explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2466: In Your Classroom

2021-07-27T21:48:36Z

108.162.219.120:

{{comic
| number = 2466
| date = May 21, 2021
| title = In Your Classroom
| image = in_your_classroom.png
| titletext = Ontology is way off to the left and geography is way off to the right.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a QUASAR IN YOUR CLASSROOM. The table is still a work in progress. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[[Randall]] has created a thought experiment and corresponding chart about school courses. The idea is, "the subject of the class appears in the classroom" and the chart compares how dangerous and how unusual that would be.

In the title text two points that are off the chart to the left and right are also mentioned. See details about all the subjects in the [[#Table of subjects|table]] below.

Note that Randall uses similar diagrams in each of [[388: Fuck Grapefruit]], [[1242: Scary Names]] and [[1501: Mysteries]], which also contain different items. They also have extra points mentioned in the title text. In the first two comics the points are also off the chart, whereas for the last the description of the point is too long to fit on the chart. Extra info outside the chart is also used in the title text of [[1785: Wifi]], but this is a line graph.

==Table of subjects==
{| class="wikitable"
|+Breakdown of Subjects
|-
!Course Topic
!Weirdness
!Badness
!Explanation
|-

!scope=row|Atmospheric Physics
|0%
|0%
|Absent very strange and unprecedented circumstances, every classroom has an atmosphere {{Citation needed}}, and this is very good, because humans cannot survive without one.
|-

!scope=row|Ethics
|25%
|0%
|Ethical thinking and behavior are widely considered good and should normally be present in education, but are sadly not universal.
|-

!scope=row|Education
|0%
|10%
|Learning usually goes on in classrooms, so education as a concept is both being learned about and present in the form of learning itself.
|-

!scope=row|Bibliography
|25%
|7%
|Bibliography is the study of books, and books are normally present in classrooms, particularly bibliography classrooms.
|-

!scope=row|Human Physiology
|0%
|20%
|This comic assumes that there are humans learning in the classroom, which was true at the time this comic was published, although in many places at the time the comic was published, many classrooms were closed due to COVID-19 restrictions.
|-

!scope=row|Public Speaking
|25%
|15%
|Some classes require students to present things in front of the class, which is likely a requirement in a public speaking class. Thus, public speaking itself would be present in the class.
Some classes also have a teacher talking or presenting to the students from the front of the class, another form of public speaking.
|-

!scope=row|Architecture
|0%
|30%
|All buildings can be considered architecture, and most classes take place in buildings. This comic also refers to a class''room'', which is a room, and therefore considered architecture.
|-

!scope=row|Library Science
|25%
|25%
|Library science is concerned with the organization of knowledge, and is useful for finding information. Many classes require research papers that require the use of books and other sources of information to complete them. This would be even more appropriate for a class actually taught in the school library.
|-

!scope=row|Furniture Design
|0%
|40%
|Most rooms have furniture,{{Citation needed}} so this would probably be present in a classroom. May also be implying the classroom furniture has not been assembled yet, making it not as good and a lesson in furniture design.
|-

!scope=row|Culinary Arts
|40%
|30%
|Most studies of culinary arts include the teacher and/or students preparing food using the tools and/or techniques that have been taught, so it would be fairly normal for food to be a result of classroom activities. How ''good'' it is, however, can be a mixed bag, especially for student cooking attempts.
|-

!scope=row|Ergonomics
|5%
|45%
|Ergonomic equipment and workspaces promote comfort and efficiency, while non-ergonomic ones may be unpleasant, unhealthy, or even immediately dangerous.
|-

!scope=row|Botany
|40%
|40%
|The near-neutral position of Botany (aka Plant Biology) suggests that the most likely reason for plants to be present would be something like a potted plant, which is not uncommon, and usually not unpleasant, but not very noteworthy. There are other potential reasons for plants to be present, but those are generally less likely.
|-

!scope=row|20th Century Authors
|65%
|10%
|Literature classes would benefit greatly from an open discussion or interview with the author himself. Sadly such things are rare, but not unheard of, putting it slightly on the "weird" side of the spectrum. Well-known authors of the 20th century have an increased likelihood of being retired or dead by 2021, but there are more authors of the 20th century who are well-established enough to be studied.
|-

!scope=row|Exobiology
|100%
|0%
|Exobiology is the study of extraterrestrial life. This would mean that an alien life-form was in the classroom. This is extremely weird but very good for people to investigate and research the alien.
|-

!scope=row|21st Century Authors
|60%
|20%
|21st century authors have the advantage (over 19th and 20th century authors) of typically being alive and active at the time this comic was published. However, most authors who were primarily active in the 21st century are still developing their body of work, and/or still awaiting the judgment of history. The better availability of such authors, as compared to 20th century author probably explains the slightly lower "weirdness" score, while the limited body of truly prominent authors probably explains the lower "goodness" score.
|-

!scope=row|19th Century Authors
|100%
|15%
|No author who was active in the 19th century was alive at the writing of this comic{{Citation needed}}, hence, having one of them show up in class would be extremely weird. The opportunity to interact with such a person would be utterly unique, meaning that it scores pretty high on the "goodness" metric, though interestingly not as high as a 20th century author. Possibly, the potential 'badness' of having a zombie or other reanimated being show up in your class is weighed against the advantage of having a historical figure there in person.
|-

!scope=row|Paleontology
|100%
|25%
|Paleontology is the study of the history of life on Earth as based on fossils. In geology classes, it would be normal to have some fossils in the classroom. However, fossils are not usually found in other classrooms, and especially below the college level. Randall is also probably implying the weirdness of finding a live ''Jurassic Park''-style dinosaur.
|-

!scope=row|Robotics
|55%
|30%
|A course on robotics would often be expected to have some form of working models of the robots being discussed. However, for it to have "showed up" in your classroom could imply an actual functioning robot prototype walked into the classroom. While not cause for concern (as long as nobody in the class is named Sarah Connor), this would be a bit weird.
|-

!scope=row|Martian Soil Chemistry
|100%
|35%
|Martian soil only reaches Earth in small amounts, so it would be unusual to find a meaningful amount anywhere, except Mars.
|-

!scope=row|Tourism
|75%
|40%
|Tourists coming into an active classroom would be quite unusual. It could refer to the students leaving to become tourists in another location.
|-

!scope=row|Child Psychology
|60%
|45%
|Children are rarely students in classrooms advanced enough to teach child psychology. In order for child psychology to be on display, presumably someone would have to have brought a child (either for a demonstration, or for some other reason), which is slightly weird, but not unheard of. This is considered slightly 'good', presumably because it would give students some opportunity for firsthand observation, and because most people like, or at least tolerate, children.
|-

!scope=row|Entomology
|15%
|55%
|Entomology is the study of insects. Insects getting into a classroom is a very common event, even putting aside the possibility of someone bringing insects specifically to study. Most insects that might get in are relatively benign, but some (such as mosquitoes) might sting or bite, and many people simply don't like insects, even when they're not harmful, pushing this slightly into 'bad' territory.
|-

!scope=row|Occupational Therapy
|10%
|62%
|Injury, illness or mental health problem that hinder your participation in life/school. Many students who have significant physical injuries and conditions that require occupational therapy would generally not engage in those activities during a class, although volunteers may be brought in as a demonstration of a particular health problem or method of treatment.
|-

!scope=row|Hydraulic Engineering
|40%
|62%
|Likely in the form of flooding or plumbing problems.
|-

!scope=row|Pest Control
|25%
|70%
|This is not dissimilar to entomology, but pest control tends to involve larger infestations, as opposed to individual insects, and also includes non-insect animals, such as rats. Such events in classroom are not as common as individual insects getting in (especially in a well-maintained building), but are far from unheard of, and risk many negative effects, from bug bites to structural damage, and may require evacuation and fumigation to deal with.
|-

!scope=row|Foodborne Illness
|15%
|80%
|Sometimes students in a culinary arts class do not properly observe hygiene standards and the food they present would lead to illness in those that consume the food. Thankfully, this is rare if the teacher is paying enough attention to proceedings. Students could also be ill from food eaten outside of class.
|-

!scope=row|Criminal Law
|45%
|85%
|This might happen if a crime occurs in the class. While an armed robbery is unlikely, incidents involving plagiarism or drug use are not particularly uncommon. Regardless, such an incident would be very bad, and a teacher may get in trouble for it.
|-

!scope=row|Physiology of Stress
|0%
|90%
|Stress in a classroom, even stress that's bad enough to manifest itself in physical symptoms, is all too common. Stress that bad is very harmful, and a student realizing that they were manifesting the symptoms they're studying should take it as a warning sign.
|-

!scope=row|Oncology
|25%
|100%
|Oncology is the medical practice of treating cancer. For someone in a classroom full of students to have cancer is, unfortunately, not an uncommon event, putting it on the 'normal' side of the scale. While not abnormal, it's clearly very bad.
|-

!scope=row|Ornithology
|60%
|55%
|Ornithology is the study of birds. A bird getting into a classroom would be somewhat strange, but there are circumstances under which it would happen. In most cases, that's not especially dangerous, but it would be disruptive, and introduce the possibility of the bird making a mess, and possibly getting hurt (or even hurting others), which makes it slightly bad.
|-

!scope=row|Animation
|100%
|56%
|Examples of animated works might be displayed to the students in an animation class. It would be weird for animated characters to appear physically in the classroom instead of being projected on screens. Possibly a reference to movies such as ''Who Framed Roger Rabbit'' in which cartoon characters actively interact with the live action cast. As many of the characters abide by different physics, and a couple are depicted as insane, this would be very weird and potentially bad.
Meeting actors costumed as an animated character to present or promote something would be generally better and somewhat less weird, but it arguably might not count as animation come to life.
|-

!scope=row|Petroleum Geology
|65%
|60%
|Crude oil coming up through the floor of the classroom would be ''very'' weird. Any potential for hands-on learning experience would be limited, and quickly outweighed by classes being disrupted entirely (be it damage to the building, or oil companies trying to negotiate for the land).
|-

!scope=row|Highway Engineering
|75%
|65%
|A highway being built through an active classroom would be very unusual and not that safe.
|-

!scope=row|Toxicology
|55%
|75%
|Most likely, a toxic substance is present in the room. This is not very weird if the room is in a building that has asbestos-containing insulation (typically associated with buildings constructed before the 1990s, although it has not been specifically outlawed in the United States due to industrial lobbying) or lead paint (which was fully outlawed in 1978, so any paint must have been applied prior to that date). However, toxic substances are unsafe for humans{{Citation needed}}.
|-

!scope=row|Hematology
|75%
|70%
|Hematology is the study of blood. Given that there should be blood in each of the students present{{Citation needed}}, we should probably assume Randall means "large quantities of blood outside of one's body", which would indeed be both bad and weird.
|-

!scope=row|Hostage Negotiation
|70%
|85%
|Reasons as to why there would be hostage negotiations taking place at a school have horrifying implications for the students and teacher.
|-

!scope=row|History of Siege Warfare
|100%
|80%
|This would be an exceptionally strange event. Given that the topic is 'history', having it show up implies that either historical figures have the classroom under siege (possibly through time travel or reanimation) or at least that the besiegers are using traditional weapons and methods in their attack. In either case, it would be a very weird event, and also very bad.
|-

!scope=row|Trauma Surgery
|55%
|95%
|An injury severe enough to require trauma surgery would be rare in a classroom, but there are circumstanced under which it could realistically happen. Such an injury would be, by it's very nature, a very bad thing.
|-

!scope=row|Volcanology
|75%
|95%
|Having a live volcano in one's classroom is both very dangerous and very weird {{Citation needed}}. Volcanoes mature over very long time frames, but even the earliest stages are highly disruptive and potentially deadly, as seen in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par%C3%ADcutin#Formation 1943 eruption of Paricutín] and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_lower_Puna_eruption#Eruption 2018 flank eruption of Kilauea]. Note this also applies to [[1611: Baking Soda and Vinegar | baking soda and vinegar volcanoes that are offshoots of much larger vinegar hotspots]].
|-

!scope=row|Quasar Astronomy
|75%
|100%
|Quasars are distant astronomical objects that release large amounts of energy. Not only would the power of a quasar destroy the classroom (as well as the rest of Earth,) quasars are too large to fit inside any known classroom. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULAS_J1342%2B0928 ULAS J1342+0928] has a mass of 8*10^8 solar masses. This means the event horizon of the black hole is almost 16 AU in radius, and this size does not include the accretion disk.
|-

!scope=row|Ontology (Title Text)
|<0%
|?
|Ontology is the philosophical study of existence and being. Since there must be ''something'' learning in the classroom, it is unsurprising that ontology is a normal subject to appear in the classroom. It would, in fact, be more bizarre to have a lack of Ontology in the classroom.
|-

!scope=row|Geography (Title Text)
|>100%
|?
|Geographers study the lands, features, inhabitants, and phenomena of the Earth. While each classroom classroom contains a small portion of the Earth's surface (normally not enough of it to be interesting to geographers), having the ''entire Earth'' appear inside a classroom would likely demand explanation. In particular, if this is an ordinary classroom (i.e. located ''on'' the Earth), the planet's simultaneous appearance within its walls would both defy our current understanding of spacetime, and risk [[1515: Basketball Earth | disastrous consequences at the hands of curious students.]] This could also be implying the classroom is suddenly being located on top of a geographic border, which would be highly unlikely, especially if it happened without warning.

|}

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

:[Caption above scatter plot with labeled axes]
:Caption: The thing you study just showed up in your classroom! That's...
:Upper y-axis label: Good
:Lower y-axis label: Bad
:Upper x-axis label: Normal
:Lower x-axis label: Weird

:[First quadrant (left to right, top to bottom):]
:20th century authors
:Exobiology
:21st century authors
:19th century authors
:Robotics
:Paleontology
:Martian soil chemistry
:Child psychology
:Tourism
:[Second quadrant]
:Atmospheric physics
:Ethics
:Education
:Bibliography
:Human physiology
:Public speaking
:Architecture
:Library science
:Furniture design
:Culinary arts
:Ergonomics
:Botany
:[Third quadrant]
:Entomology
:Occupational therapy
:Hydraulic engineering
:Pest control
:Foodborne illness
:Criminal law
:Physiology of stress
:Oncology
:[Fourth quadrant]
:Ornithology
:Animation
:Petroleum geology
:Highway engineering
:Toxicology
:Hematology
:Hostage negotiation
:History of siege warfare
:Trauma surgery
:Volcanology
:Quasar astronomy

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Rankings]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Cancer]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Volcanoes]]

2473: Product Launch

2021-06-09T16:46:29Z

108.162.219.120: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2473
| date = June 7, 2021
| title = Product Launch
| image = product_launch.png
| titletext = "Okay, that was weird, but the product reveal was normal. I think the danger is pas--" "One more thing." "Oh no."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a NON-THREATENING SMART DEVICE. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Three people are discussing the upcoming public announcement of their company's new product, apparently an electronic device shown on the pedestal between them. Hairy mentions that smart devices can make people uncomfortable. Common reasons include:

* It is impossible for consumers to know what the device is really doing (since it is a "black box" with inaccessible software).
* The device could stop working in the future due to poor quality or software problems;
* The device could be used by the company to spy on people, including ones who did not consent to this by purchasing the device.
* The device could represent a security or even safety risk by allowing hackers or other groups access to the network or any systems that the device controls.

To allay these concerns, the device should be presented as non-threatening. Cueball asks to confirm the '''non''', implying that this was not clear to him before. In fact, it even appears he thought he was being asked to put together a ''threatening'' presentation, but does not explain.

Later, Cueball presents the device on-stage, with statements that have been styled to sound positive but carry double meanings. The subtlety of the changes in tone could make them harder to discuss for many.

* He confirms that the product can "change the world for good or evil" (most would merely claim that their new product is good, or will change the world).
* The "plaintive cries of [the company's] customers"; those cries may be because of the company's actions rather than customer demands for a new product.
* The company wants to "give [customers] what they deserve," a phrase often associated with judgments that are as likely to punish as to reward.
* Instead of being merely uncovered, the product is being exposed to the atmosphere (implying a chemical or physical reaction) and is to affect customers within five city blocks (nearly 1 km). This is further than common smart devices (using wireless technologies such as WiFi or Bluetooth) would reach. Worse, this event is supposed to be surprising, unlike, for example, the sudden availability of a new long-distance radio network.
* When someone in the audience decides to leave in the middle of the presentation, Cueball reassures them that a "staggering" large number of people will survive; this is usually considered true of non-military fair-trade product launches{{fact}}, but this is also not a reassuring way to phrase that fact. Plus, there is no assertion that the "staggering" number is in fact 100%, which would typically be the survival rate for most product launches{{fact}}.

In the title text, someone is saying that the actual reveal was uneventful. Cueball interrupts, implying that there is one last feature to demonstrate, at which point the first speaker assumes the worst (that the product's most threatening aspect was saved for last).

Besides the main joke of a product that is likely so unsafe as to be illegal, the comic could also be poking fun at the desire of tech companies to make their products sound important, which can undermine the message of benign safety.

This comic was released on the day of Apple's 2021 WWDC (Worldwide Developer Conference) keynote, at which the company traditionally announces new features and products. "One more thing" is a tagline famously associated with Steve Jobs' product announcements and something of an Apple tradition.

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

:[Hairy and Ponytail are standing to the left of a wrapped object. Cueball is standing on the right.]
:Hairy: The press is here for the product launch!
:Hairy: Remember, people are wary of smart devices, so we want to strike a non-threatening tone.

:[Pan over to just Cueball; Hairy and Ponytail are off of the left side of the panel.]
:Cueball: Hang on, did you say '''''non'''''-threatening?
:Hairy: Yes. Why-
:Cueball: Nothing. It's probably fine.

:[Caption: Soon...]
:[Cueball is standing on a platform next to the previously seen wrapped object.]
:Cueball: They say technology can change the world, for good or for evil. Our new product will show how true that is.
:Cueball: We hear the plaintive cries of our customers. We want to give them what they deserve.

:[Zoom in on Cueball, who has his hand up in a gesture.]
:Cueball: Now, let us expose our product to the atmosphere for the first time, surprising and delighting customers within a five-block radius.
:(Voice off-panel): I'm leaving.
:Cueball: No, don't worry! A staggering number of people will survive!

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

2465: Dimensional Chess

2021-05-19T18:13:28Z

108.162.219.120: Previous explanation of "?!" was incorrect

{{comic
| number = 2465
| date = May 19, 2021
| title = Dimensional Chess
| image = dimensional_chess.png
| titletext = In Dimensional Chess, every move is annotated '?!'.
}}

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

Being good at chess is often regarded as a sign of high intelligence. As such, someone who is able to competently play 3-dimensional chess is often regarded as even more intelligent than someone who can only play 2-dimensional chess. Making chess into an N-dimensional game thus makes it arbitrarily more difficult, even before Randall's addition of non-uniform dimensionality of the board.

Regarding Randall's rule that "every row has one more dimension than the one behind it," it is easiest to see how this is applied with the first two rows on each end. The first row on each end is simply a one dimensional line: you can go from left to right. The second row then becomes a square: you can go left to right and top to bottom. Note that there are seven spaces from top to bottom, as opposed to the typical 8 from left to right. This is likely to make sure there is symmetry between how many additional spaces are on top vs on the bottom (three, in this case). Moving another row would presumably add movement in some other direction to make it more complicated/interesting. This escalates until somehow the middle two rows require moving pieces in 4-dimensions, despite our typical world being 3-dimensional. This could potentially be accomplished via playing on a computer.

The title text refers to the practice among many chess players of writing down what happens throughout the game so that they can review how the game went later. There are several common forms of this {{w|Chess notation}}. According to Randall, in "dimensional chess," every annotation is followed by '?!'. According to the Wikipedia article on chess annotation symbols, this refers to a dubious move (either of doubtful legality or unclear merit, both of which would make sense in this level of confusion). Note that "in dimensional chess" may be a pun on "N-dimensional chess."

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

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1771: It Was I

2016-12-12T13:34:10Z

108.162.219.120: Suggest link

"It me" isn't "caveman-speak"... It's a popular Internet meme. See [http://www.papermag.com/it-me-you-and-everyone-we-know-a-look-at-the-webs-most-ambiguous-meme-1427655235.html here] and [http://www.papermag.com/an-interview-with-pastaversaucy-the-inventor-of-the-it-me-meme-1427658503.html here], for starters. --[[User:Esterhazy|Esterhazy]] ([[User talk:Esterhazy|talk]]) 07:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking it might be a reference to the syntax Jar Jar Bings uses "It's a me Jar Jar" "Misa is" etc. which would ad to why Darth Vader begs the Emperor never to speak like this again, it could also serve as a reference to the Darth Jar Jar theories flying around.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.148|162.158.202.148]] 08:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Not super familiar with the general style on this wiki, but surely we should note that this ''Star Wars'' comic comes ahead of Friday's ''Rogue One'' premiere, right? Like in a trivia section or the main article somehow? [[User:Aepokk|Aepokk]] ([[User talk:Aepokk|talk]]) 08:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I read it as being the emperor who said "It was me who allowed the-" --[[User:RU42LINES|ru42lines]] ([[User talk:RU42LINES|talk]]) 09:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
: I agree, so edited as such. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.233|141.101.98.233]] 09:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
: Quite right, thanks! --[[User:AnotherAnonymous|AnotherAnonymous]] ([[User talk:AnotherAnonymous|talk]]) 10:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I checked a bunch of online style guides. It looks like Luke is actually wrong here. "to be"/"was" is a linking verb, and generally "It was I" is considered the correct form. "It was me" is acceptable informally but that doesn't invalidate the rule. [[User:Luckykaa|Luckykaa]] ([[User talk:Luckykaa|talk]]) 10:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
: I think you may have missed the point there.--[[User:AnotherAnonymous|AnotherAnonymous]] ([[User talk:AnotherAnonymous|talk]]) 10:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:: Just a note that might be relevant to a more detailed discussion. This wiki does often detail the academic elements of the joke [[User:Luckykaa|Luckykaa]] ([[User talk:Luckykaa|talk]]) 10:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
::: Please do document them. But the whole point of the cartoon is in fact to discuss this question, but there isn't really a 'right' or 'wrong' and certainly not one prescribed by style guides. See [[1735: Fashion Police and Grammar Police]].--[[User:AnotherAnonymous|AnotherAnonymous]] ([[User talk:AnotherAnonymous|talk]]) 10:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/IIAdHEwiAy8 --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.44|141.101.81.44]] 12:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This probably should have a link to [[890|this comic]].

865: Nanobots

2015-08-16T15:34:15Z

108.162.219.120: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 865
| date = February 25, 2011
| title = Nanobots
| image = nanobots.png
| titletext = I think the IETF hit the right balance with the 128 bits thing. We can fit MAC addresses in a /64 subnet, and the nanobots will only be able to devour half the planet.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Megan]] and [[Ponytail]] are in orbit while nanobots are devouring the earth in a swarm. The nanobots stop after devouring 40% of the planet. This is a take on the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo Grey goo]" scenario in which self-replicating nanobots destroy the earth while creating more and more of themselves non-stop.

However, the nanobots are only able to destroy 40% of the planet because 40% of the earth volume = (# of {{w|IPv6}} addresses) x (A few cubic microns). Without more IP addresses, the nanobots cannot continue to replicate (assuming that each nanobot must be individually addressable).

IPv6 supports approximately 3.4×1038 addresses while the {{w|Earth|Earth's volume}} is around 1.08321×1012 km3 or 1.08321×1039 µm3(cubic micrometre). [[Randall]]'s guess on 40% of the planet would mean each nanobot is about 1.27331 µm3 (which is still less than "a few microns" according to [[1070: Words for Small Sets]]).

This is a joke on the shortage of IPv4 addresses. The only difference is that we are on {{w|IPv4}} and the nanobots are on {{w|IPv6}}.

1998 is when the [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460 IPv6 Specification (RFC 2460)] was published and IETF is the Internet Engineering Task Force.

Note that an April fool joke for [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1606 IPV9] exists and would have guaranteed Earth's doom in this comic's scenario.

==Transcript==
:[Megan and commander are on a space station.]
:Megan: Commander! Come quick! It's the nanobots—they've ''STOPPED!''

:Megan: They devoured 40% of the Earth, and then just... quit! They're just sitting there! Why?!

:Ponytail: It's a mystery. ...unless... What's the volume of each nanobot?
:Megan: A few cubic microns. Why?
:Ponytail: I think the year 1998 just bought us some time.
:[Earth's surface, covered in mountains of nanobots.]

:In the swarm:
:Nanobot: What do you mean, "Run out of addresses?"
:Other Nanobot: Look, we should've migrated away from IPv6 ''AGES'' ago...

==Trivia==

*On the website, the space above the comic says "xkcd.com now has IPv6 connectivity. If you can't reach it, you or your
ISP have misconfigured equipment. Sadly, I now have no way to tell you."

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics with inverted brightness]]
[[Category:Science]]

1562: I in Team

2015-08-15T00:40:18Z

108.162.219.120: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1562
| date = August 10, 2015
| title = I in Team
| image = i_in_team.png
| titletext = There's no "I" in "VOWELS".
}}

==Explanation==

"There's no I in team" is a well-known saying that tries to encourage teamwork by reducing each member's individual self importance. The intention of the phrase is to remind team members that, just as the letter "i" is not present in the word "team", focus on the metaphorical "I" (i.e. individual self-interest) is not constructive in teamwork. It can be used as a light reprimand to a team member who isn't cooperating, with the reminder that when working as a team one cannot think only for oneself, and must work in partnership with the rest of the team towards a common goal.

The phrase "no I in team" dates from the 1960s in the USA with printed references [http://www.knowyourphrase.com/phrase-meanings/Theres-no-I-in-team.html] showing it is familiar to baseball pitchers such as {{w|Vern Law}}. (It's interesting that it seems to come from baseball, a sport where individual plays are so important, compared to, say, rugby.)

In this comic [[Cueball]] takes the sentence literally, as a metalingual comment (see {{w|Jakobson's functions of language}}), and he points out to [[Hairy]] that the spelling (or {{w|orthography}}) of a word doesn't relate to its meaning (an instance of the {{w|use–mention distinction}}).

Cueball is using the same joke against Hairy by saying there ''is'' a "u" in "People who apparently don't understand the relationship between orthography and meaning". There is a "u" (pronounced as "you") in what Cueball said, implying that Hairy is included in the set of people who mistakenly link orthography and meaning.

Of course, it's very likely that Hairy knows that orthography doesn't determine meaning, and could easily reply "There's also a 'u' in 'People who understand {{w|aphorisms}} too literally' ".

The title text "There's no 'I' in 'VOWELS'." provides another illustration of the distinction between orthography and meaning. "A", "I" and "U" are vowels, notwithstanding the irrelevant fact that they are not included in the spelling of "VOWELS".

Orthography was the subject of [[1069: Alphabet]].

==Transcript==
:[Hairy and Cueball stand opposite each other.]
:Hairy: Remember, there's no "I" in "team".
:Cueball: No, but there's a "U" in "People who apparently don't understand the relationship between orthography and meaning".

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Language]]

1446: Landing

2015-07-31T15:17:55Z

108.162.219.120: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1446
| date = November 12, 2014
| title = Landing
| image = landingAnimated.gif
| titletext = [LIVE]
}}
Frames of the comic began appearing at midnight ({{w|Eastern Time Zone|EST}}) on November 12, 2014 and updated every five minutes. Together, the images form a {{w|flip book}} which is shown here above. You can find the individual images by clicking on the latest image of the comic on xkcd (go to that by clicking the date above or find it directly at [http://xkcd1446.org xkcd1446.org]).

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|The comic has been updated further since Philae was awakened}}
This comic changed over time during 12 hours and 15 minutes starting at 0:00 EST (when the comic normally is released) posting 143 pictures that tracked the progress of the {{w|Philae (spacecraft)|Philae}} lander separating from the {{w|European Space Agency}}'s {{w|Rosetta (spacecraft)|Rosetta}} probe to land on comet {{w|67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko}}. More info can be found here: [http://rosetta.esa.int rosetta.esa.int].

The comic presents the imagined anthropomorphic "thoughts" of the Rosetta spacecraft and the Philae lander (and occasionally other parties) during the hours approaching separation from each other, approach to the comet and finally the apparently successful landing on the comet.

Beginning at [[Media:???65.png|11:05]], the comic includes a '''"Status Report"''' in the lower right corner which summarizes the status of various interested parties and accomplishments, beginning with "Rosetta", "Philae lander", "Mission Control", "Comet 67P", and "Have we landed on a comet?". As events occur in the comic, more status summaries are added to keep track of the changes to the situation and the supposed emotions behind them.

In many pictures a whale can be seen on the surface of the comet - often marked with a "?" as are almost all other parts of the unknown surface at this time. There is also drawn a [[Cueball]] on the surface also marked with a "?" Both are then at some point marked with a ''probably not'' - starting from [[Media:???83.png|12:35]]. The whales are also mentioned in the "Status Report" where they for instance may be listed as "calm" or "(probably) not in space". At [[Media:???122.png|16:00]] the when the entire Earth goes ''AAAAAAAAAAA'' the whales are listed as saying this as well (along with Mission control and U.S. scientists). From this moment "Dolphins and fish" are also mentioned in the report. They are asking if it is the whales that screamed. The reference to whales comes from the fact that Philae brought along two harpoons that should have been used to anchor it to the comet. On Earth, harpoons have mainly been used to hunt whales; Randall previously brought up that comparison in [[1402: Harpoons]], suggesting that Philae was programmed to believe it was sent to kill the comet. It is Philae that "dreams" about whales on the surface of the comet which can be seen in the picture for [[Media:???93.png|13:25]] and in the status report.

Some {{w|Douglas Adams}} fans believe these whales and dolphins are references to ''{{w|The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy}}'' and ''{{w|So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish}}.'' Whales in space have been appearing in fiction and art since the 1960s. However, with the above mentioned reasons for whales, dolphins and fish, this seems less and less likely.

Shortly after release from Rosetta ([[Media:???56.png|10:15]]), Philae calls out 'Spaaaaaaaaaace'; this mimics the {{w|Portal 2}} 'Space core' who, on finally reaching space in the last scenes, gives the same elated cry.

US Scientists presumably wake up at 7:40 EST ([[Media:???96.png|13:40]] UTC) and in the report they now says "Bluuurghhh. What time is it?" to indicate their tiredness. This does not change until 10:25 EST ([[Media:???115.png|15:25]] UTC) so they are slow to wake (2 hours 45 minutes). At this point, they becomes anxious as there are only 10 minutes to landing. This last until there is 15 minutes until news of landing (a reference to the 28 minutes time delay due to the huge distance to the comet). From then on ([[Media:???120.png|15:50]]) they and the mission control (MC) say "AAAAAAA". They stop this when the news should be there - the NOW ([[Media:???122a.png|16:05]]) - and everybody holds their breath indicated by [...] - also MC. Finally ([[Media:???125.png|16:25]]) they and MC become proud (along with Earth) when Philae announces ''I got you a comet.'' It should have stopped there but as Philae bounced around, they then becomes anxious again [[Media:???128.png|16:40]], and then this changes to nervous [[Media:???129.png|16:45]] (switching those emotions with MC). And then suddenly ([[Media:???130.png|16:50]]) it is no longer US Scientists but just plain Scientists - that are nervous. It stays like this during the last few pictures, although they again become anxious, but when Philae announces ''I did it'', they drink wine as indicated with "[wine]" in the report from the second to last picture ([[Media:???134.png|17:10]]).

Randall has written "A big thank-you to [https://twitter.com/elakdawalla Emily Lakdawalla] for help and advice on this comic" in the xkcd page header for [http://www.xkcd.com/1446/ Landing], revealing the possible source of his near real-time data.

At [[Media:???124.png|16:20]] the status report had announced a big '''Yes''' to the questions "Have we landed on a comet" and "Do harpoons work on comets". According to [http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30026398 BBC News], the harpoons did, however, not fire as planned and the lander may have landed, bounced off, and landed again. This would explain the change in "Do harpoons work on comets" to "Don't know" at [[Media:???127.png|16:35]] and the change in "Have we landed on a comet?" to "Yes, at least once" at [[Media:???130.png|16:50]]. According to [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/science/space/european-space-agencys-spacecraft-lands-on-comets-surface.html?_r=0 The New York Times], radio contact with Philae fluctuated, which would explain the "Anxious", "Nervous", and "Confused" statuses around that time. In the end the lander did land and whereas the Do harppons work status did not change, so did the have we landed on a comet which changed back to '''Yes''' at [[Media:???134.png|17:10]].

The lander bounced three times and ended up in a place where the solar panels where mainly in the shadow. This resulted in the lander shutting down when its own battery ran out of power after only 2-3 days on the ground. This seemed sad, as there was only a small chance that the seasons on the comet would change so that the panels would later receive sun again. However, in the few hours that Philae had on the ground, it still managed to analyze the surface and obtain a lot of useful data - so that part of the mission was still a success already. This all happened after the comic stopped updating.

On June 13, 2015, it was announced that signals had been received on earth indicating that Philae had awoken and that the solar panels were functioning. Ironically, had Philae landed in a place originally out of shadow, it would have already failed before this time (due to overheating), so it was actually fortunate that it landed as it did and would be able to operate during the time that the comet would be closer to the sun. To celebrate the lander's revival, Randall updated the comic, depicting the lander saying "Hi." on the comet's surface.

The comic title was originally "???" (probably to not give away too early what the comic was about), but changed to "Landing" when Randall came on live at five in the morning EST. At that moment the title text also changed from "..." to "[LIVE]". It was also then that the timestamps' timezone switch. At 5:00 AM (EST) the time stamp in the picture naming scheme switched from EST to {{w|Coordinated Universal Time|UTC}} as used in ESA's time keeping, resulting in a jump from [[Media:???53.png|04:55]] to [[Media:???54.png|10:00]] without actually any such delay between the two pictures.

There were however a few pictures with more than 5 minutes of delay (about 11 times five minutes without an update in total during the "live" transmission). The update seemed to have stopped after 137 pictures at 17:15 UTC, 12 hours and 15 minutes after the first picture. (The first picture has number 0, so the last had number 136). But later, sometime after 17:15 UTC, the counter for the last picture was increased to 142 (143 pictures in total), so maybe Randall inserted 6 extra pictures later - however he must then have changed the numbers on the pictures, since the last picture remained the same until mid-June, but with number 142 instead of 136. It is thus now difficult to find out which pictures would have been added later. However, eight pictures were not included in the original table with the [[#Frame by Frame Breakdown|Frame by Frame Breakdown]] below. So it must have been some of those missing pictures that were added later - maybe all of them, as the last three may already have been added before the last picture was released (All 143 pictures are included in the flip-book gif image shown here above). But even 143 pictures at 5 minutes intervals only spans 11 hours and 50 minutes, thus there are still five ''5 minute intervals'' without any picture. See which in the [[1446: Landing/Frame by Frame Breakdown|table]].

==Frame by Frame Breakdown==
*Here is a [[1446: Landing/Frame by Frame Breakdown|link to a table]] with a frame by frame breakdown of all 143 pictures.
*Here is a [[1446: Landing/All pictures|page with all the pictures]] frame by frame.

==Transcript==
:[This transcript gives only the text in the last of the 143 pictures shown in the comic. That which is now shown when clicking to the comic on xkcd.]

:[This is the from the picture with time stamp 17:15.]
:[Showing Philae on a comet.]
:Rosetta: Philae?
:Rosetta: Is everything OK?
:Philae: I landed!
:Philae: I'm on a comet.
:Philae: I'm OK and I'm on a comet.
:[Status report at the bottom-right corner.]
:Status report:
::Rosetta: In space
::Philae lander: Landed
::Mission control: !!!!!
::Comet 67P: Landed on
::Whales: Calm
::Scientists: [Wine]
::Harpoons: Tricky
::Dolphins and Fish: OK
::Have we landed on a comet?: '''YES'''
::Do harpoons work on comets: Don't know
::Earth: !!!!!
::Has anybody tried this before: Nope

:[For the '''full transcript''' of all 143 pictures see '''[[1446: Landing/Transcript]]'''.]

==Trivia==
*There appears to be a brief error between 02:35 and 02:45, where the time until lander separation is shown as 1 hour, counting down to 50 minutes, before being corrected to 75 minutes at 02:50.
**Since this was supposed to be during the "non-live" section before Randall got up (and got live) it is not sure whether this was a "real" mistake, or if he was up anyway, and corrected this timing error when he discovered the plans had change during the approach flight.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Dynamic comics]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Comics with color‏‎]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball‏‎]]
[[Category:Animals‏‎]]

Talk:1027: Pickup Artist

2015-05-20T10:27:11Z

108.162.219.120:

{{w|Penny Arcade (webcomic)|Penny Arcade}} had a fascinating exchange on this subject a while back: http://www.penny-arcade.com/2009/08/10 - start in the last paragraph of the first post, and note that until "Follow up" the argument is mostly feigned. Especially read the two long posts at the end.

The biggest message I got out of it is that "pickup artistry" to many awkward people (aka nerds) is actually "learning how to fit in better socially and get over crippling anxiety when talking to women, or even in social situations generally." Negging, then, is not "lowering women's self-esteem to sleep with them", but is engaging in the gentle teasing and joking around that occurs between friends - the "diet" example Randall proposes is a terrible one. In that way you're acting less like you're treating your social partner as some untouchable object of worship (which most of us would agree is creepy as hell). It's very hard for those without any sort of crippling social anxiety to imagine trying to be socially active under those circumstances. Is it sad that "normal" comfort level and social graces didn't develop naturally, such that some nerds have to "learn" these things? Perhaps. Does that mean we should shame all nerds for trying to fit in, labeling them "dehumanizing creeps"? Yell at anyone with low self-esteem "HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE, LOSER!"? I hope not.

Of course there are jerks who will use this stuff for evil. Maybe more of them than the nerds, I have no idea. It's also possible these anxiety-fighting methods have better alternatives. Just another perspective I didn't know about until reading about it, which made me take Randall's one-sided, there-can-be-no-other-explanation comments on the subject with a grain of salt. But, still a funny strip, so whatevs. [[User:Jerodast|- jerodast]] ([[User talk:Jerodast|talk]]) 16:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

: I loved the strip because of throwing a bowling ball under a line of stalls (which isn't creepy nor dehumanizing?) but anyhow... I agree with you. I used to be virtually unable to talk to women, let alone flirt. I used pickup tips to break out of my shell and learn how to be a sociable person. Today, most new people I meet can't believe I used to be that shy, I actually had my best friend talk bad about me to my girlfriend who couldn't believe that at all. Guess what ... she loves me for being a good and honest person. The only thing pickup learned me was to show my honest and good side to other people in a normal, non creepy way.
: That being said. It is insulting that an otherwise smart person like Randall couldn't see the different aspects of pickup and rather just go with the popular "creep" definition. Then again, Baret Guy is just a cliche asshole. Maybe that's the lesson, neither pickup artists nor assholes are good choices for women. [[Special:Contributions/62.159.14.62|62.159.14.62]] 15:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
::What do you two think that the phrase ''pickup artist'' literally means? If you want to develop into a good and honest person, how could the way be to learn ''pickup'' '''''tricks''''' aiming to seduce and ''fuck'' women? If you meet someone that wants to learn to be more romantic, suggest them to read {{w|Pride and Prejudice}}, or watch {{w|Casablanca (film)|Casablanca}}. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 20:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Trying to be a "Romantic" upon first meeting a girl is going to crash and burn 99/100 HARD. The reason being, romance is wonderful when you are already IN a relationship, but it is a terrible way to start. The hollywood version of "Romance" isn't even anywhere NEAR what a real healthy relationship full of problems and compromises and arguments and give and take is. As one of those "Nerds" with crippling social anxiety I tried that. I watched Casablanca, wonderful film. I grew up treating every girl/woman I met as though they where a princess. I was the most romantic person I could possibly be. It got me nowhere. Actually it got me called a creep on dozens of occasions. The few times a woman would respond favorably she was just using me for whatever petty bs she wanted at the time, rides, drinks, etc.

The real world you have to find the middle way. Neither bag-em-and-tag-em womanizing, nor putting women on an impossible pedestal. Everything I know about "Normal" human interaction I learned from pickup artist books and shows. The whole point was to learn how to be at ease around people and have them at ease around you. Are there goofy tricks sure. Do I personally think negging for the most part is bs, absolutely. It isnt there to be used as a cureall. The purpose of negging is to bring the super full of herself party girl back down to planet earth in a gentle way. To let her not walk all over you. Its not to try and make someone feel bad, but to instead imply that you aren't going to be their whipping boy. Properly used, it just is a way to show you've got balls. {{unsigned|151.213.67.56}}

: To the unsigned person who wrote that: Do you realize you're displaying a markedly negative attitude towards women in general? Even the very idea of being "romantic" right off the bat shows a belief that women aren't actual human beings, they only exist to be targets of your sexual aggression. When you don't respect someone as a human being, get to know them, etc., you set yourself up for disappointment. It *is* creepy, exactly the same as PoA techniques. The goal isn't to get to know someone to see if you're compatible; it's to manipulate them and coerce them into "feeling at ease" or into a semblance of a relationship. And if you despise a woman enough to describe her as a "super full of herself party girl", why in the world would you want a relationship with her? You yourself state that you don't, you just want to cut her down and prove your own power. Your techniques have nothing to do with establishing a communication between equals and everything to do with establishing yourself as dominant and powerful and women as powerless. [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206|75.103.23.206]] 21:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

:: From my limited perspective, a "pickup artist " is a person, usually male, who tries to coerce or "pick up" others, usually female, for a night out, usually for intercourse. However the technique used can be employed in a variety of ways or for a variety of purposes. Apparently, it is an effective way to start a conversation with someone you are romantically interested in. That is,if you are intending to go into that direction. I'm not sure if a pickup artist actually studies the so called art, or if they just employ their skills as often as possible. I can see why some can be considered "dehumanizing creeps" but the art itself is not necessarily dehumanizing.

:: On a less serious note, what Danish is doing is technically not negging. In the comic, negging is described as a way to get someone to seek your approval, where Danish only seems to want to make the guy feel bad. ~Alithia [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.117|108.162.241.117]] 03:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

My perfect woman, right there! - [[User:E-inspired|E-inspired]] ([[User talk:E-inspired|talk]]) 22:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The last picture reminds me of a szene in Star Wars Episode II, when Obi-Wan executes the Jedi Mind Trick on Elan Sleazebaggano. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121765/quotes for details. --[[User:Kigana|Kigana]] ([[User talk:Kigana|talk]]) 15:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A belated word to any male readers who have a really hard time figuring out how to talk to women (I'm not referring to pickup tricks here!): Mystery novelist Dorothy Sayers, in an essay in her "Are Women Human?" collection, wrote “A man once asked me ... how I managed in my books to write such natural conversation between men when they were by themselves. Was I, by any chance, a member of a large, mixed family with a lot of male friends? I replied that, on the contrary, I was an only child and had practically never seen or spoken to any men of my own age till I was about twenty-five. "Well," said the man, "I shouldn't have expected a woman (meaning me) to have been able to make it so convincing." I replied that I had coped with this difficult problem by making my men talk, as far as possible, like ordinary human beings. This aspect of the matter seemed to surprise the other speaker; he said no more, but took it away to chew it over. One of these days it may quite likely occur to him that women, as well as men, when left to themselves, talk very much like human beings also.” This affirms the advice in the comic: when you feel overcome with social anxiety in the presence of a woman, try talking to her as if she's an ordinary human being. :) [though this excerpt is surely copyright, I believe it falls under the fair use policy; it can be found on https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/529133-are-women-human] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.120|108.162.219.120]] 10:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1027: Pickup Artist

2015-05-20T10:23:58Z

108.162.219.120:

{{w|Penny Arcade (webcomic)|Penny Arcade}} had a fascinating exchange on this subject a while back: http://www.penny-arcade.com/2009/08/10 - start in the last paragraph of the first post, and note that until "Follow up" the argument is mostly feigned. Especially read the two long posts at the end.

The biggest message I got out of it is that "pickup artistry" to many awkward people (aka nerds) is actually "learning how to fit in better socially and get over crippling anxiety when talking to women, or even in social situations generally." Negging, then, is not "lowering women's self-esteem to sleep with them", but is engaging in the gentle teasing and joking around that occurs between friends - the "diet" example Randall proposes is a terrible one. In that way you're acting less like you're treating your social partner as some untouchable object of worship (which most of us would agree is creepy as hell). It's very hard for those without any sort of crippling social anxiety to imagine trying to be socially active under those circumstances. Is it sad that "normal" comfort level and social graces didn't develop naturally, such that some nerds have to "learn" these things? Perhaps. Does that mean we should shame all nerds for trying to fit in, labeling them "dehumanizing creeps"? Yell at anyone with low self-esteem "HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE, LOSER!"? I hope not.

Of course there are jerks who will use this stuff for evil. Maybe more of them than the nerds, I have no idea. It's also possible these anxiety-fighting methods have better alternatives. Just another perspective I didn't know about until reading about it, which made me take Randall's one-sided, there-can-be-no-other-explanation comments on the subject with a grain of salt. But, still a funny strip, so whatevs. [[User:Jerodast|- jerodast]] ([[User talk:Jerodast|talk]]) 16:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

: I loved the strip because of throwing a bowling ball under a line of stalls (which isn't creepy nor dehumanizing?) but anyhow... I agree with you. I used to be virtually unable to talk to women, let alone flirt. I used pickup tips to break out of my shell and learn how to be a sociable person. Today, most new people I meet can't believe I used to be that shy, I actually had my best friend talk bad about me to my girlfriend who couldn't believe that at all. Guess what ... she loves me for being a good and honest person. The only thing pickup learned me was to show my honest and good side to other people in a normal, non creepy way.
: That being said. It is insulting that an otherwise smart person like Randall couldn't see the different aspects of pickup and rather just go with the popular "creep" definition. Then again, Baret Guy is just a cliche asshole. Maybe that's the lesson, neither pickup artists nor assholes are good choices for women. [[Special:Contributions/62.159.14.62|62.159.14.62]] 15:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
::What do you two think that the phrase ''pickup artist'' literally means? If you want to develop into a good and honest person, how could the way be to learn ''pickup'' '''''tricks''''' aiming to seduce and ''fuck'' women? If you meet someone that wants to learn to be more romantic, suggest them to read {{w|Pride and Prejudice}}, or watch {{w|Casablanca (film)|Casablanca}}. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 20:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Trying to be a "Romantic" upon first meeting a girl is going to crash and burn 99/100 HARD. The reason being, romance is wonderful when you are already IN a relationship, but it is a terrible way to start. The hollywood version of "Romance" isn't even anywhere NEAR what a real healthy relationship full of problems and compromises and arguments and give and take is. As one of those "Nerds" with crippling social anxiety I tried that. I watched Casablanca, wonderful film. I grew up treating every girl/woman I met as though they where a princess. I was the most romantic person I could possibly be. It got me nowhere. Actually it got me called a creep on dozens of occasions. The few times a woman would respond favorably she was just using me for whatever petty bs she wanted at the time, rides, drinks, etc.

The real world you have to find the middle way. Neither bag-em-and-tag-em womanizing, nor putting women on an impossible pedestal. Everything I know about "Normal" human interaction I learned from pickup artist books and shows. The whole point was to learn how to be at ease around people and have them at ease around you. Are there goofy tricks sure. Do I personally think negging for the most part is bs, absolutely. It isnt there to be used as a cureall. The purpose of negging is to bring the super full of herself party girl back down to planet earth in a gentle way. To let her not walk all over you. Its not to try and make someone feel bad, but to instead imply that you aren't going to be their whipping boy. Properly used, it just is a way to show you've got balls. {{unsigned|151.213.67.56}}

: To the unsigned person who wrote that: Do you realize you're displaying a markedly negative attitude towards women in general? Even the very idea of being "romantic" right off the bat shows a belief that women aren't actual human beings, they only exist to be targets of your sexual aggression. When you don't respect someone as a human being, get to know them, etc., you set yourself up for disappointment. It *is* creepy, exactly the same as PoA techniques. The goal isn't to get to know someone to see if you're compatible; it's to manipulate them and coerce them into "feeling at ease" or into a semblance of a relationship. And if you despise a woman enough to describe her as a "super full of herself party girl", why in the world would you want a relationship with her? You yourself state that you don't, you just want to cut her down and prove your own power. Your techniques have nothing to do with establishing a communication between equals and everything to do with establishing yourself as dominant and powerful and women as powerless. [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206|75.103.23.206]] 21:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

:: From my limited perspective, a "pickup artist " is a person, usually male, who tries to coerce or "pick up" others, usually female, for a night out, usually for intercourse. However the technique used can be employed in a variety of ways or for a variety of purposes. Apparently, it is an effective way to start a conversation with someone you are romantically interested in. That is,if you are intending to go into that direction. I'm not sure if a pickup artist actually studies the so called art, or if they just employ their skills as often as possible. I can see why some can be considered "dehumanizing creeps" but the art itself is not necessarily dehumanizing.

:: On a less serious note, what Danish is doing is technically not negging. In the comic, negging is described as a way to get someone to seek your approval, where Danish only seems to want to make the guy feel bad. ~Alithia [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.117|108.162.241.117]] 03:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

My perfect woman, right there! - [[User:E-inspired|E-inspired]] ([[User talk:E-inspired|talk]]) 22:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The last picture reminds me of a szene in Star Wars Episode II, when Obi-Wan executes the Jedi Mind Trick on Elan Sleazebaggano. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121765/quotes for details. --[[User:Kigana|Kigana]] ([[User talk:Kigana|talk]]) 15:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A belated word to any male readers who have a really hard time figuring out how to talk to women (I'm not referring to pickup tricks here!): Mystery novelist Dorothy Sayers, in an essay in her "Are Women Human?" collection, wrote “A man once asked me ... how I managed in my books to write such natural conversation between men when they were by themselves. Was I, by any chance, a member of a large, mixed family with a lot of male friends? I replied that, on the contrary, I was an only child and had practically never seen or spoken to any men of my own age till I was about twenty-five. "Well," said the man, "I shouldn't have expected a woman (meaning me) to have been able to make it so convincing." I replied that I had coped with this difficult problem by making my men talk, as far as possible, like ordinary human beings. This aspect of the matter seemed to surprise the other speaker; he said no more, but took it away to chew it over. One of these days it may quite likely occur to him that women, as well as men, when left to themselves, talk very much like human beings also.” My own suggestion, then, would be that when you feel overcome with social anxiety in the presence of a woman, try talking to her as if she's an ordinary human being. :) [though this excerpt is surely copyright, I believe it falls under the fair use policy; it can be found on https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/529133-are-women-human] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.120|108.162.219.120]] 10:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)