explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1557: Ozymandias

2015-07-30T01:08:05Z

108.162.219.39:

Look upon this comment and despair! {{unsigned ip|173.245.50.164}}
: The fact that the true author of this comment may never be known is reason enough to despair.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.66|173.245.55.66]] 14:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
: An unrelated but interesting piece of trivia about Ozymandias: "Ozymandias" is the Greek name of the pharaoh Ramesses II, one of the most famous of the Egyptian pharaohs, who built many monuments that still stand today. So the poem, which has a ruler whose monument has crumbled and who is implied to be nearly forgotten, is in fact completely inaccurate! [[User:JoeNotCharles|JoeNotCharles]] ([[User talk:JoeNotCharles|talk]]) 15:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
:: Perhaps the Ozymandias King of Kings from the poem is not the same one as Ozymandias the pharaoh? So he's doubly forgotten, because he has a more famous [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/namefellow namefellow]! [[User:Leoboiko|Leoboiko]] ([[User talk:Leoboiko|talk]])

So... [http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Planepacked Planepacked]? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.145|173.245.50.145]] 05:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The page seems to give a description, but not an explanation of the joke. I still don't get it! Why has Ozymandias been singled out for this treatment? Is there some way in which recursion is particularly appropriate or inappropriate in this case, or has it just been selected arbitrarily? Is the whole joke that recursion is inherently funny? Normally when recursion is used in XKCD it's making a larger point, or cleverly riffing on something in particular. This isn't just Describe XKCD, so I'd love to see an explanation of this comic. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.47|141.101.99.47]] 09:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

:The poem Ozymandias, like the statue of the king,can be thought of as a pinnacle of achievement for its civilizarion- in this case, English civilization. So it is entirely possible that one day, after the fall of this civilization, the poem will fill the same role for it that the statue filled for Ozymandias' (fictional) civilization. [[User:Bbruzzo|Bbruzzo]] ([[User talk:Bbruzzo|talk]]) 15:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

:May it be that Ozymandias is chosen because of Smith’s poem, where at last London has vanished, suggesting that Shelley’s poem is the last remains of British civilization? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.193|162.158.91.193]] 10:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

:I think Ozymandias was chosen because its opening is particularly famous. Even people who don't know much about poetry are often passingly familiar with it, and there's something funny about playing with well-known classics. And yes, I do believe the joke is that infinite recursion is inherently funny. There's a long tradition of these recursion-jokes among computer scientists and math people (like the "GNU" acronym, or recursive index references), with precedents in xkcd itself. [[User:Leoboiko|Leoboiko]] ([[User talk:Leoboiko|talk]])

In Germany, we have a childrens’ song „Ein Mops kam in die Küche“, which translates as follows (there are slightly different versions, though):

A pug came into the kitchen / and stole an egg from the chef. / Then the chef took his knife / and mashed the pug. // Then many pugs came / to his grave / and set a memorial for him, / where these words were written: // “A pug came into the kitchen …”

Maybe something similar exists in English? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.193|162.158.91.193]] 10:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

:We have:

: This is the song that doesn't end, / Yes, it goes on and on, my friend, / Some people started singing it not knowing what it was, / And they'll continue singing it / Forever, just because [repeat] :''— [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 12:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)''

:There's also:
::I know a song that gets on everybody's nerves, everybody's nerves, everybody's nerves,
::I know a song that gets on everybody's nerves and this is how it goes...[repeat] {{unsigned ip|197.234.243.249}}

:: In Dutch: "Het was nacht, stikdonkere nacht. Veertig rovers zaten rond een vuur. De roverhoofdman stond op een zei: "Het was nacht, stikdonkere nacht... " "
:: Which translates to something along the lines of: "It was night, a pitchblack night. 40 robbers sat round a fire, their leader stood up and said: "It was night, a pitchblack night..." "
:: Sometimes the fire is replaced by the shadow of a dandelion. "..Forty robbers sat in the shadow of a Dandelion, their Chief stood up and said: "It was a dark night, forty robbers sat in the shadow of a dandelion", etc. -- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.67|141.101.104.67]] 13:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

::: The version I learned is: It was a dark and stormy night / and the good ship Marigold sailed the stormy seas. / The captain staggered down the steps / and said, "Mate, tell us a story!" / and the mate began, / "It was a dark and story night... --[[User:Mflansburg|Mflansburg]] ([[User talk:Mflansburg|talk]]) 15:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

:I've heard a very long infinitely recursive song in English, which is a variant of "The Bear Went Over the Mountain". The standard lyrics are:

:: The bear went over the mountain, the bear went over the mountain, the bear went over the mountain to see what he could see / And all that he could see, and all that he could see / Was the other side of the mountain, the other side of the mountain, the other side of the mountain, and that's what he could see.

: Well, the infinite variant goes:

:: The bear went over the mountain the bear went over the mountain, the bear went over the mountain to see what he could see / And all that he could see, and all that he could see / Was a valley in the mountain, a valley in the mountain, a valley in the mountain, and that's what he could see
:: The bear went over the mountain the bear went over the mountain, the bear went over the mountain to see what he could see / And all that he could see, and all that he could see / Was a lake in the valley, a lake in the valley, a lake in the valley, and that's what he could see
:: ... a sailboat on the lake ...
:: ... a man in the sailbot ...
:: ... pants on the man ...
:: ... a pocket in the pants ...
:: ... a nickel in the pocket ...
:: ... a beaver on the nickel ... (Note: I just realized this line only works in Canada, where the five cent coin has a picture of a beaver on it.)
:: ... a hair on the beaver ...
:: ... a flea on the hair ...
:: ... cells in the flea ...
:: ... a prisoner in the cells ...
:: ... pants on the prisoner ...
:: ... a pocket in the pants ...
:: etc.

: I prefer a slightly shorter version which goes from "a pocket in the pants" to "a dime in the pocket", then "a sailboat on the dime" (which again only works in Canada), and back to "a man in the sailboat". [[User:JoeNotCharles|JoeNotCharles]] ([[User talk:JoeNotCharles|talk]]) 15:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

: There's also [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.30|108.162.215.30]] 20:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

:: Yon Yonson - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yon_Yonson
:: Mighty mighty - https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070602235838AA6qSzz

::
Note that the recursion doesn't necessary be infinite. The list of travelers who met each other can have fixed length, for example 10. Imagining that the list is infinite is the joke. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
: I think that might be the point actually, the idea is that with each time someone tells the poem to someone else, it grows by one, for each traveler from an antique land has been told by by a different traveler from an antique land[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.39|108.162.219.39]] 01:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Should we mention {{w|quines}}, which occur when lists like this end after two iterations, as "Yo, I'm MC Quine and I'm here to say/'Yo, I'm MC Quine and I'm here to say'!" {{unsigned|FourViolas}}

: That's not exactly a quine - a quine is a set of instructions which, when followed, recreates the instructions. If you take MC Quine's quote and write it out, you get just, "Yo, I'm MC Quine and I'm here to say", which doesn't contain the second repetition. To be a quine, you need to find some way that taking just the quoted part will automatically expand to the full statement plus the quote.

: A closer example of a quine: "Q: Pete and Re-Pete were sitting on a bridge. Pete fell off. Who was left? A: Repeat." If you take the answer "repeat" as an instruction, you would repeat the joke, recreating it completely. [[User:JoeNotCharles|JoeNotCharles]] ([[User talk:JoeNotCharles|talk]]) 15:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This reminds me of Theodor Storm's "Schimmelreiter" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rider_on_the_White_Horse "The Rider on the White Horse"]) which descends through three nested levels of narrators before it comes to the real story. --[[User:Ulm|ulm]] ([[User talk:Ulm|talk]]) 13:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

One connection between recursion and Ozymandias is the phrase "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" aka "Who watches the watchmen?" and the character in ''The Watchmen'' named Ozymandias. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.51|108.162.221.51]] 14:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Nested Shelleys? Maybe associaing Shelley with shells could be part of the joke? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.115|108.162.216.115]] 16:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I keep trying to see 10, but I keep counting 11 syllables in each line with the exception of the last one. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.210|108.162.210.210]] 16:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
:You have to read traveler as trav'ler. [[User:Uptonc|Uptonc]] ([[User talk:Uptonc|talk]]) 16:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
:: Well, that's just wrong... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.81|108.162.216.81]] 17:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
::: Um... No it's not. There are [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/traveler?s=t two ways to pronounce it] (trav-uh-ler and trav-ler), kind of like toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.196|108.162.219.196]] 18:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

1537: Types

2015-06-12T15:59:10Z

108.162.219.39:

{{comic
| number = 1537
| date = June 12, 2015
| title = Types
| image = types.png
| titletext = colors.rgb("blue") yields "#0000FF". colors.rgb("yellowish blue") yields NaN. colors.sort() yields "rainbow"
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Title text not explained. More details before the list.}}

This comic is a series of programming jokes about a ridiculous new programming language, perhaps inspired by [https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat Gary Bernhardt's CodeMash 2012 lightning talk] on Javascript's unpredictable typing. The (highly technical) audience is unable to correctly guess the results of adding various Javascript types, and roars with laughter when they're revealed.

Most regular programming languages distinguish a number of types, e.g. integers , strings, lists,... All of which have different behaviours. The operation "+" is conventionally defined over more than one of these types. Applied to two integers, it returns their addition, but applied to two strings it concatenates them:

<code>> 2 + 3

5

> "123" + "abc"

"123abc"</code>

While these behaviours are standard, conventional, and intuitive, there is a huge amount of variation among programming languages when you apply an operation like "+" to different types. One logical approach is to always return an error in all cases of type mixing, but it is often practical to allow some case mixing, since it can hugely simplify an operation. Variation and lack of a clearly more intuitive behaviour leads some languages to have weird results when you mix types.

# <code>2 + "2"</code> uses the <code>+</code> operator on a number and a string. In a normal language, this would result either the number <code>4</code> (addition), or <code>"22"</code> (string concatenation); however, the new language converts the string to an integer, adds them to produce <code>4</code> and converts back to a string. Alternately, it is adding 2 to the ASCII value of the character <code>"2"</code>, which (interpreted as a string) is <code>"4"</code>. This is (somewhat) consistent with the behavior for item 4.
# <code>"2" + []</code> adds a string to an array (a list), this time. This first inexplicably converts the string to a number again, and then it literally adds the number to the list by appending it (this would make sense if it was <code>[] + 2</code>, but usually not the other way around). And then the result (the entire array) is converted to a string again.
# <code>(2/0)</code> divides <code>2</code> by <code>0</code> and quite reasonably results in <code>NaN</code> (not a number).
# <code>(2/0)+2</code> adds <code>2</code> to <code>NaN</code>. <code>2</code> is "added" to the string <code>"NaN"</code> (again, the number is converted to a string for apparently no reason), which produces <code>"NaP"</code>, as if <code>2</code> was added to <code>"N"</code> to produce <code>"P"</code> (as per alphabetical order or ASCII encoding; <code>N</code> is <code>01001110</code>, and adding 2 to this results in <code>01010000</code> which is <code>P</code>).
# <code>""+""</code> looks like it is concatenating (adding) an empty string to another empty string, which should produce an empty string. However, the entire thing is treated as one string (with the start quote being the first one and the end quote being the very last one), which produces the egregious '<code>"+"</code>'.
# <code>[1,2,3]+2</code> seems to test whether it's sound to append <code>2</code> to the list <code>[1,2,3]</code>, and concludes that it doesn't fit the pattern, returning the boolean value <code>false</code>. It could conceivably also be the result of an attempt to add <code>2</code> to the ''set'' <code>[1,2,3]</code>, which already contains that element (although <code>{1,2,3}</code> would be a more common notation for sets).
# <code>[1,2,3]+4</code> returns <code>true</code> for much the same reason.
# <code>2/(2-(3/2+1/2))</code> is a floating point joke. Floating point numbers are notoriously imprecise. With precise mathematics, <code>(3/2+1/2)</code> would be exactly 2, hence the entire thing would evaluate to <code>2/0</code> or <code>NaN</code> in Randall's new language. However, the result of <code>(3/2+1/2)</code> is "just slightly off," which makes the result "just slightly off" of <code>NaN</code> (which would be ridiculous in a real language). The ironic thing is that fractions with 2 in the denominator are ''not'' the kind of numbers that typically suffer from floating point impreciseness. Additionally, if there was indeed a rounding error, the actual calculation becomes something like <code>2/0.0000000000000013</code>, which should not return a <code>NaN</code> since it is not division by zero.
# <code>range(" ")</code> normally wouldn't make any sense. However, the new language appears to interpret it as ASCII, and in the ASCII table, character #32 is space, #33 is <code>!</code>, and #34 is <code>"</code>. So, instead of interpreting <code>" "</code> as a string, it seems to be interpreted as <code>34, 32, 34</code> (in ASCII), and then <code>range</code> appears to transform this into <code>34, 33, 32, 33, 34</code> (the "ranges" between the numbers), which, interpreted as ASCII, becomes <code>['"', '!', ' ', '!', '"']</code>.
# <code>+2</code> appears to be applying a unary <code>+</code> to the number <code>2</code>, which should just be <code>2</code>. However, the code is adding <code>2</code> to the line number <code>10</code> in this context.
# <code>2+2</code> would normally be <code>4</code>. However, the interpreter takes this instruction to mean to add the value 2 to the literal value of <code>2</code>, making it <code>4</code> and then reports that the work is "Done". This can be seen in the subsequent lines where all <code>2</code>s are replaced by <code>4</code>s. This could be a reference to languages like Fortran where [http://everything2.com/title/Changing+the+value+of+5+in+FORTRAN literals could be assigned new values].
# <code>range(1,5)</code> would normally return <code>[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]</code>. However, since the value of <code>2</code> has been changed to <code>4</code>, it returns <code>[1, 4, 3, 4, 5]</code>, and this even affects the line number (which is 14 instead of 12).
# <code>floor(10.5)</code> should return <code>10</code> (the "floor" of a decimal number is that number rounded down). However, it instead returns {{w|ASCII art}} of the number on a "floor."

The title text contains three further examples relating to color. <code>color.rgb("blue")</code> returns the hexadecimal code for pure blue (as would be used in HTML, for example), which is how a real programming language might work. The lookup for "yellowish blue" returns "NaN" (Not a Number) again, which makes sense at one level because there is no such color as "yellowish blue" (yellow and blue are complements: mix them and you get white or black depending on whether you are using additive or subtractive colors). However a more typical result would have been a failure indicating that the color database does not include the name, in the same way that a typo such as "bluw" would. Similarly sorting the colors would normally produce some defined ordering, such as alphabetical, but in this language it generates the string "rainbow". It seems that Randall's new language understands color theory in an unusually deep way.

==Transcript==
My new language is great, but it has a few quirks regarding type:
<pre>
[1]> 2+"2"
=> "4"
[2]> "2"+[]
=> "[2]"
[3]> (2/0)
=> NaN
[4]> (2/0)+2
=> NaP
[5]> ""+""
=> '"+"'
[6]> [1,2,3]+2
=> FALSE
[7]> [1,2,3]+4
=> TRUE
[8]> 2/(2-(3/2+1/2))
=> NaN.0000000000000013
[9]> range(" ")
=> ('"','!'," ","!",'"')
[10]> +2
=> 12
[11]> 2+2
=> DONE
[14]> RANGE(1,5)
=> (1,4,3,4,5)
[13]> FLOOR(10.5)
=> |
=> |
=> |
=> |
=> |___10.5___
</pre>

The alt text for the image starts out with colors.rgb("blue") yields "#0000FF". Again, it just took a string, turned it into a variable, and made it a string again. However, the .rgb function shouldn't be returning a hex code for the color!
It then transitions into colors.rgb("yellowish blue") yields "NaN". Seeing how it returned a hex code for the last one, attempting to get the RGB value of an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color impossible color] would predictably cause it to return NaN.
Finally, colors.sort() yields "rainbow". It just got stuffed through a prism, which sorted the colors into a rainbow!
{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1364: Like I'm Five

2014-05-05T08:59:23Z

108.162.219.39:

Almost certainly a reference to [http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2014/05/cory-doctorow-how-to-talk-to-your-children-about-mass-surveillance/ this]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.44|108.162.219.44]] 05:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I actually do something like this, though I never heard of the Reddit thing or the above page. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 06:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The alt text leads into me imagining them both "being" 5 and start arguing in a very childish way. I think that's a part of the alt joke.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.39|108.162.219.39]] 08:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:993: Brand Identity

2014-04-24T20:25:47Z

108.162.219.39:

Notice that the sugar is inverted? Weird.
--Classhole 23:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
:Weird, the hot sauce is also inverted [[User:BlueRoll18|BlueRoll18]] ([[User talk:BlueRoll18|talk]]) 02:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

NONAME in Canada uses yellow boxes with black text but basically the same idea.
--Pundawg 18:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't get this joke because I grew up eating "Slim Price" food branded exactly this way. -lolo {{unsigned ip|99.120.200.86}}

There's a brand called "Ja!" from the Rewe group in Germany that uses this exact concept somewhat, but nowadays, the packages contain pictures and illustrations of all kinds, and aren't as white, simple and plain as they used to be in the past. See: http://www.rewe.de/besser-einkaufen/ja/produkte-und-infos.html
--Rolfhub 23:25, 14 September 2013

:Here is some old image of the designs: [https://web.archive.org/web/20040503194438im_/http://www.rewe-ja.de/nxMODULES/nxCONTENTER/content/1_425Bild1.jpg]. It's not as simple as in the comic, but it's certainly the same idea. -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.39|108.162.219.39]] 20:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the lack of URL is just to troll the consumers. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.63.180|173.245.63.180]] 00:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1325: Rejection

2014-02-04T20:03:29Z

108.162.219.39:

How do we know which one is Cueball and which one is “guy”?

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.119|108.162.254.119]] 08:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

:I was wondering the same thing. Is there some kind of assumption that Cueball is always the "smart" stick figure? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.65|108.162.254.65]] 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all we dont know that the first guy has been recently rejected, that is actually an assumption made by the second guy. Also, the "they choose jerks over nice guys" argument is wrong not because it lacks judgement and self awareness, it is wrong because it belittles the woman's judgement and self-awareness. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.105|108.162.254.105]] 08:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the first guy is a jerk and the girl rejected him because he's a jerk. The second guy is quite blatantly pointing out that the first guy's a jerk, but the first guy is so self-absorbed that he just doesn't get it - and probably never will. This is indicates a personality disorder/character flaw. The first guy is incapable of accepting that he is a jerk and therefore has to blame the girl by falling back on a cliche about girls only wanting nice guys. This is OK for the first guy because he thinks nice guys are losers.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.9|108.162.229.9]] 09:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

:Uhm... Some of the above may be correct - but not the last sentences. The first guy thinks he is a nice guy, and he is about to use this to explain why he has been rejected since girls only say they want nice guys but really want something else. She probably doesn't want a jerk! But may rather go for a sporty/strong/hansom type without considering how nice he is. So the guy she chooses may or may not be nice to her (and may even be a real jerk). All this is of course just part of the stereotyping of women. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble editing the article. I am trying to change the explanation to:

In popular culture women supposedly go for jerks instead of "nice guys". The guy on the left in this picture is frustrated and complaining as he has just been (presumably) rejected by a girl, and thinks it's because he's the "nice guy" type. However, there are many other reasons why a woman might reject a guy who isn't a jerk. (Though this guy just might be a jerk.) Cueball is trying to tell this guy that there are many, more complicated, reasons, and that saying "women don't like nice guys" and presuming to know what women "really want" is showing a rejection of that woman's agency, which might be the real that reason she rejected him.

The Alt Text continues the "conversation", with Cueball implying that he believes that the first guy is bad at taking hints, offering a sarcastic "crash course" in hint taking, with Cueball outright saying that he is trying to end the conversation while the first guys continues to follow him.

but it won't save. Can someone help me or copy/paste my changes themselves? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.77|173.245.50.77]] 10:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

:Nevermind. Found the captcha check while posting the above. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.77|173.245.50.77]] 10:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
::Dear 173.245.50.77, You could create a userid and login -- that way your explanation would also appear in the history nicely with your name against it [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 14:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's about "negging" by pick-up-artists. See http://xkcd.com/1027 The theory is that putting a woman down somehow makes her more attracted to you. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.216|108.162.222.216]] 11:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)DivePeak

What is particularly interesting is the assumption by Randall that ALL woman are self aware enough to know what they really want in a man. The cartoon generalizes that self proclaimed "nice guys" are in error and whining needlessly and cluelessly about their situation. But it is this exact sort of generalization that has lead to the popular cultural conception of woman going for "jerks" over "nice guys."
In reality, there are men who are rejected by woman who have poor judgement in men, as well as men who perceive themselves to be "nice guys" but do not have the introspection and awareness to respect a woman's judgement, even if it could be poor. [[User:Tardyon|Tardyon]] ([[User talk:Tardyon|talk]]) 14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, if your judgment is poor your judgement shouldn't be respected regardless of gender. It should be pointed out to you, such as is happening here. That being said the primary issue the generalization."Guy" can speak about only one person, the woman he knows. And it'd still be estimation, but it'd probably be a deeper insight into the girl than all women everywhere. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.170|199.27.128.170]] 17:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Rheios

Consider a parallel comic: "Harvard says they want well-rounded students, but what they really want are - " "Applicants who respond to rejection letters by belittling Harvard's judgment?" Suddenly it's not so amusing.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.39|108.162.219.39]] 20:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)