explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:406: Venting

2014-01-19T07:15:21Z

108.162.238.117:

With the psychology of XKCD readers in mind, I thought I'd look around for real-life applications of this self-same snippet. To quote the meme: "I was not dissapoint!", although to wildly varying effectiveness and with grossly variable style.
From among ''many'', I present a meagre and random selection, thus: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/messageboards/F2322274?thread=5276607&skip=40] [http://www.venganza.org/2008/08/wtf-is-wrong-with-you-ppl/comment-page-11/] [http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090408064430AA6kC66]
:Ugh. None of those actually have sections containing the documentations that they are citing. I've been wanting to do one of those kinds of posts myself as I'm actually prone to typing out several paragraphs and including citations when I get dragged into an Internet argument. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 07:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(...and remember to check out... what is there currently worth watching right now..? Well, check it out, whatever it is.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 12:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the explanation is wrong (well, part of it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely almost definitely] is), but I'm not sure that the use of Summer Glau's name is to get the last word. The kind of person that you would use this type of critical analysis on would be unlikely to be a nerd (re: grammar/syntax/spelling/capitalization errors and lack of understanding of the subject involved), but an Internet troll or general idiot. So what would be the point of using that name? My initial impression was that it was giving the appearance of hidden depths to a celebrity (who may or may not be seen as capable of it), and would thus illicit an amusing reaction from the reader. Imagine if you saw a word-by-word rebuttal attributed to Paris Hilton or Justin Beiber. An alternate interpretation is that it would make a favored celebrity look even better, much like the "memetic badass" status that Chuck Norris[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Norris#Internet_meme] has.

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|Barack Obama]] 7:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. Don't forget to vote!

Talk:406: Venting

2014-01-19T07:14:31Z

108.162.238.117:

Talk:1152: Communion

2014-01-19T03:42:37Z

108.162.238.117:

This was one of the reasons early Christians were persecuted by the Romans. They thought the Christians were cannibals. [[Special:Contributions/76.20.159.250|76.20.159.250]] 00:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

:Did they actually though that or did they only used it as pretext for persecution? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't he making fun of that doctrine?[[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 07:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Transubstantiation isn't about bread literally turning into flesh. I don't know how to explain it properly, but it is based on Middle Age Christian philosophy (scholastic, St. Thomas, I think) that differentiates the accidents (appearance, taste etc.) of a thing from its true substance. Transubstantiation means that the bread becomes flesh (acquires the substance of Jesus' flesh) even though it retains the appearance and all qualities of bread.
This doctrine is of course highly outdated and I can't think of why the Catholics haven't dropped it yet. It also causes a lot of confusion. --[[User:Artod|Artod]] ([[User talk:Artod|talk]]) 09:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

:If it's middle age Christian, what was the explanation before that? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

::I would think that the original interpretation is symbolism. Jesus and his diciples were eating the {{w|passover}} meal, and the central piece was a {{w|Korban Pesach|sacrifical lamb}}. I think that it's a way for Jesus to say that the purpouse of the lamb is becoming dated, cause I'm about to be murdered, and that is what will save you in the end, not sacrifices. From start christians have called him the {{w|Lamb of God}}. Hope you had a merry Christmas! -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 10:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

:::The "lamb of God" is thought to be a malpropism from one ancient language to another. I don't have my source material to hand, but it seems likely that the original was "word of God", and "lamb" had a similar sound and so became entangled in the confusion

::::As a New Testament student, I would be interested in seeing a source for that. There are two Greek words translated as "Lamb" in the New Testament. Are you saying that one or both of them sound like an Aramaic word for "word", for instance? Both are used in contexts where "Lamb" makes sense and "Word" does not (i.e. referring to Jesus as a sin-bearing sacrifice). Also, John's Gospel has called Jesus "the Word" several times just before quoting John the Baptist as referring to Jesus as "the Lamb of God" twice. Seems strange that a mistake would be made twice on one page (for instance) when it was avoided five times on the previous page.[[Special:Contributions/75.157.92.41|75.157.92.41]] 08:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

::Thomism (the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas) is built on Aristotle's thought and thus this understanding has always been applied to the Eucharist, albeit possibly not as explicitly as through Thomism.

:::In fact, Wikipedia does have a pretty good article about transubstantiation.--[[User:Artod|Artod]] ([[User talk:Artod|talk]]) 11:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

::::It does seem quite good. Were you thinking about anything in particular? -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 19:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

:[http://www.wftv.com/news/news/body-of-christ-snatched-from-church-held-hostage-b/nD9rH/ Are you sure?] Note the "kidnapping" line about halfway down. The literalness of the belief seems a bit vague to me in practice. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 03:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The 'punchline' and title text are two of the most macabre things I've ever seen Randall write in this comic - and the hilarity still comes across!--[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 16:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Has anybody figured out what the '1970s murder victim' reference in the hovertext is referring to? Lot of people died then - I have no idea how to even start narrowing it down [[Special:Contributions/76.116.83.55|76.116.83.55]] 16:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
:Will it referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_in_the_Box_(Philadelphia) [[User:Ykliu|Ykliu]] ([[User talk:Ykliu|talk]]) 06:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Just remind me of a film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baby_of_Mâcon

Speaking as a Catholic, my first reaction was "Oy, I've never heard ''that one'' before (eye roll)". It is a pretty old gag, but Randall definitely has a gift for putting comedic timing into 2-dimensional comic panels; I still laughed. [[User:Tractarian|Tractarian]] ([[User talk:Tractarian|talk]]) 16:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Randall misspelled "parishioner". [[Special:Contributions/87.189.145.75|87.189.145.75]] 12:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence of the explanation is is really awkward to me. I want to rewrite it but I'm not too smart on theology so I'm not sure if this is the right way. What do you think?

: ''Protestant denominations (e.g., Baptists, Mennonites, Anabaptists, Pentecostals) reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation, with some taking the words as wholly symbolic of Jesus' sacrificial death. Others (e.g, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist) believe Christ is actually present in the bread and wine although the bread and wine are not changed in any physical way .'' --[[User:Smartin|Smartin]] ([[User talk:Smartin|talk]]) 03:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hold on a minute. The church in the title text is evidently ritually sacrificing/apotheosizing persons and then transubstantiating their flesh and blood for consumption in order to redeem their sins. (Presumably ritual sacrifice is kosher.) Now the police have a blood sample from a 1970 murder victim as a result of confiscating the transubstantiated materials. How did they get the blood from the victim for comparison if he was killed by the church and they disposed of the remains? I hope Dexter isn't involved on this one. [[Special:Contributions/98.225.182.131|98.225.182.131]] 09:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

note that some presbyterian churches share the opinion that the Lords Supper is only "sign and seal of the covenant of grace". So they don't believe that Jezus is spiritual in the bread and wine.

Folks, I updated the theological explanation a bit to make it more accurate without hopefully getting too theologically geeky, but given the wonderfully geeky nature of this site (and comic), I'll go deeper in the comments. Full disclosure that I am Protestant but studied this stuff a lot in Divinity School (and love this new Pope). The Catholic belief in transubstantiation was developed within a world-view based on Plato & Aristotle, which is how the thinkers of the time understood reality and the world. Thomas Aquinas, probably the most influential of Catholic theologians, was a big fan of Aristotle, and that philosophical understanding of the nature of things fit well into an explanation of the Eucharist that makes a little more sense than how it is commonly understood. The change in the elements (bread/wine) happens when the priest consecrates them, not when they enter the mouth or stomach, and it was pretty obvious to everyone that they don't taste or look like flesh and blood. But Aristotle argued that the true nature--what something really was--could be and often was different from its simple outward appearance. Good example is that most anyone would say that each of us is more than simply our biological mechanisms. When someone dies, they look exactly the same as when they are sleeping, but there is obviously something fundamentally different about who/what they are. I don't say that to start a debate about the soul or anything but just for some context. What the Catholics argued was that there was an actual change in the substance--what the bread and wine REALLY were--when the priest blessed them, and that change gave them special salvific and "soul-cleansing" abilities. I had a theology prof who described it as the scrubbing bubbles of the spiritual world...they don't return your toilet back to its pristine condition, but they run all over cleaning it up. So enter the Reformation, and Luther (a Catholic priest) did not want to give up the significance of the Eucharist but was more focused on interpretation of the Bible (where most would think it seems pretty clear that Jesus isn't speaking literally). Perhaps more importantly though, he felt the centrality of the Catholic-ordained clergy in the process of salvation and access to God created abuses and stumbling blocks for the faithful. So he argued basically that there was still a scrubbing bubbles-type affect from the Eucharist, but that was not because the substance of the bread and wine changed when blessed but because the ritual, prayer, and remembrance created a special and unique spiritual connection to Christ. Calvin took it a step further and made a more symbolic claim, but as with Luther, didn't want to veer too far from the universal ideal that there was a real spiritual impact. The Anabaptists said it was purely symbolic. Modern Protestants pretty much all believe that it is symbolic, if special, and a reminder of our covenant with God and Christ's sacrifice...and few Christians know or bother with the more detailed theological reasoning behind this whole debate. As noted by someone above, Presbyterians use "sign and seal," and as someone who went through the rather rigorous ordination exams for the Presbyterian Church, I know we would not have been passed without providing that framing of symbol and promise. Most Catholics don't understand what it is they are supposed to believe about Transubstantiation, but the Church fathers worked very hard to make the details of their theology actually make sense and fit the world they knew and saw around them. The Bible does the same, and it is a shame that many Christians come to believe that faith calls on them to accept things they know not to be true as a test. As an aside, it has always struck me as ironic and tragic that there is such a fight over the creation narrative when the progression laid out in Gen 1 matches up so perfectly with what science now believes, and is how one might try to describe what we know about the history of the earth to a young child--or to people thousands of years ago who knew nothing of science, dinosaurs, etc. It is also frustrating how hard some fight to deny science when Genesis 1 is unique among the ancient creation myths in saying life started in the water and that plants and then birds came before animals, and people came last. As Randall is so fond of pointing out, "birds" did come first and ruled the earth for millions of years. Anyway, the more detailed explanation on the Eucharist and this little mini-rant against some of my fellow evangelicals on creationism stems from my strong agreement with St. Augustine's quote I'll conclude this comment with. I wish more Christians paid as much attention to Augustine's teachings like this as they do to the sex parts. “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge is held to as being certain from reason and experience. It is therefore a disgraceful and dangerous thing for a non-believer to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics. If non-believers finds a Christian mistaken and maintaining foolish positions supposedly because of Scripture in a field which they themselves know well, how are they going to believe Scripture in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when it appears the pages of Scripture are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, and will bring untold trouble and sorrow on the faithful.”--St. Augustine of Hippo, around 400 AD.
[[User:Sapper14|Sapper14]] ([[User talk:Sapper14|talk]]) 14:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Eric
:tl;dr or tl;nwr! (nobody will read!). My 2 cents. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
:Paragraphs, please. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 03:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1152: Communion

2014-01-19T03:33:31Z

108.162.238.117:

This was one of the reasons early Christians were persecuted by the Romans. They thought the Christians were cannibals. [[Special:Contributions/76.20.159.250|76.20.159.250]] 00:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

:Did they actually though that or did they only used it as pretext for persecution? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't he making fun of that doctrine?[[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 07:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Transubstantiation isn't about bread literally turning into flesh. I don't know how to explain it properly, but it is based on Middle Age Christian philosophy (scholastic, St. Thomas, I think) that differentiates the accidents (appearance, taste etc.) of a thing from its true substance. Transubstantiation means that the bread becomes flesh (acquires the substance of Jesus' flesh) even though it retains the appearance and all qualities of bread.
This doctrine is of course highly outdated and I can't think of why the Catholics haven't dropped it yet. It also causes a lot of confusion. --[[User:Artod|Artod]] ([[User talk:Artod|talk]]) 09:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

:If it's middle age Christian, what was the explanation before that? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

::I would think that the original interpretation is symbolism. Jesus and his diciples were eating the {{w|passover}} meal, and the central piece was a {{w|Korban Pesach|sacrifical lamb}}. I think that it's a way for Jesus to say that the purpouse of the lamb is becoming dated, cause I'm about to be murdered, and that is what will save you in the end, not sacrifices. From start christians have called him the {{w|Lamb of God}}. Hope you had a merry Christmas! -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 10:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

:::The "lamb of God" is thought to be a malpropism from one ancient language to another. I don't have my source material to hand, but it seems likely that the original was "word of God", and "lamb" had a similar sound and so became entangled in the confusion

::::As a New Testament student, I would be interested in seeing a source for that. There are two Greek words translated as "Lamb" in the New Testament. Are you saying that one or both of them sound like an Aramaic word for "word", for instance? Both are used in contexts where "Lamb" makes sense and "Word" does not (i.e. referring to Jesus as a sin-bearing sacrifice). Also, John's Gospel has called Jesus "the Word" several times just before quoting John the Baptist as referring to Jesus as "the Lamb of God" twice. Seems strange that a mistake would be made twice on one page (for instance) when it was avoided five times on the previous page.[[Special:Contributions/75.157.92.41|75.157.92.41]] 08:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

::Thomism (the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas) is built on Aristotle's thought and thus this understanding has always been applied to the Eucharist, albeit possibly not as explicitly as through Thomism.

:::In fact, Wikipedia does have a pretty good article about transubstantiation.--[[User:Artod|Artod]] ([[User talk:Artod|talk]]) 11:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

::::It does seem quite good. Were you thinking about anything in particular? -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 19:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The 'punchline' and title text are two of the most macabre things I've ever seen Randall write in this comic - and the hilarity still comes across!--[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 16:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Has anybody figured out what the '1970s murder victim' reference in the hovertext is referring to? Lot of people died then - I have no idea how to even start narrowing it down [[Special:Contributions/76.116.83.55|76.116.83.55]] 16:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
:Will it referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_in_the_Box_(Philadelphia) [[User:Ykliu|Ykliu]] ([[User talk:Ykliu|talk]]) 06:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Just remind me of a film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baby_of_Mâcon

Speaking as a Catholic, my first reaction was "Oy, I've never heard ''that one'' before (eye roll)". It is a pretty old gag, but Randall definitely has a gift for putting comedic timing into 2-dimensional comic panels; I still laughed. [[User:Tractarian|Tractarian]] ([[User talk:Tractarian|talk]]) 16:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Randall misspelled "parishioner". [[Special:Contributions/87.189.145.75|87.189.145.75]] 12:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence of the explanation is is really awkward to me. I want to rewrite it but I'm not too smart on theology so I'm not sure if this is the right way. What do you think?

: ''Protestant denominations (e.g., Baptists, Mennonites, Anabaptists, Pentecostals) reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation, with some taking the words as wholly symbolic of Jesus' sacrificial death. Others (e.g, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist) believe Christ is actually present in the bread and wine although the bread and wine are not changed in any physical way .'' --[[User:Smartin|Smartin]] ([[User talk:Smartin|talk]]) 03:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hold on a minute. The church in the title text is evidently ritually sacrificing/apotheosizing persons and then transubstantiating their flesh and blood for consumption in order to redeem their sins. (Presumably ritual sacrifice is kosher.) Now the police have a blood sample from a 1970 murder victim as a result of confiscating the transubstantiated materials. How did they get the blood from the victim for comparison if he was killed by the church and they disposed of the remains? I hope Dexter isn't involved on this one. [[Special:Contributions/98.225.182.131|98.225.182.131]] 09:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

note that some presbyterian churches share the opinion that the Lords Supper is only "sign and seal of the covenant of grace". So they don't believe that Jezus is spiritual in the bread and wine.

Folks, I updated the theological explanation a bit to make it more accurate without hopefully getting too theologically geeky, but given the wonderfully geeky nature of this site (and comic), I'll go deeper in the comments. Full disclosure that I am Protestant but studied this stuff a lot in Divinity School (and love this new Pope). The Catholic belief in transubstantiation was developed within a world-view based on Plato & Aristotle, which is how the thinkers of the time understood reality and the world. Thomas Aquinas, probably the most influential of Catholic theologians, was a big fan of Aristotle, and that philosophical understanding of the nature of things fit well into an explanation of the Eucharist that makes a little more sense than how it is commonly understood. The change in the elements (bread/wine) happens when the priest consecrates them, not when they enter the mouth or stomach, and it was pretty obvious to everyone that they don't taste or look like flesh and blood. But Aristotle argued that the true nature--what something really was--could be and often was different from its simple outward appearance. Good example is that most anyone would say that each of us is more than simply our biological mechanisms. When someone dies, they look exactly the same as when they are sleeping, but there is obviously something fundamentally different about who/what they are. I don't say that to start a debate about the soul or anything but just for some context. What the Catholics argued was that there was an actual change in the substance--what the bread and wine REALLY were--when the priest blessed them, and that change gave them special salvific and "soul-cleansing" abilities. I had a theology prof who described it as the scrubbing bubbles of the spiritual world...they don't return your toilet back to its pristine condition, but they run all over cleaning it up. So enter the Reformation, and Luther (a Catholic priest) did not want to give up the significance of the Eucharist but was more focused on interpretation of the Bible (where most would think it seems pretty clear that Jesus isn't speaking literally). Perhaps more importantly though, he felt the centrality of the Catholic-ordained clergy in the process of salvation and access to God created abuses and stumbling blocks for the faithful. So he argued basically that there was still a scrubbing bubbles-type affect from the Eucharist, but that was not because the substance of the bread and wine changed when blessed but because the ritual, prayer, and remembrance created a special and unique spiritual connection to Christ. Calvin took it a step further and made a more symbolic claim, but as with Luther, didn't want to veer too far from the universal ideal that there was a real spiritual impact. The Anabaptists said it was purely symbolic. Modern Protestants pretty much all believe that it is symbolic, if special, and a reminder of our covenant with God and Christ's sacrifice...and few Christians know or bother with the more detailed theological reasoning behind this whole debate. As noted by someone above, Presbyterians use "sign and seal," and as someone who went through the rather rigorous ordination exams for the Presbyterian Church, I know we would not have been passed without providing that framing of symbol and promise. Most Catholics don't understand what it is they are supposed to believe about Transubstantiation, but the Church fathers worked very hard to make the details of their theology actually make sense and fit the world they knew and saw around them. The Bible does the same, and it is a shame that many Christians come to believe that faith calls on them to accept things they know not to be true as a test. As an aside, it has always struck me as ironic and tragic that there is such a fight over the creation narrative when the progression laid out in Gen 1 matches up so perfectly with what science now believes, and is how one might try to describe what we know about the history of the earth to a young child--or to people thousands of years ago who knew nothing of science, dinosaurs, etc. It is also frustrating how hard some fight to deny science when Genesis 1 is unique among the ancient creation myths in saying life started in the water and that plants and then birds came before animals, and people came last. As Randall is so fond of pointing out, "birds" did come first and ruled the earth for millions of years. Anyway, the more detailed explanation on the Eucharist and this little mini-rant against some of my fellow evangelicals on creationism stems from my strong agreement with St. Augustine's quote I'll conclude this comment with. I wish more Christians paid as much attention to Augustine's teachings like this as they do to the sex parts. “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge is held to as being certain from reason and experience. It is therefore a disgraceful and dangerous thing for a non-believer to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics. If non-believers finds a Christian mistaken and maintaining foolish positions supposedly because of Scripture in a field which they themselves know well, how are they going to believe Scripture in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when it appears the pages of Scripture are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, and will bring untold trouble and sorrow on the faithful.”--St. Augustine of Hippo, around 400 AD.
[[User:Sapper14|Sapper14]] ([[User talk:Sapper14|talk]]) 14:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Eric
:tl;dr or tl;nwr! (nobody will read!). My 2 cents. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
:Paragraphs, please. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 03:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1318: Actually

2014-01-18T03:17:52Z

108.162.238.117:

I started reading the comic from the topmost line "Actually, measurements suggest it's flat." It seemed that he was talking about the planet, but it's also a response to the curved-space line from before. Upon further reading, I can't tell if the discussion is about a planet or a universe, and it looks like you can go around the circle twice and assume both. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.72|173.245.50.72]] 05:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

: It is about the shape of the Earth. The Earth exists in a curved universe. The alt text is referring to the fact that by being more and more specific you can always get the last word in but it may alienate you from your peers. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 05:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The transcript needs some way to show that Cueball is talking to the second Hairy in the end. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.71|108.162.216.71]] 08:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

: "show that Cueball is talking to the second Hairy in the end" -> Do you consider it done ? [[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 08:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed factual error about sum of angles of a triangle in a closed geometry. An example of closed geometry is spherical geometry, where sum of angles of a triangle is π < A + B + C<3π http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_trigonometry . Previous text wrongly stated that A+B+C would be smaller than π in closed geometry and greater in open geometry. [[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 08:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

About the oblate configuration: why attribute it to centripetal force? Because centrifugal force is an "apparent" force? Well centripetal force from gravitational pull is actually balancing the centrifugal force caused by rotation of the earth. The whole "centrifugal force does not exist" thing is a misconception. It's an inertial force and writing the equilibrium equations for an object in the rotating reference frame (the one we experience everyday) at latitude phi you see: gravitational pull toward the center of the planet + centrifugal force away from the axis of rotation= mass*g(phi). This g(phi) is not the same in every spot of the earth, it changes in value and direction (does not always point exactly to the center of the earth) with latitude.{{unsigned ip|108.162.229.65}}
: I second this. The centripetal force would actually be the gravity of earth. Attributing the oblate shape of earth to this is just plain wrong, since it pulls inwards, not outwards. Actually all forces could be called "apparent" forces, since they're really just constructs to help you calculate the acceleration of a body. There's always a (local) reference frame where a particular force doesn't "exist". {{unsigned ip|173.245.53.131}}
:: Sure, there is always such frame, but gravitation is real force anyway because we can measure the higgs field by detecting higgs bosons. At least I think we can. Failing that, electromagnetic forces are real because we can measure electromagnetic field by detecting photons, this I'm sure of :-). -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Come now. Do you really expect me to do coordinate substitution in my head while strapped to a centrifuge? [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 15:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
::::No, Mister Diszy, I expect you to die. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 20:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why the explanation assumes the top claim is at the start and end. I think that part of the explanation is a stretch and that the "flat" claim is not meant to be given twice. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 17:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
:It's a loop. Technically there is no "start". Each line is a direct "more specific" response to the previous remark. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 20:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I always suspected Freddie Mercury was a closet planetoligist. {{unsigned ip|127.0.0.1|20:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)}}

I highly doubt this pun is intentional, but this could be seen as a case of circular logic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 20:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Any significance to where they are standing along the circle? If we start with flat, the first three are right in a row, but then the rest are spread out further.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.57|108.162.216.57]] 21:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
:Yes. They are standing close to the center of where their sentence is. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 03:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick suggestion. Under the (first) "[Actually,] measurements suggest it's flat." explanation title, just have the first point given. Then continue through the other "Actually"'s and ''then'' have (under a second "Actually, measurements suggest it's flat." header) the "Finally, the first speaker comments again," point and then the "The arguments could continue around the circle," one at the end. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.223|141.101.99.223]] 22:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It was not the case that the middle age believd in a flat eart (some of the antic cultures did). See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth Wikipedia]. --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 00:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1318: Actually

2014-01-17T20:35:58Z

108.162.238.117:

Talk:1318: Actually

2014-01-17T20:17:17Z

108.162.238.117:

Talk:1318: Actually

2014-01-17T20:14:10Z

108.162.238.117:

688: Self-Description

2014-01-10T13:53:16Z

108.162.238.117: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 688
| date = January 13, 2010
| title = Self-Description
| image = self_description.png
| titletext = The contents of any one panel are dependent on the contents of every panel including itself. The graph of panel dependencies is complete and bidirectional, and each node has a loop. The mouseover text has two hundred and forty-two characters.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is self-referential, because every graph is dependent on the whole comic. If you were to change anything in the comic, you would change the ink distribution, and would therefore have to update all three graphs. This would result in further changes that would have to be considered.

The third panel features a {{w|Droste effect}}, an image infinitely contained within itself.

The title text refers to the comic's own self-reference, but it is also self-referencing because of the character count in it.

"The graph of panel dependencies is complete and bidirectional, and every node has a loop." This means that if we draw a dot corresponding to each panel, and then we draw arrows connecting the dots to indicate dependencies, the resulting {{w|graph}} is {{w|complete graph|complete}} (meaning that all the points are connected to one another) and bidirectional (meaning that if point A has an arrow to point B, then point B also has an arrow to point A). "Every node has a loop" means that each point also has an arrow connecting to itself.

==Transcript==
:[There is a pie chart, mostly white with a black slice. The white is labeled "Fraction of this image which is white." The black is labeled "Fraction of this image which is black."]

:[There is a bar graph labeled "Amount of black ink by panel." Bar 1 is medium height, Bar 2 higher, Bar 3 lowest.]

:[There is a scatterplot labeled "Location of black ink in this image." It is the positive quarter of a coordinate grid with the zeroes marked. The graph is, of course, the whole comic scaled to fit the axes, including a smaller version of itself in the last panel, etc.]

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

Talk:White Hat

2014-01-09T16:53:15Z

108.162.238.117:

Dgbrt, look again. I was referring to white hat hackers AND white hat cowboys, hence the particular link that I chose. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 22:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
:Maybe I did something wrong, but this should be not posted here. Talk to me at my discussion page. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be ''two'' White Hats. One with a boater, and another with... some other hat. The one with the other hat has appeared in several comics, I think. This is the only one that comes to mind at the moment: [[603: Idiocracy]] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.71|108.162.216.71]] 22:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if White Hat is making a logical fallacy in 915. His two relevant claims are "You've just never had good wine. If you paid more attention, you'd realize there's a whole world here," and "But some things do have more depth than others." Even if the claims were false, that doesn't necessarily mean they are a logical fallacy. Furthermore, Cueball (assumed to be the Author Avatar on the main page) actually agrees with him on the first claim (the part with the "whole world" not necessarily with the "never had good wine", though it is suggested that he only buys cheap wine). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 16:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1314: Photos

2014-01-09T16:37:43Z

108.162.238.117:

This seems to be a reference to this video or one of many of the same ilk.
http://www.artthesystem.com/2013/12/after-i-saw-this-i-put-down-my-phone.html?m=1

Which is doing the rounds on social media sites at the moment {{unsigned|‎Gernant}}

Heard on a french radio show (Les grosses têtes) : A study made on student split in two group in an exposition : one group would photograph what they like, another one would photograph a certain set of pictures.
The study found that the ones who could photograph pictures they like, wasn't able to remember the pictures they liked.
The ones who wasn't able to photograph picture they liked, remembered it better.
I don't have link, sry, but white hat is proven right in this case. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.189|173.245.53.189]] 09:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Juluan

:I think BOTH have point here. Trying to document your life IS distracting, especially if you overdo it (and make a lot of selfies), on the other hand it IS possible to enjoy your life and still take pictures. Except if something happens only once and quick: in that case, if you try to take picture, you won't be able to enjoy it ... and you might fail to take the picture in correct moment anyway. I recommend video in such case :-). -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

::Agreed, both are right. If you want to take an abundance of photos, go ahead. '''However''', there are limits. If your doing so would spoil it for someone else, then limit yourself. Practice the same basic courtesy that should prevent you from talking out loud or texting during a movie. You're in a public place with other people who want to enjoy what's going on. They came to see the concert, not a sea of glowing rectangles (making a recording which will never be watched). [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.89|199.27.128.89]] 18:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

::I thought of that study, too... The first valid link I found was http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/is-facebook-making-us-forget-study-shows-that-taking-pictures-ruin-memories-8994917.html (of course being hampered by various variations of each of "memory" and "photograph" not being ''very'' rare in combination ( GoogleFu Golf, anyone? ;) ), but once I got there I found it was widely covered in the online media). But I'm not sure whether this inspired Randall in this case, because of (or even ''despite'') the off-kilter reinterpretation. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.223|141.101.99.223]] 18:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
:PS: The title text seems like obvious irony to me. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I remember taking a few photographs of food that is WAY too fabulous in presentation. [[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 16:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to know Black-Hat's opinion on the subject. --[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 18:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

:I'll try to channel my inner Black Hat to answer that: "Being a trained photographer teaches you to limit your perception to what you see through the lens and to think about how your picture is going look, and you lose sight of the bigness of the sunset and the feeling of the moment. But being camera free you're always going to wonder what the cameraman captures in the mechanical process of handling the camera, in the task of composing the picture in their head and in the frozen slice of sunset they get to keep. No matter how you try to enjoy the magic of the sunset, you're going to miss something that no one will ever be able to share with you, and see something you'll never be able to share with anyone else." [[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.8|141.101.81.8]] 21:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

::That doesn't sound much like Black Hat to me. Wouldn't he just try to steal the camera? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 01:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

::: I think that Black Hat would be more "Being a trained photographer teaches you to limit your perception to what you see through the lens and to think about how your picture is going look, and you lose sight of me stealing your car." [[User:Kyt|Kyt]] ([[User talk:Kyt|talk]]) 02:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Did anyone even read that abstract ( http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/12/04/0956797613504438.abstract ) ? It actually supported Cueball more than it did White Hat. If you just take a picture *instead* of looking seriously at the subject, then yes of course you won't have strong memories of it. But if you analyse the subject with the purpose of taking an effective picture, then there is no such impairment. Plus, you have a photograph. I'm removing the 'great irony' part of the explanation. Note that the rest of it is still very poor. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 02:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to improve it - sorry I still don't like it much, but perhaps others can pile on. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 02:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That just means they're both right (sans the 'correcting' peoples experience, but they're both guilty of it so moot point). White hat only edges out because his original posit was simply taking pictures robs you of memory, while Cueball was talking about ''trying'' to take pictures ignoring White Hats argument and going off on a tangent (ala White Hat). {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.117}}
:Not a tangent. He said "instead of just enjoying the view", as in "only enjoy the view". He presented a false dichotomy, and Cueball called him out. Basically, White Hat's argument was built on false premises from the beginning. Instead of addressing the argument directly (which was pointless given the false premises), he proceeded to smash away those premises by showing that you can easily do both, and possibly both more effectively than separate. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 16:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1314: Photos

2014-01-09T14:44:11Z

108.162.238.117:

1314: Photos

2014-01-08T21:51:53Z

108.162.238.117: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1314
| date = January 8, 2014
| title = Photos
| image = photos.png
| titletext = I hate when people take photos of their meal instead of eating it, because there's nothing I love more than the sound of other people chewing.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Rewrite to explain punchline. Rewrite to explain title-text. Remove paraphrasing of transcript.}}

White Hat expresses his intense dislike of seeing people distract themselves from experiencing life to the full by taking pictures. [[Cueball]] expresses a contrary view that taking a photo of something helps focus attention on it. He further points out how annoying it is when ''at that point of maximum focus'' someone complains that you are not appreciating the moment satisfactorily.

The logic of Cueball's argument reduces [[White Hat]] to inarticulacy, then speechlessness, whereupon Cueball takes a photograph, implying that he wants to intensify his enjoyment of White Hat's discomfiture.

The title text alludes to an alternative formulation of White Hat's position, although the justification here is not White Hat's egocentricity, but a more immediately sensual stipulation. It points up the moral that, no matter how you defend it, it is irrational to require that others should perceive the world in a way calculated to gratify you.

The great irony here is that White Hat is correct: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/12/04/0956797613504438.abstract

==Transcript==
:[Three people are seen, two of them taking photos of a sunset in a city. Cueball and White Hat are seen in the foreground.]
:White Hat: Ugh, I hate how people take pictures instead of just enjoying the view.
:Cueball: Why?

:[Just Cueball and White Hat.]
:White Hat: Documenting your life distracts you from '''''living''''' it. You're not really—
:Cueball: Oh, come on.

:Cueball: Trying to take a picture of a thing makes me pay more attention to it. Some of my best adventures are built around trying to photograph something.

:[Closeup of Cueball.]
:Cueball: If "other people having experiences incorrectly" is annoying you, think how unbearable it must be to have a condescending stranger tell you they hate the way you're experiencing your life at just the moment you've found something you want to remember. Why the fuck do you care how someone '''else''' enjoys a sunset?

:White Hat: Well, they... Because I just, uh... ...

:[Cueball takes a photo of White Hat.]

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

Talk:269: TCMP

2013-12-31T07:48:59Z

108.162.238.117:

:F1rst p0st!!
:
:...seriously, if I could remember, I would rather start with 'What Hath God Wrought!' That is far more solemn and dedicating... not just to Morse-sensee, either![[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 02:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_LaBerge
:The second paragraph screams of this comic. I've been a big fan of the Lucidity Institute and their work since about 2010. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 07:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1307: Buzzfeed Christmas

2013-12-24T03:24:36Z

108.162.238.117:

Randall seems somewhat obsessed with buzzfeed titles lately. I suggest whoever takes this explanation upon themselves to refer to [[1283:_Headlines]], as the two comics circle pretty much the same subject. I've got a feeling he made at least one more comic on this matter, but Headlines is the only one that popped to my head. Maybe you could refer Headlines to this comic because they share the same concept? [[User:Dulcis|Dulcis]] ([[User talk:Dulcis|talk]]) 06:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added the link from [[1283:_Headlines]] to this comic. I also think there is at least one other comic that thouches on this, but it has slipped my mind at the moment. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

5 Gold iPhones!!! --[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 14:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't like how Buzzfeed is taking over the Internet either, so kudos to it and get off my lawn. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.66|108.162.215.66]] 20:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Weird. I only just learned what Buzzfeed was the other day (and in the comments came across this link: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=buzzfeed )
Additionally, the Reading Every Book What-If was published the day after I had that same conversation with someone. 2Spooky.
:Doesn't hurt that I have that conversation a couple times each year. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 03:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1306: Sigil Cycle

2013-12-21T03:14:46Z

108.162.238.117:

Shouldn't it be QBASIC$ (or QBASIC%), since in Basic the sigil is attached to the end of variable names? --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.108|173.245.53.108]] 13:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Could not find where categories can be added, here's a list of suitable categories: Charts, Computers, Comics presenting a compromise Internet, Programming [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.180|173.245.53.180]] 13:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This comic de-emphasizes the value of sigils. It's very ironic that Randall chose C++, a language with symbols, to exemplify plain words. And C is a reason for not naming technologies after letters. Same with X. You have to search for "C programming language" or "X window system." It's very helpful to distinguish things with unique sigils, especially in this current age where we depend on full-text search. Just look at my login ID, tbc. I have been tbc on the Internet since 1981. But I eventually had to go by tbc0 (e.g. on Twitter) because tbc isn't unique enough. Google was named after 10^100 (an incomprehensibly large number reflecting their ambition). But that number is spelled googol. They own their spelling. Brilliant. Consider examples: iMac, iPhone iPad, Yahoo (a little weak), Facebook (they own that word). It's all about branding. Google Kleenex or Xerox and you'll see that they're excellent sigils. The problem is, those terms have become generic. Their brand is a little weaker for it. Finally, on Twitter, @and # unleash powerful features. — [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 15:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
:C++ uses symbols, but it doesn't use one to denote that an identifier is a variable (like PHP) or the type of an identifier (like early BASIC, Perl, and arguably Twitter). And when I search for X, it's either X11 (the protocol) or Xorg (the widely used server implementation). And [[wikipedia:Barney_Google_and_Snuffy_Smith|Barney Google]] had it first. --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples|talk]]) 15:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Any way we can expand on the history of programming (if applicable)? Did these languages become popular in a certain order, or were they developed as a response to one another? Or is this comic simply Randall's journey through programming, not specifically tied to the popularity (or development) of certain coding languages? -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.227|108.162.216.227]]

The google mentioning isn't explained well enough imo. Instead if just saying "they have a service called google plus", it should be told how the + sign is used throughout the service, like every other instance in the article. I may do the edit myself, but it's not likely. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.237|141.101.98.237]] 15:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"Ironically, it is the name if the language itself that includes symbols."

It's not very ironic. Variable names don't include symbols, but commands do. This statement should be rewritten.

int c = 0;

c++;

c += 1;

c = c + 1; {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.215}}

:I find it ironic that "C++" in a statement would be interpretted as "C" and only ''post''-incremented (i.e. only incremented when ''next'' referenced). Meaning "C++" is effectively the same as "C", in its own context. They should have named it "++C", if they wanted to indicate that it was ''itself'' improved upon the original value of C. ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 16:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

::This is an incorrect interpretation of the statement c++. c++ as a standalone statement, on a line by itself, will result in c being exactly one greater than before the statement (the value stored in that memory location will indeed be one greater); using prefix or postfix ++ in this context is functionally equivalent and most people just prefer using the postfix version. Where the distinction between the prefix and postfix versions come into play is in more complex statements where the operator's return value is not ignored. For example,

::int c = 1;
::int x = c++;

::x will be initialized to 1 because the postfix ++ operator returns the value of c before it was incremented, but the value stored in c will be 2 regardless of further reference. If, instead you initialized x using the prefix version, ++c, x would be 2 because the prefix version of ++ returns the incremented result. (Side note: it's often considered bad practice to rely on the return value of the increment and decrement operators.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.227|108.162.219.227]] 20:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
:::No, I stand by what I say. I actually agree with your code, but freely parsing "I will use C++ for this project", as a phrase (at least the first time you utter it) might so easily be a statement that gives a direct result equal to "I will use C for this project". (It helps to have just the right geeky sense of humour, of course.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 21:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
::::Oh, I assure you, I am quite geeky. I could, for instance, argue that you're mixing the grammars of English and C++, a natural language and context sensitive language. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.227|108.162.219.227]] 22:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Extending the first comment above: Since the strip is known for being rather technically strict, it's odd that it says "word ... will START with", yet QBASIC variables END with symbols, and Google+ ENDS with a symbol.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.216|108.162.216.216]] 18:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Although C++ doesn't force you to use sigils, by convention programmers would still use sigils. Conventionally, variable names were named nCount, or fCost. The first character in the variable name indicated the data type. This convention was extended by Visual C++, and it started naming interfaces starting with I. Eventually, this convention fell by the wayside because IDEs started getting smarter and you would get code complete and some sort of information via a tooltip that eliminated the need for the Sigil --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.24|173.245.56.24]] 18:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
::{{w|Hungarian Notation}} (and similar schemes) aren't "sigils" (according to [[wikt:sigil|wiktionary]], a sigil in this context is non-alphanumeric, and the comic would seem to imply this also). --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.186|108.162.219.186]] 22:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC).

I think this explanation could do with some better explanation of the programming concepts it describes. Not every xkcd reader will be familiar with programming languages. --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 21:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If "C++" "started" with a symbol, then I would agree that it is ironic that it appears in the graph in the position that it does. Since it does not, however, I must dispute your use of the word "ironic". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 03:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1071: Exoplanets

2013-12-04T16:35:57Z

108.162.238.117:

Hmm... this comic and 786 have the same title. Is that a mistake? [[User:Castriff|Jimmy C]] ([[User talk:Castriff|talk]]) 01:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
:It may very well have been on {{xkcd}} itself; there was a bit of a snafu when Randall posted the image. That's part of the reason why we decided on number+name here, to ensure that that sort of naming collision couldn't be repeated. -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 04:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
:It's also worth mentioning that 786 is both the number of the other strip, and the number of planets in this one. [[Special:Contributions/93.144.215.90|93.144.215.90]] 22:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The image isn't appearing for me. I think it's a problem with the thumbnail system. [[User:Bugefun|Bugefun]] ([[User talk:Bugefun|talk]]) 18:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
:Same here. Using Chrome. -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 19:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Same on ipad. [[User:DruidDriver|DruidDriver]] ([[User talk:DruidDriver|talk]]) 07:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

And on Firefox. --[[Special:Contributions/68.200.188.141|68.200.188.141]] 01:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Not showing up in Chrome. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 23:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, the pace at which we're discovering exoplanets is accelerating. The first confirmed planet-sized mass outside our solar system was discovered in 1992, and it was ten years until we could celebrate the discovery of the 100th exoplanet. In the fifteen months since this comic was posted, another 156 exoplanets have been discovered (source: Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia, which lists 942 exoplanets as of 2 Sep 2013). [[User:Frijole|Frijole]] ([[User talk:Frijole|talk]]) 22:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There are 786 exoplanets listed in the comic, And the previous comic about exoplanets is comic 786..... Coincidence? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.44|108.162.222.44]] 08:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
:I think it's possible that he was waiting for the count to increase to that number to create some sort of meta-pun. With Randall, you never know, but the odds of that happening independently seems unfathomable to me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 16:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
:Additional comment: I believe the original filename for 768 was just "exoplanets.png" before being changed to "exoplanets_2010.png" when this comic was released. Any website that hotlinked the first comic would have their image replaced with the newest one.

Talk:1071: Exoplanets

2013-12-04T16:12:15Z

108.162.238.117:

Talk:1297: Oort Cloud

2013-11-29T05:15:16Z

108.162.238.117: Created page with "Reading the Wikipedia page on the Oort Cloud didn't help me understand the joke. I don't know if it has anything to do with comets, or the asteroids getting smashed up by the..."

Reading the Wikipedia page on the Oort Cloud didn't help me understand the joke. I don't know if it has anything to do with comets, or the asteroids getting smashed up by them. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 05:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1034: Share Buttons

2013-11-20T14:53:14Z

108.162.238.117: Suggested explanation

What, Wikipedia users and Facebook users don't overlap? I beg to differ. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|purple|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
:Where do you read that they don't overlap? If you mean the Reddit thing; to me it seems that it says that Reddit users like Wikipedia, and that Reddit users don't overlap with Facebook users. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 23:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the joke is also that nobody actually uses Google Plus.

Talk:1098: Star Ratings

2013-11-06T06:29:28Z

108.162.238.117:

'''please add <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to the end of your comments to include your signature. Thanks!'''

*An alternate explanation is that internet users only vote in 1s and 5s, and that the cutoff represents the point where there are too many 1s.

*The people most likely to vote are those with strong opinions, which would often be polerized to one or five stars. These people would be the most likely to vote because their connection to the product would make them more willing to spend the time to share their experiance.

*In my opinion, this comic is about overrating. The comic says anything between full fout stars is crap. One possible explanation could be that people dislike to admit that their decision for a particular product was a bad one, so they grant three stars. Or look at certain brands, where every defect is by definition unimportant so they do not impact the review too harshly. [[Special:Contributions/46.142.51.138|46.142.51.138]] 15:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)madd
**It was pointed out to me (by a district manager in the organization concerned) that on those surveys you are asked to take by retail outlets, anything less than a 5 is considered a zero by Corporate. They're apparently not interested in honest evaluations; either it was SUPEREXCELLENTGREAT!! or it's worthless. [[User:Shalom S.|Shalom S.]] ([[User talk:Shalom S.|talk]]) 19:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

*It seems likely that any product with a 1-start rating only has one (or a small number of) reviews as well. Usually a product has ''some'' redeeming value that someone will find useful.
**Usually the developer or at least a friend will provide a positive rating and review, though the issue of self rating isn't specifically addressed by this comic. Still, if 3 users give it a 1-star review, but the developer has access to at least 2 accounts that can give a 5-star rating, you still result in 13/25 rating, or two-and-a-half stars, which is why that star rating would be "crap".--[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 16:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
*** Agreed. If there's only one review, it most likely comes from the supplier / author / producer, and in that case it's going to be a five star rating. From that perspective, the only way to get a bad _average_ review is if there are many bad reviews. As an example, consider a product with five reviews: 5, 2, 2, 1, 3. The average is 2.6, and depending on the implementation this might be shown as "two and half stars" or "three stars". If you take out the 5, you get an average of 2. Consider the case of two reviews, 5 and 1. The 5 is from the author and the 1 is from a real user. Average is 3. Considering the other cases (5 and 2, 5 and 3, 5 and 4) the averges are 3.5, 4, 4.5. As you can see, anything below 3.5 is crap (the 1 and 2 from real users) and 4 and 4.5 are indeed ok (3 and 4 from the real user). As the number of "real" reviews increases, the average will tend towards the actual average perception from users (law of large numbers), and there is ''no way'' to get a 5 on average because of the fact that when dealing with subjective evaluation, ''someone'' is going to think the product is crap, therefore a five star rating is the product of a single review from the author. [[User:Mem|mem]] ([[User talk:Mem|talk]]) 20:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

*I think there might be a little too much analysis for this, given the title text. When shopping online, especially for random items like computer parts, media, and whatnot, people tend to peruse through items fairly quickly and/or fairly critically. A 5 star rating seems a little too perfect for the real world, hence the notion that there's only one review; a cynic might say that its from the author himself or some astroturfer (and they're probably right). The rest of the rating scale, however, is an observation of buyer behavior. Getting ''only'' four out of five stars is considered the lowest a potential buyer will risk before buying/downloading/ordering whatever it is. Everything else is very unceremoniously considered "crap," with the reasoning that there's some sort of defect or angry reviewer. Any further inquiry isn't necessary since there's a lot of other alternative products or manufacturers on the market. Hence, "crap, move on to the next item" mentality." The title text alludes to this with its strange gravestones. I take it as symbolizing all the products and sellers and manufacturers and establishments that got below that 4-star threshold, doomed to death by obscurity as buyers simply skip over the item in question, having called quickly decided it was "crap." Whether they actually are that bad is beyond that line of thinking. Whether it might be someone just hating on it and everyone else being scared off is similarly beyond it. As mentioned above, Corporate considers anything that isn't great to be worthless; it's because online consumers tend to think the exact same thing. And I guess to top it off, the mention about going to Yelp to give it a one-star review due to his unease and then feeling compulsed not to would basically be some sort supernatural power from the cemetery making sure that 1.) the cemetery's rating doesn't go down, and 2.) the author doesn't make that whole rating cemetery thing even more meta. [[Special:Contributions/68.123.154.215|68.123.154.215]] 05:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
** Wow do I wish I could have used paragraphs there. [[Special:Contributions/68.123.154.215|68.123.154.215]] 05:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
*** You need to use . I tried to put some above. Hope that is what you meant. Generally agree with what you said, though. [[User:Arifsaha|Arifsaha]] ([[User talk:Arifsaha|talk]]) 20:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

*The alt text sounds vaguely like a chain letter or urban legend. Does anyone recognize it as referring to any one in particular? --[[User:Aw|Aw]] ([[User talk:Aw|talk]]) 23:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

*I think this comic illustrates a more general rating bias. Consider hotel star ratings - almost every one boasts four or five. Sometimes you can see three. I was recently shocked to see a hotel displaying two stars next to its name! (No, I haven't stayed there, I was just driving by.) One-star hotel, anyone? -- [[Special:Contributions/89.174.214.74|89.174.214.74]] 14:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
**In many places, star ratings of a hotel are not a measure of the quality of the hotel, but of the types of services it provides (do they have private bathrooms, a pool, a concierge, etc.) [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206|75.103.23.206]] 22:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

*I find that, for most popular works on most popular sites (i.e., Amazon) at least, two star reviews (the least common rating) are actually rather entertaining; the reasoning being, in theory at least, that they by definition avoid hyperbole. [[Special:Contributions/178.42.120.14|178.42.120.14]] 20:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

*I have a different interpretation of the title text: the headstones are of people who rated the cemetery (where the rating on their headstone is what they rated the cemetery). When the "distant chill" mentioned is a foreshadowing of Cueball's impending death, which would result in a new headstone with his name and the one-star rating he was about to give. At least, that's how I see it. Any thoughts? [[Special:Contributions/27.253.79.231|27.253.79.231]] 08:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The image at the end of this What-If references this comic in the image-text. http://what-if.xkcd.com/69/ [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 06:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:156: Commented

2013-10-31T02:34:31Z

108.162.238.117:

The issue date on this comic isn't filled. Can someone fix that by adding the correct issue date? [[User:Rikthoff|Rikthoff]] ([[User talk:Rikthoff|talk]]) 17:17, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

In the first two panels, it looks like he's flicking the guy off. It's not until the third panel that we actually see the subversion. I'm reasonably certain that this is intentional. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 02:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)