explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

542: Cover-Up

2022-08-30T19:17:01Z

108.162.221.83: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 542
| date = February 11, 2009
| title = Cover-Up
| image = cover_up.png
| titletext = Man, this trick has saved me so many times.
}}

==Explanation==

[[Black Hat]] and [[Danish]] are trying to clean up the mess that some bloody murder most likely performed by them has left. This story may thus be a continuation of [[515: No One Must Know]].

Another guy, [[Cueball]], is on his way home and is about to arrive just when they are finishing the clean up. But then Black Hat realizes that the ceiling has also been stained (by the violent murder...) And now they do not have time to fix it.

But Black Hat knows how to deal with the situation, and when Cueball comes home, he says: "Did you know 'gullible' is written on your ceiling?"

{{w|Gullible}} means easily deceived or naive. This is a game many people play with each other "Whoa, someone wrote 'gullible' in the sky!" "Did you know when you look at the Microsoft logo upside-down it looks like the word 'gullible'?" Those that are gullible, check. Those that aren't, don't.{{citation needed}} In fact they will pointedly not do the thing that the first person has suggested as a show of how non-gullible they are. Black Hat uses this to his advantage to cover up the copious bloodstains on the ceiling and as expected Cueball just says "Hah. Yeah, right" and refuses to even glance at the ceiling.

The title text is hinting that Black Hat has had to cover up killing people several times as this trick has saved him many times. Of course there could also be other things than blood that he had to hide (the money he just stole, your mom, etc.)

==Transcript==
:[Black Hat looking slightly up is holding two rags stained red with blood while Danish is holding an equally bloody mop.]
:Black Hat: Okay, got the blood off the walls.
:Danish: I finished the floor.

:[Black Hat drops the bloody rags behind him while looking up at the ceiling, Danish has put the bloody mop behind her leaning against the wall while covering her mouth with her hands.]
:Black Hat: Good; he'll be home any-
:Black Hat: Oh crap! We forgot to clean the ceiling!

:[Black Hat has moved away from the bloody rags towards Danish who has taken her hands down. They look straight at each other. The bloody mop has fallen over on the floor.]
:Danish: There's no time!
:Black Hat: Wait, I'll handle it.

:[Cueball with briefcase enters the house through the front door behind him, still standing open. He is greeted by Black Hat holding out a hand towards him. The corner of the room and the wall behind them and past the door is outlines with three lines connecting in the corner.]
:Black Hat: Hi. Did you know "gullible" is written on your ceiling?
:Cueball: Hah. Yeah, right.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Danish]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics with blood]]

Talk:2184: Unpopular Opinions

2019-08-16T09:17:10Z

108.162.221.83:

I wonder if it has to be below 50% with critic score, audience score, or both? [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Genisys has an Audience Score of 53%, so I think it has to be critic score (Tomatometer). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.124|108.162.241.124]] 21:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
::Critics and audiences are really two distinct groups. So to be "apples to apples", I'd think it would have to be a movie with an Audience score below 50. Disagreeing with something critics hated isn't that rare among the general audience. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.18|162.158.106.18]] 04:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::The whole idea of the challenge doesn't make sense if the movie is "only" hated by a handful of random critics. As Randall points out, it is easier to hate a movie that everyone loves, so that is also true for critics. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::I have to agree that basing it on the critic reviews only doesn't make much sense. I can find dozens of movies I like that are rated rotten by the critics, but nearly all of them got good audience reviews (Bright, Constentine, Super Troopers, K-Pax, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, etc). I can only find one that I like that that scores under 50% with both groups, Southland Tales, and even I'll admit it has many flaws. I suspect Randal Monroe was looking at movies that were rated "Rotten" by both groups (green icon and <60%), vs "fresh" (red icon > 60%). But the rules were already a bit too lengthy to spell it out explicitly. [[user]][[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

[https://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/dvd-streaming-all?minTomato=0&maxTomato=49&services=amazon;hbo_go;itunes;netflix_iw;vudu;amazon_prime;fandango_now&genres=1;2;4;5;6;8;9;10;11;13;18;14&sortBy=tomato Movies] on DVD or streaming, tomatometer 49% down to 0%.

Plenty of Twilight fans will raise their hands - it is rated 49% --[[User:Thomcat|Thomcat]] ([[User talk:Thomcat|talk]]) 18:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Well, I'm around the typical age of (original) Twilight fans, and none of the movies in the saga came in my adult life. (But they're all below 50%)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.103.147|162.158.103.147]] 18:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, Shaft got a 30% on the Tomatometer and a 94 on the audience score, and I loved it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.22|108.162.241.22]] 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Do Waterworld, in spite of the fact that it only ticks two of the boxes, count? I really liked that one.
:I also liked Waterworld (44%, 1997) and The Postman (9%, 1995) (both with Kevin Kostner, and sort of the same story). Assuming the definition of adult is 18, they both qualify for the adult part, but not the after 2000 part. I also loved Star Wars Episode I, but sure enough, it's above 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. [[User:WhiteDragon|WhiteDragon]] ([[User talk:WhiteDragon|talk]]) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

:If it didn't come out while you were an adult, then it doesn't count. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:My immediate search was also for Water World. Would it also not count when you didn't watch it until after 2000? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't watch enough movies (or know Rotten Tomatoes well enough) to participate in this particular challenge, but it seems like every time I enjoy a video game, it turns out to have a sizeable and vocal hatedom. I seriously can't relate to the caption here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.165|162.158.107.165]] 20:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Batman v. Superman is probably a good answer for a fair number of people-it has a reasonable number of fans (including myself) who liked it, despite its very poor rating (28%) [[User:SirEpp|SirEpp]] ([[User talk:SirEpp|talk]]) 21:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
: I went to that movie for finding the plausible reason why Batman who only fights criminal and Superman being too unreal for ever being angry for no reason might have a fight which each other. Got less than I expected, in this aspect. But Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, Thor: Ragnarok and Iron Sky are objectively superb films the critics hated. Perhaps with the exception of the relationship between Valerian and Laureline, perhaps, though.[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a movie, per se, but I thought season 8 of Game of Thrones was fantastic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.88|162.158.214.88]] 22:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Critically panned films that I like include: Crimes of Grindelwald, Passengers, and Warcraft. Critically acclaimed films that I do not like: Avatar and Life of Pi. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.213|173.245.48.213]] 22:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Oooh, ''Passengers'' is a good one, I'm stealing that. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I second Crimes of Grindelwald (37 RT), and add Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (48 RT), which I also enjoyed and actually recommend to people. Now these movies aren't "classics" or "great movies", they aren't perfect, but they are effective entertainment, and ''not'' because they "are so bad their good". Grindelwald has many effective scenes and acting, and Valerian is a very effective effort at making a movie out of a comic book that ''feels like a comic book''-- a fact I appreciated. Of course 48 RT is also just under the 50 RT threshold.[[User:Careysub|Careysub]] ([[User talk:Careysub|talk]])
:It's almost like you totally misunderstood the point of the comic. [[User:A74xhx|A74xhx]] ([[User talk:A74xhx|talk]]) 09:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
::How so? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.16|172.69.69.16]] 21:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Not under 50%, but I'm shocked that "The Secret Life of Walter Smitty" has only 51%... National Treasure has only 46%... I like this game, it is a test in optimism.
:"The Secret Life of Walter '''Mitty'''" deserves a low rating, particularly when compared to the original with Danny Kaye. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 05:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Frankly it would be easier to list the movies I like that aren't below 50% on rotten tomatoes. [[User:CJB42|CJB42]] ([[User talk:CJB42|talk]]) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)s

My experience with rotten tomatoes ratings in particular is that they have no clue and I find their ratings useless. The challenge from Randall in this comic is a case in point: the first movie I though to check, “Another Gay Movie” gets a 40% on the tomatometer yet is one of my favorites. Same thing with all the “Eating Out” movies: good comedies that I enjoy, yet Tomatometer scores of 16%, 44%, and 17% for the first three. (And why is “Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds” so much higher ranked than 1 or 3? It’s not that different...)
I think the criteria that Randal assumes (but doesn’t mention) is that the movie has to be a box office hit that appeals to mainstream audiences.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 03:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why Suicide Squad got trashed. It was light, colourful, had an engaging story, and well made. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.209|172.68.253.209]] 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sucker Punch. There, I said it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.77|141.101.99.77]] 07:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I definitely came to this discussion thinking of this movie. It's properly interesting, but it's also easy to see why critics and half the audience hate it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.64|162.158.34.64]] 10:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a certain type of movie that 'h8ers' will auto-trash before they even come out (especially "Gender-switched version of a classic", like that ''Ghostbusters'', and "Strong female type", like ''Wonder Woman'' - as easy examples of those that some people love to hate, regardless of actual merit). So I recon there'd be good mileage in keeping an eye on (for example) the double-whammy that is the upcoming Female Thor movie. If it doesn't ''actually'' turn out to be so bad that you personally don't like it, I predict that it'll be pre-release troll-sniped down below 50% in "popular" opinion and even if they're not at all right about their guess there'll be a window of opportunity before any counter-viewpoint from actual viewers ups the score again. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:No one hated Wonder Woman. It has 93%, and is arguably the best live action superhero movie that DC has released so far. Ghostbusters was a money grabbing remake that brought nothing new. It COULD have been great with almost no effort, by getting someone to write an original script that built on the things that came before that everyone loves, instead of trying to replace it with an inferior version. The only one to blame is the Hollywood studios that would rather throw money at something that already exists instead of taking a risk on an unknown. Then they add insult to injury and tell everyone that the reason they failed isn't because they made bad decisions, but because ''people don't like seeing women in leading roles'', which is not true in any form. No real people care if the lead is male or female. They care about a good story, good acting, and having a good time watching a movie they paid their money for. [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

What the heck are all these Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller movies doing at sub-50%? I didn't know people supposedly hated Night at the Museum that much. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.67|172.68.189.67]] 17:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found two: Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. I don't consider them like super-good, but I like them. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found four: Hancock, Knowing, The Lovely Bones, The Book of Eli.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.28|162.158.150.28]] 11:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Immediately: Venom (29%) I like to pretend I like it for the "so bad it's good", but here in anonymous interwebzland, I can admit I just enjoyed it (despite expecting to hate it for the retcon). Does it matter that the RT audience score is 81%? I often find that my enjoyment of a movie is inversely proportional to how much critics didn't, and it seems I'm not alone.[[User:Daemonik|Daemonik]] ([[User talk:Daemonik|talk]]) 09:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the point here is that people feel more comfortable disliking something than liking it. It isn't that we don't all have movies that we like that other people hated, it's that many of us are afraid to say it. Also, t's not a movie, but I honestly enjoyed that one episode of ''Stranger Things''. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 04:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I admit a weakness for the Roland Emmerich movies ("The Day After Tomorrow" and "2012"). OK the science behind the events is pretty rubbish, but they are decent action movies nonetheless with a few enjoyable twists (like the USA having to beg Mexico to let them emigrate south in TDAT).

I'm shocked no one else has mentioned Jupiter Ascending yet; there was a decent amount of silliness in that movie, but I genuinely found it super compelling, and it deserves better than a 27%. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.90|172.68.65.90]] 16:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

300 got very mediocre reviews (52% on Metacritic), but I'ts absolutely one of my all-time favourite action movies. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 16:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Geostorm. Didn't even need the link for that. [[User:Conster|Conster]] ([[User talk:Conster|talk]]) 21:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Like another user said, Roland Emmerich movies like TDAT and 2012 are ones I'll always be a sucker for. Also, The Book of Eli (2010) is actually a great movie IMO despite having a 48% on RT. I always put that as a classic. Meet the Fockers (2004) is funny, too.

Side note: Armageddon is a pre-2000 movie (1998), but I think most would agree that it's a classic apocalyptic movie.

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 14:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, a reminder that the original Purge movie has a 39% on RT. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 15:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

How, by all that is holy, does The Human Centipede get a 49% Tomatometer rating? Give me a win for Mr Popper's Penguins, though. [[User:Observer of the Absurd|Observer of the Absurd]] ([[User talk:Observer of the Absurd|talk]]) 18:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
== Post-2000? ==

Anyone have an idea why "post-2000" is a criteria? [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 23:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Maybe because Rotten Tomatoes was launched close to the end of the 1990s, so post-2000 movies are the only ones that have been reviewed as they came out? Or perhaps it's to limit the scope of "movies that came out in your adult life", since adult life could go back a long way for some people. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I don't know for certain, but I feel incredibly confident that it's the timing of Rotten Tomatoes, that older movies that came out before the site existed won't be thoroughly / properly covered. Like if you look closely you'll see the 40% rating on this movie comes from only 1 vote. I suspect Randall feels that as of 2000, there was enough activity on the site to provide sufficient coverage. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:Pre-2000 films, being prior to RT, have the 'benefit'  of studied hindsight. Anybody who bothers to review [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1003722_casino_royale the ''original'' Casino Royale], which would be my choice for this if I were allowed, just has far too much baggage to be thinking the same as with something just being appreciated in the context as a new-release. Including me, probably, across the many years since I first saw that film and fell in love with it, despite the obvious and total car-crash of its Development Hell! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:And there's a lot of selection bias in who reviews movies from pre-2000 as anyone who reviews a movie probably only went to that movies page and wrote a review, because they either really like the movie, or really really really hate it.[[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
:It's stated in the explanation: it is so that most respondents would choose a movie that they have seen in their adult life and avoid the "childhood nostalgia" bias where you have fond memories of a movie watched as a kid but that you wouldn't enjoy watching as an adult.

I KNOW that there are many, many movies I can apply to this challenge - I often find myself enjoying unpopular movies. Plus, critics suck, they seem to always forget that this is ENTERTAINMENT. A clever movie that is dull as dirt and makes you fall asleep should NOT receive high praise, it fails at the primary function - but I can't think of them in the moment. About a week ago on Facebook I had a memory, a list of facts about Eurotrip, where the article called it a flop, while I loved it, so probably that one. This comic triggered my first ever visit to Rotten Tomatoes, who lists Eurotrip as I think 46%, but much higher for Audience score, so I THINK it counts? What bumps me is that it seems like "Audience Score" would be popular opinion, making Eurotrip actually a Popular movie, which seems like then it wouldn't apply here. ???? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hypothesis: People generally give more positive then negative reviews, and positive reviews also cause more people to watch. The number of watching for something bad is therefor lower, while a good movie is watched so often there is always a critic.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.190|172.69.55.190]] 10:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with people who don't like Ghost Rider or Daredevil? — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 19:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

My favorite bad movies Wild Wild West, The One, Returner, Equilibrium, The Warrior's Way [[User:Houligan|Houligan]] ([[User talk:Houligan|talk]]) 15:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I liked 50 First Dates. But for my really controversial opinion, I'm gonna say not only was Armageddon a terrific movie, but it got enough of the science right to earn our suspension of disbelief :D
--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.245|172.68.142.245]] 21:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Is [[653: So Bad It's Worse]] related enough to be mentioned in the explaination or trivia? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I just came here to say, "Pandorum".

How to talk to girls at parties (2018) - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.113|172.68.46.113]] 20:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Guilty Pleasure: ''The Sorcerer's Apprentice'' - [[User:Acrisius|Acrisius]] ([[User talk:Acrisius|talk]]) 06:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Think of a video-game based movie you actually like. It probably fits this. 2001's Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and 2005's Doom have 47% and 34% audience rating, respectively, and I loved both of those (despite the fact that they had basically nothing to do with the games). A few game-based movies have over 50% audience rating, but even then, only 2-3 ever got above 50% with the critics.

Talk:2061: Tectonics Game

2018-10-20T01:22:03Z

108.162.221.83: Comment on nonexistence of game

My wife is trying to physically restrain me from immediately starting to write this game...int main ( int arggggg...ow...get off [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
:If the comment section of this comic is anything to go by, you could sell it for a buck a pop and get...I dunno...$12 at least? [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 19:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrote my first transcript. Hopefully it isn't terrible, haha. [[User:IYN|IYN]] ([[User talk:IYN|talk]]) 17:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
:Not bad, but please do not remove the incomplete tag too soon. Even my smaller changes don't convince me right now that it's complete. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
:There's no explanation ''OR'' transcript for the Title-text, yet. Sooo...
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 18:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Who wants to help me make this? [[User:Blacksilver|Blacksilver]] ([[User talk:Blacksilver|talk]]) 17:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

With a sufficiently large time warp, this actually sounds like it would be pretty fun. [[User:Ahiijny|Ahiijny]] ([[User talk:Ahiijny|talk]]) 18:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I know very little about stars. Can anyone explain what the type in the title text is? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.70|162.158.63.70]] 18:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It's like playing Desert Bus for the rest of your life... :) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.154|162.158.63.154]] 18:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Scott

:I thought it appropriate to add Desert Bus to the main description as a real world example of a tedious real-time game that goes to a ridiculous extreme... though much less extreme and ridiculous than the one in the comic. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 21:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone else remember the old DOS game: 688 Attack Sub? Where it felt like you were waiting forever for your torpedo to hit? I liked that they told you that, in the real world, it's much slower than it is in the game.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.6|172.68.65.6]] 18:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The nice thing about this game is you could represent the Earth by a 1000-pixel wide map, and it would take over a decade before anyone could tell whether you'd actually implemented anything. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 20:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I have this horrible urge to find the Desert Bus source code and mod it to make "Desert Bus 2: Walt Disney Land to Walt Disney World" [[Special:Contributions/172.68.90.88|172.68.90.88]] 21:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)SiliconWolf

Hey, guys reading your comments I can see several people, including myself, might be interested in making a game like this. Perhaps we should coordinate efforts to make one? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.246.100|162.158.246.100]] 23:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I came here specifically to see if this game existed and I'm irritated it doesn't yet. People with better coding and geological skills than me, you have an interested party.

2019: An Apple for a Dollar

2018-07-13T17:09:23Z

108.162.221.83: /* Explanation */ Deleting ridiculous {{Citation needed}}

{{comic
| number = 2019
| date = July 13, 2018
| title = An Apple for a Dollar
| image = an_apple_for_a_dollar.png
| titletext = I'd like 0.4608 apples, please.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an APPLE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[Megan]] is about to buy an apple at a grocery store when she is surprised that the price is exactly one dollar. In most cases in the US, {{w|Sales taxes in the United States|sales tax}} must be taken into account but most states exempt food sold in grocery stores, so the price comes out to a round value. Megan begins overthinking the whole situation, so the cashier raises the price to an arbitrary non-rounded value, which seems to calm her down.

Megan's "overthinking" refers to common parameters used in solving science or math questions. A {{w|Frictionless plane}} is a scenario from the writings of Galileo to calculate the movement of an object down an {{w|inclined plane}}. However, his equations did not account for {{w|friction}}.

"A train leaving Chicago at 40 mph" refers to common math questions, involving trains and solving for the distance required to overtake said train, although this problem involves the rather unrealistic assumption that the train speed keeps constant. Like the frictionless plane, this is a common simplification that allows the problem to be solved with quite simple techniques, just like having round quantities (e.g. 1 dollar/apple) eases arithmetic problems.

;Title text
Apparently Megan only has a dollar, so she would not be able to buy a whole apple at the new price (0.4608 * $2.17 ≈ $1). Stores usually sell whole apples, so asking for a fraction of one is not likely to work out.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Megan is at the store counter, where Ponytail (the cashier) is waiting.]
:Megan: Just this apple, thanks.
:Ponytail: That will be one dollar.
:Megan: Exactly? No tax or anything?
:Ponytail: That's right.

:[Megan stares at the apple, contemplating the meaning of life.]

:[Scene zooms in on Megan.]
:Ponytail: ...Is that a problem?
:Megan: It's just weird to realize that every other transaction in my life will be more complicated than this.

:[Scene changes focus to Ponytail behind the counter.]
:Megan: This is like a platonic ideal exchange. An appke for a dollar.
:Ponytail: I see.

:[Scene changes back to Megan, once again lost in profound contemplation of the apple.]
:Megan: Are we on a frictionless plane? Is a train leaving Chicago at 40MPH? Should I solve for something??
:Ponytail: Okay, apples are $2.17 now.
:Megan: That's... probably better for us both.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]

Talk:1383: Magic Words

2014-06-18T04:13:17Z

108.162.221.83: wordplay

In this comic, Mr. Munroe makes a joke. As of yet, it is unclear what this joke IS, specifically, but it can be assumed that it's a funny one.

the clue was in "anapest"... for those more ambitious to explain and understand [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_%28prosody%29] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.83|108.162.221.83]] 04:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

928: Mimic Octopus

2014-05-04T04:42:33Z

108.162.221.83: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 928
| date = July 22, 2011
| title = Mimic Octopus
| image = mimic_octopus.png
| titletext = Even if the dictionaries are starting to give in, I refuse to accept 'octopi' as a word mainly because--I'm not making this up--there's a really satisfying climactic scene in the Orson Scott Card horror novel 'Lost Boys' which hinges on it being an incorrect pluralization.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is a parody of fish and sea-life identification charts, referencing the {{w|mimic octopus}} which, as the name implies, is able to mimic other animals. The creatures the octupus mimics include tuna, a clownfish, a lionfish, a shark, what appears to be seaweed, an angler fish, an anchor, a submarine, a scuba diver, multiple fish, and a single octupus.

The {{w|Orson Scott Card}} novel that the title text refers to is ''{{w|Lost Boys (novel)|Lost Boys}}'': "A withdrawn eight-year-old in a troubled family invents imaginary friends who bear the names of missing children" (Publisher's Weekly). The section the title text is referencing is on [http://books.google.com/books?id=Vs9PTzLMDfUC&pg=PA201&dq=octopi+Octopuses Google Books].

According to the [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFyY2mK8pxk Merriam-Webster Dictionary], "octopi," "octopuses," and "octopodes" (UK English) are all correct plural versions of "octopus."

==Transcript==
:Southeast Asian Sea Life
:Identification Chart
:[There are silhouettes of eight individual fish, a school of fish, a scuba diver, an anemone, a submarine, and an anchor, each labeled "Mimic Octopus." There is also a silhouette of an octopus, labeled "Two Mimic Octopuses."]

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