be [https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080613194541AAwlN90 debated on-line] and the face question can be found asked on-line (using Google) for both [http://www.chacha.com/question/do-shrimp-have-a-face shrimps], [http://www.chacha.com/question/do-clams-and-oysters-and-mussels-have-faces oysters] and [http://www.chacha.com/question/do-octopus-have-faces octopuses] (that are closely related to squids). So from the list it can be seen that Randall needed to Google the face question to find out for these kind of animals, and thus he declines from eating these animals. Similar discussions could go for many types of strange fish, but Randall seems to put the whole group fish as one, so if just some of these clearly have faces, then he will eat the rest as well.
The title text gives another rule that also would make these same three omissions. This rule is about not eating {{w|Invertebrate|invertebrates}} (animals without a {{w|vertebral column}}, i.e. spineless creatures). As the first four items on the list are meat from four different animals of the type {{w|Vertebrate|vertebrates}} (with vertebral column) and the last three items are from {{w|Plant|plants}} that explains why these are all OK to eat. But the middle three items are three different animals of the type invertebrates. Randall does thus not eat these!

These rules are somewhat absurd in that both of them would permit the eating of fellow humans!

He then proceeds to explain why he do not ease these kind of animals. Invertebrate animals do not have a typical skeleton as would be used in a horror movies with living dead creatures (as there is no central structure to keep the rest of any other possible bony structures together, like a {{w|Mollusc shell|shell}} or another type of {{w|exoskeleton}}). Randall is joking about how the animals he eats might come back to haunt him, and in the case of a cow or fish (or any other vertebrates), he imagines that they would come back as animated skeletal structures. Any {{w|undead}} creature that returns as a skeleton he believes he will be able to fight. But since he has no idea how an undead squid or oyster (or any other invertebrate) would look, he feels unprepared to fight such a spooky creature and thus declines from eating them.

Randall has previously mentioned his dislike of certain foods (namely {{w|lobster}} - another invertebrate) in [[1268: Alternate Universe]].

===Items on the list===
Here is a list with explanation for each item on Randalls food list:
*{{w|Red meat}}, includes meat from most adult {{w|mammals}}, but many people will probably think of {{w|beefsteak}} from {{w|cattle}}.
*{{w|Pork}}, is meat from from {{w|Domestic pig|pigs}}. As this is actually a type of red meat this supports that Randall was thinking of beef, when mentioning red meat above.
*{{w|Poultry}} are domesticated birds, most people will think of {{w|Chicken (food)|chicken}}.
*{{w|Fish}} covers a very large group of animals, most of them are not eaten on a regular basis, but a large group of fish are {{w|Fish as food|used as food}}.
*{{w|Shrimp}} is used to refer to {{w|Decapoda|ten-footed}} {{w|crustacean}} and some of these are {{w|Shrimp (food)|used for food}}. In the UK they often go under the name {{w|prawns}}.
*{{w|Oysters}} refers to a family of {{w|mollusca}} within the class {{w|bivalvia}} (i.e. body enclosed in shells consisting of two hinged parts). Most people will probably think of the {{w|Ostreidae|true oysters}} specifically the {{w|Ostrea edulis|edible oyster}}, which are not the only edible oyster!. Note that {{w|pearl oyster}} is not a true oyster.
*{{w|Squid}} are {{w|cephalopods}} (also of the mollusca family ) with eight arms arranged in pairs and two longer tentacles. They are closely related to {{w|cuttlefish}} and {{w|octopuses}}.
*{{w|Fruit}} is a part of a flowering plant. Common fruits are {{w|apples}}, {{w|oranges}}, {{w|bananas}} and {{w|pear|pears}}. But in principle anything that comes from a flower is a fruit, including grains. Although in a culinary sense there is a distinction between vegetables and fruit, any part of a flower is actually a vegetable. See below and also see [[388: Fuck Grapefruit]].
*{{w|Vegetables}} are any kind of plant. But in everyday it refers to any part of a plant that is consumed by humans as food as part of a {{w|Umami|savoury}} meal. Thus excluding both fruit, {{w|Nut (fruit)|nuts}} and cereal grains. For instance a {{w|tomato}} would be seen as a vegetable due to its taste and as a fruit botanically – see the Venn diagram {{w|Fruit#Botanic fruit and culinary fruit|here}}.
*{{w|Grain|Grains}} are small, hard, dry {{w|seeds}}. Usually when mentioning these people will think of breakfast {{w|cereal}} grains. Typical grains are {{w|corn}}, {{w|rice}} and {{w|wheat}}. As mentioned above grains are botanically both a fruit and a vegetable.

==Transcript==
:[There is a caption above a list of food with indication whether it is OK or not to eat. Below is another caption.]

:My food rule:
:{| class="wikitable" style="border: 0px;"
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Red meat
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Pork
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Poultry
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Fish
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Shrimp
| style="border: 0px; color:red;" | X
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Oysters
| style="border: 0px; color:red;" | X
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Squid
| style="border: 0px; color:red;" | X
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Fruit
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Vegetables
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Grains
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|}
:I won't eat something if I have to Google to figure out whether or not it has a face.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]

1587: Food Rule

2015-10-11T23:10:37Z

108.162.215.154: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1587
| date = October 7, 2015
| title = Food Rule
| image = food_rule.png
| titletext = I won't eat invertebrates, because I can fight a skeleton, but I have no idea what kind of spooky warrior a squid leaves behind.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Please improve connections and smooth out flow - have tried since this was written, but please improve further though...}}

[[Randall]] presents a list (see [[#Items on the list|details]] below) of allowed and forbidden food in his diet. For example, he eats meat from typical farmyard animals like beef, pork and chicken and more typical looking sea creatures such as fish, as well as plants like fruit, vegetables and grain. But he refuses to eat some of the more odd-looking creatures from the sea like squids, shrimps and oysters.

Below the list he explains his rule for what can be eaten: ''I won't eat something if I have to Google to figure out whether or not it has a face''.

The rule is a joke on the {{w|Vegetarianism|vegetarian}} rule that says ''[http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/910-dont-eat-anything-with-a-face don't eat anything with a face]''. There are various vegetarian diets which restrict certain foods for ethical or personal concerns. Real vegetarians do not eat any kind of meat, but some only refrain from eating red meat, although this means they are not true vegetarians. Vegetarianism can go as far as to not eating (or even using) any kind of products coming from an animal (i.e. {{w|veganism}}). The face rule, though, is very difficult to follow, because it is subjective whether people think a given animal has a {{w|face}}. Thus people may begin to discuss which animals have a face and could thus be eaten. Which was of course not the point of that rule in the first place.

As can be seen from Randall's list, he is willing to eat food disregarding if it once had a face or not. But if he needs to use Google to figure out whether it came from something who had a face, then he will not eat it. While it's clear, at least to Randall, that a cow has a face and an apple does not, some beings are harder to classify into one of these categories. For Randall this goes for shrimp, oysters and squids. For example, the squid has eyes and mouth, but it would be hard to tell whether that counts as a face. This would be a problem for the vegetarian standard rule of "nothing with a face" and thus openly mocks this rule. Some people might argue that for instance an oyster has no eyes and that it thus should be clear that it has no face. However, this may be [https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080613194541AAwlN90 debated on-line] and the face question can be found asked on-line (using Google) for both [http://www.chacha.com/question/do-shrimp-have-a-face shrimps], [http://www.chacha.com/question/do-clams-and-oysters-and-mussels-have-faces oysters] and [http://www.chacha.com/question/do-octopus-have-faces octopuses] (that are closely related to squids). So from the list it can be seen that Randall needed to Google the face question to find out for these kind of animals, and thus he declines from eating these animals. Similar discussions could go for many types of strange fish, but Randall seems to put the whole group fish as one, so if just some of these clearly have faces, then he will eat the rest as well.
The title text gives another rule that also would make these same three omissions. This rule is about not eating {{w|Invertebrate|invertebrates}} (animals without a {{w|vertebral column}}, i.e. spineless creatures). As the first four items on the list are meat from four different animals of the type {{w|Vertebrate|vertebrates}} (with vertebral column) and the last three items are from {{w|Plant|plants}} that explains why these are all OK to eat. But the middle three items are three different animals of the type invertebrates. Randall does thus not eat these!

These rules are somewhat absurd in that both of them would permit the eating of fellow humans!

He then proceeds to explain why he do not ease these kind of animals. Invertebrate animals do not have a typical skeleton as would be used in a horror movies with living dead creatures (as there is no central structure to keep the rest of any other possible bony structures together, like a {{w|Mollusc shell|shell}} or another type of {{w|exoskeleton}}). Randall is joking about how the animals he eats might come back to haunt him, and in the case of a cow or fish (or any other vertebrates), he imagines that they would come back as animated skeletal structures. Any {{w|undead}} creature that returns as a skeleton he believes he will be able to fight. But since he has no idea how an undead squid or oyster (or any other invertebrate) would look, he feels unprepared to fight such a spooky creature and thus declines from eating them.

Randall has previously mentioned his dislike of certain foods (namely {{w|lobster}} - another invertebrate) in [[1268: Alternate Universe]].

===Items on the list===
Here is a list with explanation for each item on Randalls food list:
*{{w|Red meat}}, includes meat from most adult {{w|mammals}}, but many people will probably think of {{w|beefsteak}} from {{w|cattle}}.
*{{w|Pork}}, is meat from from {{w|Domestic pig|pigs}}. As this is actually a type of red meat this supports that Randall was thinking of beef, when mentioning red meat above.
*{{w|Poultry}} are domesticated birds, most people will think of {{w|Chicken (food)|chicken}}.
*{{w|Fish}} covers a very large group of animals, most of them are not eaten on a regular basis, but a large group of fish are {{w|Fish as food|used as food}}.
*{{w|Shrimp}} is used to refer to {{w|Decapoda|ten-footed}} {{w|crustacean}} and some of these are {{w|Shrimp (food)|used for food}}. In the UK they often go under the name {{w|prawns}}.
*{{w|Oysters}} refers to a family of {{w|mollusca}} within the class {{w|bivalvia}} (i.e. body enclosed in shells consisting of two hinged parts). Most people will probably think of the {{w|Ostreidae|true oysters}} specifically the {{w|Ostrea edulis|edible oyster}}, which are not the only edible oyster!. Note that {{w|pearl oyster}} is not a true oyster.
*{{w|Squid}} are {{w|cephalopods}} (also of the mollusca family ) with eight arms arranged in pairs and two longer tentacles. They are closely related to {{w|cuttlefish}} and {{w|octopuses}}.
*{{w|Fruit}} is a part of a flowering plant. Common fruits are {{w|apples}}, {{w|oranges}}, {{w|bananas}} and {{w|pear|pears}}. But in principle anything that comes from a flower is a fruit, including grains. Although in a culinary sense there is a distinction between vegetables and fruit, any part of a flower is actually a vegetable. See below and also see [[388: Fuck Grapefruit]].
*{{w|Vegetables}} are any kind of plant. But in everyday it refers to any part of a plant that is consumed by humans as food as part of a {{w|Umami|savoury}} meal. Thus excluding both fruit, {{w|Nut (fruit)|nuts}} and cereal grains. For instance a {{w|tomato}} would be seen as a vegetable due to its taste and as a fruit botanically – see the Venn diagram {{w|Fruit#Botanic fruit and culinary fruit|here}}.
*{{w|Grain|Grains}} are small, hard, dry {{w|seeds}}. Usually when mentioning these people will think of breakfast {{w|cereal}} grains. Typical grains are {{w|corn}}, {{w|rice}} and {{w|wheat}}. As mentioned above grains are botanically both a fruit and a vegetable.

==Transcript==
:[There is a caption above a list of food with indication whether it is OK or not to eat. Below is another caption.]

:My food rule:
:{| class="wikitable" style="border: 0px;"
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Red meat
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Pork
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Poultry
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Fish
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Shrimp
| style="border: 0px; color:red;" | X
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Oysters
| style="border: 0px; color:red;" | X
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Squid
| style="border: 0px; color:red;" | X
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Fruit
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Vegetables
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|-
| style="border: 0px; text-align: right" | Grains
| style="border: 0px; color:green;" | ✓
|}
:I won't eat something if I have to Google to figure out whether or not it has a face.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]

Talk:471: Aversion Fads

2015-10-11T23:08:03Z

108.162.215.154:

The inclusion of a Fox is notable, within the Furry community foxes are the most populous species [Citation: https://sites.google.com/site/anthropomorphicresearch/home ] and subjected to a degree of derision from other furs.

[[Special:Contributions/78.40.152.129|78.40.152.129]] 10:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Feefers (A Furry)

:Your mention of fox-morphism reminds me of {{w|Lady into Fox}}, from the 1920s... Probably not relevent, but perhaps interesting as a pre-Internet example that is not itself an ancient fable, legend or allegory. (No Rule 34ing, though, that I recall). [[Special:Contributions/178.107.249.215|178.107.249.215]] 22:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
::At that novel a lady suddenly turns into a real fox, this is not true for this comic. It's just the Furry community.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know if this is Randall's actual opinion of furries? I've wondered that ever since I first read this comic. [[User:Leafy Greens|Leafy Greens]] ([[User talk:Leafy Greens|talk]]) 15:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It's possible that the "Hey, kid" line is a reference to the "Hey, kid, wanna yiff?" meme (possibly based on another, "hey kid, wanna see a dead body") which was made 4 months -1 day prior to this strip release, apparently for a furry pick-up line contest on FurAffinity [got this from knowyourmeme]. Also, the title " Aversion Fad" might be suggesting that the anti-Furry attitude/meme/whatever is just a fad or meme. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.158|108.162.237.158]] 19:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that Randall has particularly picked up on the furry stereotype than what furries actually are. [[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 01:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been wanting to fix this for over a year. This comic is written about furries, so I only think it's fair that the explain is written by someone who actually knows about the furry fandom--you know, an *actual* furry who, you know, isn't into the sexual stuff, i.e. me. [[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 02:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair, but the explanation is now much too long. Added incomplete tag as such. I really appreciate you trying to bring this more in line with reality, but we're not here to discuss culture, we're here to explain xkcd. If you disagree, feel free to remove the tag. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.91|199.27.128.91]] 04:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I kept the explanation regarding furries, but moved it to a seperate section so it wouldn't interfere with the people who are here soley to look for an explanation of the actual comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.154|108.162.215.154]] 23:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:471: Aversion Fads

2015-10-11T23:07:22Z

108.162.215.154:

The inclusion of a Fox is notable, within the Furry community foxes are the most populous species [Citation: https://sites.google.com/site/anthropomorphicresearch/home ] and subjected to a degree of derision from other furs.

[[Special:Contributions/78.40.152.129|78.40.152.129]] 10:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Feefers (A Furry)

:Your mention of fox-morphism reminds me of {{w|Lady into Fox}}, from the 1920s... Probably not relevent, but perhaps interesting as a pre-Internet example that is not itself an ancient fable, legend or allegory. (No Rule 34ing, though, that I recall). [[Special:Contributions/178.107.249.215|178.107.249.215]] 22:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
::At that novel a lady suddenly turns into a real fox, this is not true for this comic. It's just the Furry community.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know if this is Randall's actual opinion of furries? I've wondered that ever since I first read this comic. [[User:Leafy Greens|Leafy Greens]] ([[User talk:Leafy Greens|talk]]) 15:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It's possible that the "Hey, kid" line is a reference to the "Hey, kid, wanna yiff?" meme (possibly based on another, "hey kid, wanna see a dead body") which was made 4 months -1 day prior to this strip release, apparently for a furry pick-up line contest on FurAffinity [got this from knowyourmeme]. Also, the title " Aversion Fad" might be suggesting that the anti-Furry attitude/meme/whatever is just a fad or meme. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.158|108.162.237.158]] 19:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that Randall has particularly picked up on the furry stereotype than what furries actually are. [[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 01:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been wanting to fix this for over a year. This comic is written about furries, so I only think it's fair that the explain is written by someone who actually knows about the furry fandom--you know, an *actual* furry who, you know, isn't into the sexual stuff, i.e. me. [[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 02:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair, but the explanation is now much too long. Added incomplete tag as such. I really appreciate you trying to bring this more in line with reality, but we're not here to discuss culture, we're here to explain xkcd. If you disagree, feel free to remove the tag. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.91|199.27.128.91]] 04:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I kept the explanation regarding furries, but moved it to a seperate section so it wouldn't interfere with the people who are here soley to look for an explanation of the actual comic[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.154|108.162.215.154]] 23:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

261: Regarding Mussolini

2015-10-11T03:59:11Z

108.162.215.154: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 261
| date = May 14, 2007
| title = Regarding Mussolini
| image = regarding mussolini.png
| titletext = Constantly stopping these briefings halfway through is becoming a pain.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|How is Godwin's law being "enforced," and how does it "not apply"? It's valid according to the definition given below}}

{{w|Godwin's Law}} states that all debates on the Internet, given enough time, will devolve into ad hominem attacks in the form of comparisons of one's opponents to Hitler or the Nazis. A common expansion on this law dictates that, when such a comparison is brought up, the debate immediately ends and the person who made the reference is declared the loser. This is meant to dissuade ad hominem (or in this case "{{w|Ad hitlerum}}") attacks on other people/subjects where their views are unreasonably compared to those held by the Nazis.

The scene in the comic shows generals of the British and Commonwealth forces discussing about {{w|Benito Mussolini}}'s invasion of Egypt. Mussolini and Hitler were each commanders of {{w|Axis powers}} during {{w|World War II}}, so comparisons between them are almost certain to arise.

As the title text suggests, it would have been detrimental to the war effort if the expanded version of Godwin's Law had been enforced by actually ending meetings to plan war strategy whenever Hitler was appropriately mentioned.

The joke is that in this situation, because the debate is taking place in World War Two, Hitler is relavent to the discussion and therefore comparisons made to Hitler are actually valid, and doing so is not an ad hominem attack.

==Transcript==
:[Three people are standing around a map. One of them is pushing something with a stick.]
:[A messenger arrives.]
:Messenger: General, Italian forces have entered Egypt.
:General: As I expected. This is a foolish move by Mussolini, but like Hitler he will no doubt force his commanders to—
:Messenger: Hey. Godwin's Law.
:General: Dammit.
:General: You know, this may become a problem.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hitler]]