explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2468: Inheritance

2021-05-27T14:21:11Z

108.162.221.8: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2468
| date = May 26, 2021
| title = Inheritance
| image = inheritance.png
| titletext = People ask me whether I feel any moral qualms about the source of the points, but if he hadn't introduced factory farming to Agricola, someone else would have.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GRANDMOTHER WRITING HER VICTORY POINT WILL. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is in reference to {{w|Strategy game|strategy board games}}, which often score players on some type of point system based on a variety of possible achievements. The joke in this comic is that Cueball has a massive sum of points that were not scored in the current game but rather handed down from his grandfather. Board games do not normally include an inheritance from previous sessions{{Citation needed}}, in contrast to real life where some people become wealthy by inheriting vast sums of money from ancestors. Such inheritances tend to lead to 'successes' in life for those who have done little, if anything, to earn their wealth. Cueball offers to distribute a trifling fraction of his points to the other players, teasing them, but he will still have an insurmountable advantage. Despite his 'generosity', no one wants to play a game that they have no chance of winning. The value of his score, 10,019, seems to indicate that he "earned" 19 points during the course of the game (less than his competitors) and then added 10,000 from his 'inheritance'.

Some board games do include a "legacy" mechanic where players who have played the game previously (and thus benefit from meta knowledge) can be granted additional items or challenges to keep the game interesting for them, but not usually to the point of breaking the game's balance. As well, gifting these achievements to anyone else is seen as absurd.

See also the '[https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/a-small-loan-of-a-million-dollars Small Loan of a Million Dollars]' trope of a profile in which the author or subject discusses the simple tricks they used to retire early or buy a house, often involving a hurried admission of financial assistance from a family.

The title text asks Cueball if he has any moral qualms over the source of these points, then indicates his grandfather's fortune was made through {{w|factory farming}} in the farm-themed board game {{w|Agricola_(board_game)|''Agricola''}}. Factory farming is a broad term for applying mass-production techniques to agriculture, treating both plants and animals as commodities to be processed as efficiently as possible. These techniques are condemned, at least in some circles, as being cruel to livestock, in addition to having serious environmental and land-use implications, among other criticisms. The implication is that Cueball's grandfather somehow managed to introduce an immoral and/or socially harmful mechanic into a board game, greatly enriching himself and his heirs. This echoes another concern about inherited wealth: that the source of the money may have been unethical, but the heirs still get to enjoy the advantages, without considering themselves accountable for the harm. Cueball brushes off this criticism with the claim that the change was inevitable, which is a common response to analogous real-life concerns.

It could also be a reference to inheritance in programming, where a class truly inherits everything from its 'ancestors'. The game Agricola was previously mentioned in [[778: Scheduling]].

==Transcript==

:[Ponytail, White Hat, Megan, and Cueball are playing a board game. There are drinks on the table. Ponytail is writing something]

:Ponytail: Let's see...I got 31, you have 28, 35 for you, and-
:Cueball: -I've got 10,019.
:Ponytail: *Sigh*
:Cueball: Hey, add another 20 to everyone, on me!
:White Hat: ''I hate this''.

:[Caption beneath the panel:]
:No one wants to play board games with me ever since I inherited 4,000,000 victory points from my grandfather.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Board games]]

Talk:1710: Walking Into Things

2016-07-27T10:37:30Z

108.162.221.8: Meaning of "Rate". Also, "How much time do you spend looking at your phone?"

'TFI a UFE? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.245|108.162.237.245]] 04:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
:I was wondering about this as well and googled it before i noticed that it's just the letters L and I that are not properly spaced. So UFE translates to "LIFE"... --- 11:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
::Leam to kem (learn to kern) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.58|141.101.98.58]] 15:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Frame 1: Cueball mentions three groups. I think he implies the study only has 3 groups. Is the control group "looking at the sky"? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.109|199.27.133.109]] 05:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

:There is no control group in the first panel. It's a controlled (or monitored) trial, with three different outcomes. The control group mentioned by Megan is all mankind except Cueball.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 07:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
::I read that as sometimes Cueball doesn't do any of the three things while walking, and yet still walks into things. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.58|141.101.98.58]] 15:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
:The "control group" is a baseline for comparison, so it's a sample of trials which have "average" values of the experiment's variables. Since the trials are describing whether Cueball is more likely to walk into something when he's looking at one of three things, the control group would be a random sample of all of Cueball's walking. Megan's comment about the control group is a way of saying that if you consider all of Cueball's walking, whether he's looking at one of those three things or not, his "rate" of walking into things is surprisingly high.--[[User:CapnCurry|CapnCurry]] ([[User talk:CapnCurry|talk]]) 22:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Randall meant "discovering new things" by "walking into things". I walk into more things when I don't have a phone with me.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.228|162.158.150.228]] 19:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Does the word "rate" have a specific meaning in the context of controlled trials? If so, the explanation needs a summary of that meaning and a description of what the "rate of the control group" means in that context. [[User:Dansiman|Dansiman]] ([[User talk:Dansiman|talk]]) 21:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
:No, "the rate for the control group" just refers to the rate at which Cueball walks into things in general, versus the rate at which he walks into things while A) Staring at the sky, B) Reading a book, or C) Looking at his phone. "Rate" has no special or unusual meaning in this phrase.
Unrelated:
Survey question: How much time do you spend looking at your phone?
circa 2076: "What is a phone?"
cc2026: "My phone says 72%."
cc2016: "Not much; Sometimes I just use my tablet."
cc2006: "I guess I do text a lot."
cc1976: "Looking at it? Do you have a video phone or something?"
cc1876: "What is a phone?"
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.8|108.162.221.8]] 10:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

1711: Snapchat

2016-07-27T09:01:41Z

108.162.221.8: /* Explanation */ Grammar! Oh it hurt. Changed "In principle" to "in practice" because that's what the meaning was, in context.

{{comic
| number = 1711
| date = July 25, 2016
| title = Snapchat
| image = snapchat.png
| titletext = For obvious reasons, the prize is awarded at a different time of year from the others, while it's still fresh in the committee's memory.
}}

==Explanation==
''{{w|Snapchat}}'' is a photo-sending app that allows the receiving user to only view the photo (known as a "snap") within 24 hours of its posting, and for only 10 seconds before it is deleted. The {{w|Pulitzer Prize}} is famously awarded for exceptional journalism and photojournalism (there are many categories; see {{w|Pulitzer Prize#Categories|here}}).

[[Cueball]] reads that the ''Snapchat Pulitzer Prize'' has just been awarded but then, when [[Megan]] states that she heard the picture was really good, Cueball becomes disappointed because he realises he has already missed out on the chance to see the prize winning entry due to the temporary nature of Snapchat. Note that Megan also missed the opportunity to see the snap.

A given snap can be sent to a semi-public "Story" and the user decides how long any user can see the snap in a range from {{w|Snapchat#Core_functionality|1-10 s}}. In principle, any specific snap is only accessible for {{w|Snapchat#Stories_and_Discover|24 hours}} even if it is a story. A committee of users could have more than 10 seconds to access the snap, by viewing in sequence. Given the time it might take for a committee to decide which snap wins the prize, it is realistic that Cueball learns about the winner after the 24 hours is up; Thus even a user following the outcome might not be able to see the winning entry after that time. In practice it is possible to circumvent the Snapchat rule and {{w|Snapchat#Screenshots_and_FTC|take a screen shot}} or in other ways save the content of the snap. In the case of a Pulitzer Prize winning photo, someone would probably have saved it, if it was in real life. On the other hand, the only way for the photo to be recognised as a snap, eligible to win the prize, would be if no one could see it for more than 10 seconds. So one of the possible rules might be that any picture which was saved would not be able to win the prize. (This would be effectively impossible to enforce.)

The title text extends this ephemeral nature of Snapchat's content to the prize awarded for it: The other Pulitzer prizes are announced annually in April and awarded in May (except for 2016, the centennial year, when an awards dinner will be held in October). The Snapchat Pulitzer Prize alone must be awarded as quickly as possible after the winner has been decided, before the prize committee forgets what the winning picture looked like. This of course underlines how silly this idea is, because only images seen during the assembly of the prize committee can be seen and remembered, and it is not possible to arrange this based on any knowledge of when a Pulitzer Prize "worthy" snap will be released.

[[Randall]] could be making fun of Snapchat (see the title), and the idea that you cannot save the images for later; As mentioned regarding screenshots, it is actually very easy to save pictures from Snapchat. (To many user's regret after having sent something very personal, such as naked pictures of themselves). The comic could also be seen as mocking the Pulitzer Prize for having too broad a spectrum of categories. Alongside the (photo)journalistic and prose awards, the Pulitzers also honor a variety of artistic pursuits, including Poetry, Drama and Music.

The new medium of Snapchat is certainly a hybrid form of art and information/opinion dispersal, both at its best and at its worst, but arguably its popularity may be too short lived to make the awarding of prizes bear any ongoing noteworthiness whatsoever.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan standing together. He holds a smartphone in his left hand and looks at it.]
:Cueball: Oh, the Pulitzer Prize for Snapchat was just awarded.
:Megan: Yeah.
:Megan: I hear the photo was really good.
:Cueball: Aw, ''maaaan''...

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Smartphones]]
[[Category:Social networking]]

Talk:1692: Man Page

2016-06-10T20:19:34Z

108.162.221.8: -f with flags. Apologies to Sheldon Cooper.

I do not entirely understand how wikis work; however, I have attempted to add a transcript. I apologize if anything breaks. I also apologize if this is not how I should be apologizing.

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.135|108.162.241.135]] 04:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The Pope flag is referencing the time of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avignon_Papacy Avignon Papacy] --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.243|108.162.237.243]] 04:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

:Would have frickin' loved Randall if he inserted a reference to Pope of Dope here. :D [[User:Todor|Todor]] ([[User talk:Todor|talk]]) 08:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, -e -h -v doesn't seem to work, it keeps halting at an input line!

Also, -p "AVIGNON" only works if I specify -D -I, -O, or -jk.

Why isn't -x documented on this man page? -x seems to do ''something'' but I'm not sure what the value of it is.

-y just returns "CHROMOSOME MISMATCH".

-a -e -f -n -o -r -S works if I specify -g, but -R starts to return CloudFlare errors after the first few million sites.

-v -d seems to make debug.exe speak out loud, but eventually it just starts spouting seemingly random numbers, unless I use -q. Is this desired behavior, or a bug?

{{unsigned ip|255.255.255.0}}
(-jk | off) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.8|108.162.221.8]] 20:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The horrible thing about this comic is that somebody is sure to have implemented this program by the end of the day... {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.140}}

:Found one on Github: https://github.com/iKevinY/blerp . It has a man page file, but the program itself just outputs "bleep blerp" and doesn't implement any of the flags (yet?). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.141|141.101.104.141]] 08:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

"Behavior Not Defined" might be a reference to undefined behavior, where a program is allowed to do anything including make demons fly out your nose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undefined_behavior [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.12|108.162.219.12]] 06:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.135.36|162.158.135.36]] 06:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Søren Mors

I thought Ansel was a deliberate misspelling of ANSI, the most common 8 bit codepage. {{unsigned ip|162.158.135.36}}

The commit "Revision as of 07:08, 10 June 2016" reverted an IMO good explanation for the debug option with a bad one. Consider changing it back. [[User:Todor|Todor]] ([[User talk:Todor|talk]]) 07:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
:I agree. The bad explanation also mixed up {{w|Pipeline (Unix)|piping}} with {{w|Redirection (computing)|redirection}} --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.76|141.101.104.76]] 07:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think `blerp -a -d -t -p "AVIGNON"` is a valid call to blerp, because the syntax line syntax is utterly off. For example, the first line has an unclosed open [, whereas the second line – in addition to having the corresponding unmatched ] – plays with the fact that even though {} is usually used to list a set of required items, {} is also how `find` (which might do something similar to blerp, and is in fact mentioned in -v) denotes its results when passed to an exec. {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.30}}

Command line options do not normally use n-dashes; they use hyphens. Another problem with this option is that n-dashes and m-dashes cannot usually be displayed properly in the fixed-width fonts commonly used for command line terminals. The usual custom is to use two hyphens to represent a dash (which for proportional font display will often be converted to either an n-dash or m-dash).
: In groff (GNU troff, the language in which man pages are written) the code for an m-dash is '''\(em'''. It will display as either two hyphens "'''--'''" or as an actual m-dash "'''—'''" depending on the character set specified in the locale environment variables. [[User:Locoluis|Locoluis]] ([[User talk:Locoluis|talk]]) 17:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

While "check whether input halts" clearly alludes to the halting problem, it may not actually be impossible, depending on what blerp actually does and what sort of input it accepts. (It says nothing about actually ''reporting'' the result, and it makes no guarantees that it will itself halt.)

—[[User:PhantomLimbic|PhantomLimbic]] ([[User talk:PhantomLimbic|talk]]) 07:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

:Indeed. Turing's proof for the halting theorem says that there is no algorithm that allows a Turing machine to determine whether any possible program/input combination will halt. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to develop an algorithm that determines whether a particular, fixed program will halt on an arbitrary input. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.141|141.101.104.141]] 08:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Currently, there is no mention of the unmatched square brackets in the synopsis, or unmatched parenthesis in the title text. Presumably a reference to XKCD comic 859. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.77|141.101.98.77]] 07:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Attack Mode might be a reference to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yu-Gi-Oh!_Trading_Card_Game Yu-Gi-Oh Trading Card Game] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.117|162.158.85.117]] 08:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

In the description of -b the computer (Named "Hex") from discworld uses ants not bees.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_(Discworld) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.125|141.101.98.125]] 09:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Bluewhelk
:Hmm. Reading the wiki article further Hex uses a beehive for long term storage! My bad [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.125|141.101.98.125]] 09:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Bluewhelk

"Or best offer" doesn't need to reference a financial offer, it may also mean that anyone offering to reuse the article with an alternative license is allowed to do so. Attack Mode and Stealth Mode seem to me to be references to computer viruses. Stealth Mode is also an option in some applications that can hide their presence when run, often because of malicious behavior, such as remote access tools, keyloggers, etc. Piping is not only used in Unix, it is also common in MS-DOS. Opposite Day has a good explanation on Wikipedia. Literal quote from Wikipedia: "Once Opposite Day is declared, statements mean the opposite of what they usually mean.". --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.217|162.158.222.217]] 11:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Opposite Day may refer to Cyanide & Happiness? Opposite Day is a fairly well-known concept (at least from what I know growing up in the U.S.), and I don't see any direct connections to the specific C&H video short. I think that speculation should be removed. [[User:Sayno2quat|Sayno2quat]] ([[User talk:Sayno2quat|talk]]) 14:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think the program is also "simulating" a man (a play with the words because it's a '''man''' page). If you think like that a lot more commands makes sense (especially, -D, -e, -f, -g, -jk, -R, -u). Just a penny for a thought. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.134|108.162.241.134]] 11:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

If someone wants a history of the useragent string (possibly a reference for that "citation needed"), then [http://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/|this might be of interest]. --[[User:Draco18s|Draco18s]] ([[User talk:Draco18s|talk]]) 16:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The <code>-n</code> option might be a reference to <code>echo</code>, where it is an option often used but which does not work on all systems. 
Am I the only one to see the “k” capitalized in <code>-jK</code>? 
[[User:Ltrlg|Ltrlg]] ([[User talk:Ltrlg|talk]]) 18:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

441: Babies

2016-03-02T18:24:58Z

108.162.221.8: /* Explanation */ SOMETHING IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET (mostly grammar and stuff)

{{comic
| number = 441
| date = June 25, 2008
| title = Babies
| image = babies.png
| titletext = I bet my future kids will read this someday. DEAR FUTURE KIDS: how did you get internet in the cellar?
}}

==Explanation==
A common theme of xkcd is that one never feels that one has "transitioned to adulthood", in the sense of actually attaining the seriousness and sense of responsibility that children imagine all adults to possess. Here, the author illustrates this by imagining [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] taking on the ultimate "adult responsibility" — having a child, treating it as they would any other engineering project. Disassembling a project to check the parts is an activity that is appropriate for a self-built computer or robot, but disassembling a child would be impractical. It would also kill the child.{{Citation needed}} Megan also shows her lack of child experience by holding the baby upside-down by the foot, which isn't a good idea. Her behavior could also indicate that Megan is treating the child as an object rather than a human being.

The title text implies the author will have kids someday. It will be surprising if they read this comic, not just because it will give them an unflattering look into their father's attitudes on having children, but because he plans to lock them in the cellar where there will be no internet access. This is possibly a reference to Kaspar Hauser: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser] , who is a boy that was claimed to have grown up in a dark cell in Germany in the 19th century.

This is also the topic of [[674: Natural Parenting]] and [[1384: Krypton]].

Much later, a comic with the singular version of this title was released: [[1650: Baby]]. Here, Cueball refrains from saying something as stupid as he does here about another couple's baby.

==Transcript==
:It doesn't seem right that we're old enough to have kids.
:[Megan holds a baby upside-down by one leg.]
:Megan: Sweet! We made a baby!
:Cueball: Are we sure we did it right?
:Cueball: We should disassemble it, check all the parts, and put it back together.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics sharing name|Baby 1]]

Talk:1578: Squirrelphone

2015-09-16T10:25:53Z

108.162.221.8: additional squirrel pr0n links

Could it be a reference to this? http://web.media.mit.edu/~stefanm/phd/cellularsquirrel/ {{unsigned ip|‎108.162.216.68}}

:I think it might be a reference to this: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/09/11/vampire-squirrel-caught-on-camera-for-the-first-time-ever/ ‘Vampire squirrel’ caught on camera for the first time ever – Washington Post]. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.234|141.101.104.234]] 07:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
:agreed: [https://www.michigandaily.com/section/statement/i-was-bitten-squirrel] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.8|108.162.221.8]] 10:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

What about the old "Bananaphone" pun? {{unsigned ip|188.114.106.131}}

Sometimes I wonder if the joke is to make ExplainXKCD squirm. {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.150}}

^ Not really. Those like me who used SquirrelMail had a laugh. Mostly every XKCD joke is incomprehensible to people not familiar with the subject of the joke. {{unsigned ip|108.162.229.135}}

"a living squirrel being not an appropiate creature to mantain a phone call. "... well, duh. Everyone knows that a squid would make MUCH more sense! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.161|108.162.250.161]] 05:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
:I doubt this is supposed to be about SquirrelMail; it's much more likely to just be "Bananaphone" with a squirrel. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.193|108.162.237.193]] 05:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
: Maybe a _dead_ squirrel would work better. At least it wouldn't bite... [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

"chomp" is also a command on unixoid operating systems that removes characters which carry no information (leading, trailing white spaces, newlines etc) from strings. Seems like the squirrelphone removed every bit of non-information, essentially cutting the call to nothing. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.167|162.158.92.167]] 07:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Whoever put that [needs citation] in there deserves a medal XD [[User:Apbarratt|Apbarratt]] ([[User talk:Apbarratt|talk]]) 08:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

1578: Squirrelphone

2015-09-16T10:23:19Z

108.162.221.8: /* Explanation */ Related news topics. Google 'squirrel' and click on news tab.

{{comic
| number = 1578
| date = September 16, 2015
| title = Squirrelphone
| image = squirrelphone.png
| titletext = After a while, the squirrel starts making that beeping noise and doesn't stop until it hops back up onto the stump.
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic, we see a squirrel pretend to be a telephone, only to bite [[Cueball]] who tries to pick it up and use it as one. This is humorous because a living squirrel is not an appropriate creature to maintain a phone call{{Citation needed}}. This could be seen as an example of mimicry in Nature, or parasitism where one creature gains a benefit from another.

It is an allusion to the vampire squirrel documented over the weekend that allegedly 'attacked and killed' a deer. The comic follows the absurd conclusion that the squirrel uses mimicry to 'attack and kill' humans. [[Cueball]] is lucky to still be alive{Citation needed}}.

The sounds the squirrel makes correspond to the tones that the terminals made when you used the POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) in the US:
* When someone else called you and the receiver of your phone was on the hook, the phone made loud and long "riiing riiiing" tones. --- This is the case in the first frame of the comic.
* When you picked the receiver up, the phone call was established and no extra noises were made.
* When no phone call was established and you picked up, a continous "riiiiiiiiiiing" tone was heard, meaning the service was up and you could dial someone else's number.
* When no phone call was established but dialling was not possible, short "bip bip bip bip" tones were heard. This happened either when an existing call ended or was interrupted or you had had the receiver off hook for too long (about half a minute) without dialing --- This is the case in the title text of the comic ---. In this case, you should hang up so that you can receive calls or pick the receiver up again and dial.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is approaching a stump with a squirrel perched on it. A ringing noise is coming from the squirrel's back.]
:Squirrel: Riiiiing
:Squirrel: Riiiiiing

:[Cueball has picked up the squirrel and is holding it to his left ear]
:Cueball: Hello?

:[The squirrel bites Cueball's head]
:Squirrel: Chomp!
:Cueball: Ow!

:[Cueball holds his hand to his cheek while the squirrel leaps away, fleeing]
:Cueball: ???

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Squirrels]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

1386: People are Stupid

2014-06-25T04:32:20Z

108.162.221.8:

{{comic
| number = 1386
| date = June 25, 2014
| title = People are Stupid
| image = people_are_stupid.png
| titletext = To everyone who responds to everything by saying they've 'lost their faith in humanity': Thanks--I'll let humanity know. I'm sure they'll be crushed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page.}}

==Transcript==

[Beret Guy and Cueball]

Beret Guy: Well, you know, people are stupid.

Cueball sighs.

Cueball: No, people aren't stupid. On average, people are of average intelligence. When you say "People are stupid," you mean stupid compared to ''your'' expectations.

[Close up of Cueball]

Cueball: What you're really saying "other people aren't as smart as '''me'''."

Cueball: And maybe you're right! In which case

[Beret Guy and Cueball holding a trophy]

Cueball: I'd like to bestow upon you the

[close up of the trophy plaque]

First Annual Award For Excellence in Being Very Smart

Cueball: May you continue to grace our internet with your wisdom

{{comic discussion}}

1383: Magic Words

2014-06-18T04:22:34Z

108.162.221.8: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 1383
| date = June 18, 2014
| title = Magic Words
| image = magic_words.png
| titletext = 'And then whisper 'anapest' in my ear as you hold me?'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page.}}

==Transcript==

Women in bed: Can you repeat "Story Water Paper Doorway" at the start,

then switch to "Disarm Adele's Giraffe Grenade" as we get going,

and finally "Strawberry Scorpion Poetry" as I finish?

[Text below the frame]

Linguist with a foot fetish

{{comic discussion}}

1383: Magic Words

2014-06-18T04:22:18Z

108.162.221.8: /* Transcript */

1383: Magic Words

2014-06-18T04:19:04Z

108.162.221.8: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 1383
| date = June 18, 2014
| title = Magic Words
| image = magic_words.png
| titletext = 'And then whisper 'anapest' in my ear as you hold me?'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page.}}

==Transcript==

Women in bed: Can you repeat "Story Water Paper Doorway" at the start,

then switch to "Disarm Adele's Giraffe Grenade" as we get going,

and finally "Strawberry Scorpion Poetry" as I finish?

Caption: Linguist with a foot fetish

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1252: Increased Risk

2014-06-14T00:16:05Z

108.162.221.8:

I think this is to address the old chestnut of "<something> will ''double'' your risk of getting cancer!", or the like, where the risk of getting that cancer (in this example) is maybe 1 in 10,000, so doubling the risk across a population wouldmake that a 1 in 5,000 risk to your health... which you may still consider to be an acceptable gamble if it's something nice (like cheese!) that's apaprently to blame and you'd find abstinence from it gives a barely marginal benefit for a far greater loss of life enjoyment. Also, this sort of figure almost always applies towards a ''specific form'' of cancer, or whatever risk is being discussed, meaning you aren't vastly changing your life expectancy at all. In fact, the likes of opposing "red wine is good/bad for you" studies can be mutually true by this same principle (gain a little risk of one condition, lose a little risk from another). (Note: I don't know of any particular "cheese gives you cancer!" stories doing the rounds, at the moment. I bet they have done, but I only mention it because I actually quite like cheese. And I probably ''wouldn't'' give it up under the above conditions.)

It's also possible that this covers the likes of "<foo> in <country> is 10 times more dangerous than it is <other country>" statements. Perhaps ''only'' ten incidents happened in the former, and a single instance in the latter, out the ''whole'' of each respective country. Or a single incident occured in both, but the second country is ten times the size, so gets 'adjusted for population' in the tables. And, besides which, that was just for one year and was just a statistical blip that will probably revert-towards-the-mean next year.

Finally, for a given risk of some incident happening on the first two trips, with no 'memory' or build-up involved, it pretty much is half-as-likely-again for the incident to have happened (some time!) in three separate trips. (Not quite, if those that lose against the odds and get caught by the incident the first or second trip never get to ''have'' a (second or) third trip... but for negligable odds like thegiven example, of the dog with the handgun, it's near-as-damnit so.) [[Special:Contributions/178.104.103.140|178.104.103.140]] 11:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Where did "dogs with shotguns" come from? I only saw "handgun" in the comic. Besides, I interpreted the risk as being hit by a negligent discharge from the handgun, not being deliberately attacked by the dog. Also, since probabilities are the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 inclusive, there are an uncountable number of them. "A x% increase in a tiny risk is still tiny" is an inductive statement, which means it could only be used to argue that a countable set of numbers is tiny. [[Special:Contributions/76.64.65.200|76.64.65.200]] 12:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

:If induction base is uncountable, you can prove it for the whole [0; 1]. For example your induction base may be "every risk under 0.00000000000000000001% is tiny". --[[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 12:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

::Aha you caught me. I also realized that if a number is tiny, any number smaller than it is also tiny. So if we can prove that 1 is tiny, then we can prove that all numbers between 0 and 1 (known as probabilities) are tiny. [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 15:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that this comic doesn't [[985|distinguish between percentages and percentage points]]. --[[User:DiEvAl|DiEvAl]] ([[User talk:DiEvAl|talk]]) 12:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it the case that doing something three times increases risk by 50% over two times inherently? I feel like this is the case, but it's early, here. Also, I'm not sure Randall is attacked by a dog, he may be using it as a diversion. I think that he's done this before. [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 12:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
:(First, good point, DiEvAl, about the percentages/percentage-points. I ''knew'' I'd missed something out in my first thoughts. I actually tend to assume ''against'' percentage points, which is somewhat the opposite from what I've seen in the general public.)
:Actually, depends on how you count it. But I was using the "encounter 'n' incidents per trip", "encounter '2n' incidents per two trips", "encoutner '3n' incidents per three trips" measure, where 3n==2n+50%. But that works best with a baseline of >>1 incidents per trip assumed. In reality, if the chance is a fractional 'p' for an occurance in one instance, it's (1-p) that it ''didn't'' occur thus (1-p)n that it didn't occur in any of 'n' instances and 1-(1-p)n that it did (at least once, possible several times or even all). Not so simple, but for p tending to zero it 'does' converge on 1.5 times for across three what you'd expect for two (albeit because 0*1.5=0). Like they say, "Lies, Damn Lies...", etc. ;) [[Special:Contributions/178.104.103.140|178.104.103.140]] 14:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Randall is being attacked by a dog at all. What he's saying is that if you are going to think getting attacked by a shark is so likely, then you better be watching out for that never-gonna-happen dog scenario too. [[User:Jillysky|Jillysky]] ([[User talk:Jillysky|talk]]) 13:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Is 0.000001% really "one in a million"?
;If 1% = 1 in 100, then
:0.1% = 1 in a 1,000
:0.01% = 1 in a 10,000
:0.001% = 1 in a 100,000
:0.0001% = 1 in a 1,000,000
:0.00001% = 1 in a 10,000,000
:'''0.000001% = 1 in a 100,000,000'''
Would it be more accurate to leave off the % sign?
Assuming I'm right, I think it'd be less confusing to leave it and reduce the numbers by a couple orders of magnitude.
--Clayton [[Special:Contributions/12.202.74.87|12.202.74.87]] 14:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

''If the chance of the dog attack is 0.000000001% (one in a billion) on each visit to the beach, then the chance of attack over two visits is 0.000000002% whereas in three visits it becomes 0.000000003%''

Um, no. Following that logic, if I go to the beach a billion times then I '''will''' get shot by a dog that is packing. Rather, each visit to the beach has it's own odds, like the rolling of dice? On any particular visit there's a one-in-a-billion chance. And that's true on each subsequent visit as well. Tuesday's visit to the beach isn't twice as dangerous just because I was at the beach on Monday. [[User:CFoxx|CFoxx]] ([[User talk:CFoxx|talk]]) 16:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
:For each visit that is the case. Because it's one visit, that's true. However, if (time not being a factor) one were to have a billion visits planned, the odds over all would be increased. Pretty sure that overall this means that you got the joke faster than I did. Thanks for the clarification! [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 17:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
::The odds overall may increase with multiple visits. But not, at least, at the rate listed. Otherwise that billionth trip (if one survived that long as one is likely to do) would be certain death. [[User:CFoxx|CFoxx]] ([[User talk:CFoxx|talk]]) 17:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
:::Correct. Technically, the odds we are worried about are the "probability of being shot one or more times by a dog". So if the probability is 1/10^9 for any given day, than the odds of not being shot are (10^9-1)/10^9 for any given day, and the odds of not being shot over three days are (10^9-1)^3/10^27, and then the odds of being shot one or more times are 1-((10^9-1)^3/10^27), which is roughly 2.999999997000000001/10^9. That is close, but slightly less, than 3/10^9. [[Special:Contributions/206.174.12.203|206.174.12.203]] 18:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Toby Ovod-Everett
::::Absolute incorrect: You always have to look at the single event. More events do not belong together, you always have the same probability at each single event. So, even 10 billion events may or may NOT result in a disaster. Math isn't easy.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
:::::I believe what CFoxx was saying is that if the odds of something happening on any given day are one in three, then the odds of that thing happening at least once during a four day period is NOT 4/3rds! I was pointing out that the proper way to calculate the odds for a four day period is to say that the odds of it not happening on any given day are two in three. You take that probability and raise it to the fourth power, giving the odds that it won't happen at all during a four day period of 16/81, thus the odds that it will happen during that four day period is 65/81. I then did that same calculation for the 1 in a billion chance per day and applied it to the three day period, and recognized that he was correct that the true probability of the event happening one or more times over a three day period was not three times the probability of it happening on any given day, but also noted that the difference for a 1 in a billion chance over a small period is pretty close to the simplistic (but incorrect) approach. My rough estimate for the "one in a billion per day" event happening one or more times during a billion day period is 63.21%.[[Special:Contributions/206.174.12.203|206.174.12.203]] 21:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Toby Ovod-Everett
::::::Wow, we still have many great scientists here!--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
::::::THANK YOU, Toby! [[User:CFoxx|CFoxx]] ([[User talk:CFoxx|talk]]) 18:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought: is the title text a reference to the Sorites paradox? --AJ [[Special:Contributions/80.42.221.105|80.42.221.105]] 17:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Rats! I made the newbie mistake of editing something before I found the discussion page. I looked for it, honest I did! I see that UTC has already brought up what I referred to as "Cueball's error" in my (pre-log-in) edit. I did find it hard to believe I'd be the first xkcd fan to notice this error. I think this is worth addressing in the explanation, though I of course won't take offense if someone wants to obliterate my edit and start over. (CLSI){{unsigned|CLSI}}

Maybe he means this: Florida man shot by his dog, police say http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/26/17107343-florida-man-shot-by-his-dog-police-say?lite{{unsigned|Jb}}

Saying that unfortunately Cueball is mistaken in his calculations because he said 50% instead of 49.99999992% is a bit of an exaggeration. [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 20:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the "flipping a coin and having it come up with heads 9 times in a row being no indication of future results" thing, I have to throw out that ''that'' is a common misunderstanding in basic logic; it's an example that people throw out all the time without really considering the real-life implications. With a truly fair coin, the situation as described is certainly true. But the odds of a fair coin coming up heads 9 times in a row is 512-to-1 against. That coin is overwhelmingly likely not a fair coin. I would say the odds of that coin flipping heads on the 10th flip is pretty damn close to unity. [[User:Hoopy Frood|Hoopy Frood]] ([[User talk:Hoopy Frood|talk]]) 17:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

;Chaos at explain section
Please stop adding this, it does not explain the comic, it only belongs to this discussion page:

:Note that the 50% figure is an approximation. Assuming the odds of being attacked by a dog is ''x'', the odds of being attacked by a dog at least once in two visits is 1 - (1-''x'')2. The odds of being attacked at least once in three visits is 1 - (1-''x'')3. Therefore, if one visit has one in a billion probability of attack, then two visits have not 2 in a billion, but 1.999999999 in a billion. Similarly, three visits have a probability of 2.999999997 in a billion. Saying 50% instead of 49.99999992% is a reasonable approximation.

:Unfortunately, [[Cueball]] is mistaken in his calculations. This is easier to see with an event that has greater probability, such as a coin toss. Assuming the odds of getting heads in one flip is .5, the odds of getting heads at least once in two flips is .75 (i.e., 1 minus [.5 X .5], the odds of getting tails both times), and the odds of getting heads at least once in three flips is .875 (1 minus [.5 X .5 X .5], the odds of getting three tails in a row). Getting heads in three flips is not 50% more likely than getting heads in two flips. With very low probabilities (such as the probability of attack by a dog swimming with a handgun), Cueball's calculation gives an extremely close approximation of the actual probability, but one can't apply the same logic to events of just any probability.

::Cueball says *statistically* the risk of some bizarre event increases 50%. This is essentially correct as many have pointed out that 49.99999999 is not really statistically different than 50. What is likely bothering a lot of people (including myself) is that the explainxkcd description states "If the chance of the dog attack is one per billion on each visit to the beach, then the chance of attack over two visits *is* two per billion whereas in three visits it *becomes* three per billion." There are no weasel words like "approximately", "about", "around", etc. This reminds people of flatly incorrect uses of probabilities like the one you describe. But surely the probability of getting heads from a fair coin toss is not on a similar order of magnitude as the probability that a swimming dog shoots someone with a handgun. [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 00:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
:::''What is likely bothering a lot of people (including myself) is that the explainxkcd description states "If the chance of the dog attack is one per billion on each visit to the beach, then the chance of attack over two visits *is* two per billion whereas in three visits it *becomes* three per billion." There are no weasel words like "approximately", "about", "around", etc.'' '''Exactly.''' Explanations here have been very helpful in explaining some of the more scientific aspects of things Randall includes. Noting this one makes a (albeit slight) mistake in that regard is appropriate. (And the irony of incorrectly using probabilities in explaining a comic about how people do that is amusing.) [[User:CFoxx|CFoxx]] ([[User talk:CFoxx|talk]]) 18:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I had to think of http://xkcd.com/1102/ when reading the first paragraph of the explainxkcd description. (The context is different, but the dubious use of percentages is the same.) [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 00:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

;Proof
I believe Cuball's calculation is way off. The odds of a dog attack should increase by 50% when looking at two beach trips rather than one. But the odds of an attack occurring with 3 visits should only increase by about 16.67%. This can be seen by analyzing a fair dice roll or a coin toss. Unless I am missing something, even with extremely small probabilities, this will hold. Can anyone write a proof to show otherwise?{{unsigned ip|174.98.234.239}}
:As far as I understand it: doing something twice doubles your chance of getting the desired outcome. For example, you want to role a dice and get a six. If you role it twice, you have double the chance of getting at least one six. If you role it three times you have triple the chance of getting a six; in other words you increase it from two chances to three chances, which is an increase of 50%. {{unsigned ip|213.86.4.78}}
::It doubles the likely number of sixes, but does not double the chance of getting at least one six. This is because there is a small chance of getting two sixes, and while that counts as two sixes for the number of occurrences, it still only counts as one chance of getting at least one six. The easiest way to visualize this is to look at the probability that you won't get a six in any given roll of the die, which is 5/6ths. Each time you roll, the probability you won't get a six at all goes down by 5/6ths. So the probability for two rolls is 25/36ths, and thus the probability of getting one or more sixes in two rolls is 11/36ths. This is 1/36th less than 2/6ths, and 1/36th is the probability of getting two sixes. Similar (although more complicated) logic applies to rolling it three times, for which the probability of getting at least one 6 is 91/216ths (not 108/216ths, as the naive approach would imply). As others (CFoxx) have pointed out, if you roll a die 6 times, there is still a chance you won't get any sixes. If you roll it a million times, it is still possible (albeit very, very, very unlikely) that you wouldn't get any sixes! As far as the 50% and 16.67% figures given by the original poster, I believe those were calculated for events that have a 50% probability for each event. The increase in probability from 1 to 2 events where 1/x is the probability looks like (1-(1-1/x)^2)/(1/x)-1, which is (1-(1-2/x+1/x^2))*x-1 or (2/x-1/x^2)*x-1 or (2-1/x)-1 or 1-1/x. Thus for an event like a fair coin toss, the increase in probability for two tosses over one toss is 1/2. For a 6-sided die, the increase in probability is 5/6th. For a 1/billion, the increased probability for one or more occurrence for two events compared with one event is 0.999999999. Finally, the probability of the second event being the desired event is always the same. It is unchanged by the first event. It is the probability of either (or both) of the events being desired that we are calculating here. If the first die roll is a six, the probability of the second being a six is still 1/6. If the first die roll is not a six, the probability of the second being a six is still 1/6 (assuming a fair die). But the probability of either or both being a six is the absence of any information about the two rolls is not 2/6, but rather 11/36! [[Special:Contributions/206.174.12.203|206.174.12.203]] 17:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Toby Ovod-Everett

I shared this comic with risk-assessor friends in Massachusetts and got the following responses:
"Tee-hee. If you change the beach to Chatham, however, it's just not as funny!" (Cape Cod beaches have new signs warning of great white shark attacks: http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2013/08/17/chatham-bold-attempt-become-new-england-great-white-shark-capital/TtfcEZsAo6PN7lUoBKe1kO/story.html)
"Or in our line of work, we worry (in MA) if the risk of cancer is 0.00002 but not if it is 0.00001 or less, which, as the base rate of cancer is around 40%, means that we're worried about a cancer incidence rate of 0.40002 but not 0.40001. And one could almost argue that it'd be pretty hard to distinguish these two, and even that if we presented risks in this form to the general public, they might wonder why we're so concerned..."
"Makes you wonder what the risk was for that Marlin coming on board that boat in Florida - http://www.wfla.com/story/23239959/350-pound-marlin-jumps-in-boat-landing-on-crew?"
I guess it all depends on your point of view. One might argue that the "gambler's fallacy" is the primary driver of lottery income, which, according to the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries: "During fiscal year 2012 (which for most jurisdictions ended June 30) U.S. lottery sales totaled $78 billion ($US). Canadian sales reached $9.3 billion ($Can)." (http://www.naspl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=content&menuid=14&pageid=1020). Is "Remember to Play all Lottery Games Responsibly" an oxymoron?{{unsigned|Hoopy}}

I am troubled with this paragraph: "This also can be illustrated by coin flips: if one flips a coin 10 times in a row, no matter what the result of each previous flip is (even if it were nine heads in a row), the odds of getting heads on the next coin flip remains 50%. In other words, past experience does not impact subsequent flips."

This paragraph does not specify the use of a fair coin. If 9 flips all come up heads, then there is strong statistical evidence that the probability of getting a head in a flip is not 50% (P=1/2^9=1/512~0.2%). It is still true that "past experience does not impact subsequent flips", but in this case, our judgment about the true probability should change in light of new data. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.87|199.27.128.87]] 10:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Just a note, (may have been mentioned) the third trip has the same odds as trip one and two, the odds do not increase with past results (not that it matters with such low odds).

Talk:689: FIRST Design

2014-02-21T02:47:15Z

108.162.221.8:

Should I mention there is an Umbrella Corporation? [[Special:Contributions/71.166.47.84|71.166.47.84]] 15:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
:As a former student in FRC, the little plow thingy in the front is also a thing. but nobody is going to read this so whatever. 21:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)~ {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.254}}

It wouldn't work in Dallas--the Dallas Memorial Arena is too high, and doesn't have a proper sprinkler system. It's just too old. -R, another former US FIRST member (#3392). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.8|108.162.221.8]] 02:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:726: Seat Selection

2014-02-20T04:22:48Z

108.162.221.8:

Could the part about the wing also refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightmare_at_20,000_Feet Nightmare at 20,000 Feet]? -- mwburden [[Special:Contributions/99.129.248.32|99.129.248.32]] 12:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Randall should add a bonus if you click on the wing in the image. 03:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Pilot: You've killed the rest of the crew! Plot twist: Megan's flying American, on a plane inherited from TWA. Here, it's pilot/co-pilot/flight engineer/navigator. This was back when airlines held off on fleet upgrades to cut costs. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.8|108.162.221.8]] 04:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:355: Couple

2014-02-20T02:28:15Z

108.162.221.8:

Worst of all, it precludes people who do not use Facebook (for various reasons) from starting relationships. That is NOT my IP address. Is this a problem with VoiceStream (T-Mobile) customers? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.8|108.162.221.8]] 02:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:355: Couple

2014-02-20T02:27:07Z

108.162.221.8: Created page with "Worst of all, it precludes people who do not use Facebook (for various reasons) from starting relationships. ~~~~"

Worst of all, it precludes people who do not use Facebook (for various reasons) from starting relationships. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.8|108.162.221.8]] 02:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:358: Loud Party

2014-02-20T02:19:34Z

108.162.221.8:

Its easy to get down from a tree like that.. Pass your laptop to your partner, you climb down, then pass the laptops to the person on the ground, then SHE comes down.

[[Special:Contributions/98.144.105.195|98.144.105.195]] 18:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

:No, you can't leave both laptops with one person, because then the fox will eat both of them. {{unsigned ip|118.209.55.156}}
::Unless you are Russian, meaning there is a rather insignificant chance that the fox MAY be tame. {{unsigned ip|208.54.86.193}}[[Special:Contributions/208.54.86.193|208.54.86.193]] 02:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand this comic, even after the explanation. What are they doing on their laptops? And why do they need to go to a beautiful and isolated setting together to do it? Also, which is more typical behavior, teen or otherwise; to be enjoying a wild party, or sitting quietly with a laptop? Hint: guess which one I'm doing now? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 20:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

btw love the 'fox' comment...the most insightful thing on this page! {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.223}}

Talk:358: Loud Party

2014-02-20T02:17:40Z

108.162.221.8:

Its easy to get down from a tree like that.. Pass your laptop to your partner, you climb down, then pass the laptops to the person on the ground, then SHE comes down.

[[Special:Contributions/98.144.105.195|98.144.105.195]] 18:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

:No, you can't leave both laptops with one person, because then the fox will eat both of them. {{unsigned ip|118.209.55.156}}
::Unless you are Russian, meaning there is a rather insignificant chance that the fox MAY be tame. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.8|108.162.221.8]] 02:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand this comic, even after the explanation. What are they doing on their laptops? And why do they need to go to a beautiful and isolated setting together to do it? Also, which is more typical behavior, teen or otherwise; to be enjoying a wild party, or sitting quietly with a laptop? Hint: guess which one I'm doing now? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 20:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

btw love the 'fox' comment...the most insightful thing on this page! {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.223}}