explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1383: Magic Words

2014-06-18T08:42:17Z

108.162.254.157:

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. {{unsigned ip|‎108.162.215.120}}

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)

Each sequence has four words with the same stress pattern, which makes them the same type of poetic foot (the first group is all iambs, the second is all trochees, the third is bacchius). Basically it's a pun. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.185|173.245.54.185]] 04:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Is Cueball really as much of a ''cunning linguist'' as Megan makes him out to be? If not, she is going to be extremely unsatisfied in bed. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.208.25|108.162.208.25]] 08:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Cunning linguist! *snicker* [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.157|108.162.254.157]] 08:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

1014: Car Problems

2014-03-26T14:05:43Z

108.162.254.157: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1014
| date = February 8, 2012
| title = Car Problems
| image = car_problems.png
| titletext = Or if you replace your car, we'll be happy to set it on fire again so you can take another crack at getting that shot.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Some more details on digital photographing, wiki links, etc. would be helpful.}}
[[Megan]]'s car appears to have combusted at some point while she left it unattended. Suspecting her friends and acquaintances ([[Black Hat]], [[Danish]], and [[Cueball]]) of perhaps having something to do with it, she gathers them in front of a couch and draws attention to the fact that something is just a little bit wrong with the two juxtaposed images she shows them. In an effort to be evasive, all three of them start critiquing the picture quality, and not the subject, feigning complete ignorance about the car being on fire. When Megan exasperatedly tells them what she is upset about - namely, her car is on fire - they continue to act evasive by telling her that her camera stinks.

The title text continues the dialogue that basically outright suggests that they were the ones who collectively set her car on fire, probably in the middle of some nightly exploit.

As for the particular details of the digital photography terms mentioned:

*{{w|White balance}}: Artificial indoor light is more yellow, outdoor light is more blue. The light colour can also depend on weather or time of day. The human eye is a very good judge of whiteness under a variety of lighting conditions, digital cameras often have difficulty automatically correcting for this which can cause images to look too blue or orange. Professional cameras and image editing software allow you to adjust the white balance manually, which Megan probably has not done.
*{{w|Focus (optics)|Focus}} is a bit too close: As light passes through a camera lens, it is bent until the rays converge on the film or sensor. If the focus is too close, it implies that point of convergence from the light of the subject is slightly in front of the sensor (i.e. that Megan has accidentally focused on something closer than the car). This will result in near objects being (too) sharp, and the car being slightly blurry.
*{{w|Chromatic aberration}}: This causes coloured artifacts in an image, typically caused by cheap lenses, which do not focus light of different wavelengths (and thus different colours) in the same way. It is usually visible as a blueish or reddish outline around objects.
*{{w|Megapixels}}: This is the number of image sensor elements of digital cameras or the pixels on digital displays. More pixels improve the resolution but also result in less overall quality for the pictures, due in part to the reduced size of each pixel sensor (because the total sensor size is typically the same for a given class of camera), and because for consumer a targeted products the total engineering budget is limited, so that extra money spent on a high megapixel sensor ends up reducing the money spent on other more critical elements such as the lenses.

==Transcript==
:[Megan stands in front of a projection of a car, with an audience of 3 people. One of the people is Black Hat, the others are Danish and Cueball.]
:Megan: Attention Please. This is a photo of my car as of two weeks ago.

:[Megan in front of a new projection of the same car engulfed in flames.]
:Megan: And ''this'' is my car as I found it this morning. Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture?

:[The audience ponders.]

:Cueball: The white balance, for one.
:Danish: Focus is a bit too close.
:Black Hat: The chromatic aberration suggests you bought your camera because it had "The most megapixels".

:Megan: '''''THE CAR IS ON FIRE!'''''
:Comment from audience: Maybe you should use the insurance money to get a better camera.
:Comment from different person: yeah.

==Trivia==
*While this comic focuses on misunderstandings by people viewing pictures this could be also a reference to the [http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchResults?searchType=ID&targetCategory=I&searchCriteria.nhtsa_ids=PE11037 battery fire] in a stored, damaged {{w|Chevrolet Volt}} automobile. During a side-impact safety test, which the car passed with a five star rating[http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/hybrids/the-straight-story-on-the-chevy-volt-battery-fire-6601217], its high voltage battery pack was damaged. Part of the test procedure includes rolling the vehicle over after the impact to check for leaking fluids; during the rollover check, the vehicle electronics were flooded with coolant. The damaged vehicle was then put into storage where its high voltage battery remained energized; three weeks later the battery spontaneously caught fire, potentially due to corrosion, and destroyed the car. GM subsequently made design changes to address the causes of the fire.[http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchResults?searchType=ID&targetCategory=I&searchCriteria.nhtsa_ids=PE11037]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Danish]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

1014: Car Problems

2014-03-26T09:57:34Z

108.162.254.157:

{{comic
| number = 1014
| date = February 8, 2012
| title = Car Problems
| image = car_problems.png
| titletext = Or if you replace your car, we'll be happy to set it on fire again so you can take another crack at getting that shot.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Some more details on digital photographing, wiki links, etc. would be helpful.}}
[[Megan]]'s car appears to have combusted at some point while she left it unattended. Suspecting her friends and acquaintances ([[Black Hat]], [[Danish]], and [[Cueball]]) of perhaps having something to do with it, she gathers them in front of a couch and draws attention to the fact that something is just a little bit wrong with the two juxtaposed images she shows them. In an effort to be evasive, all three of them start critiquing the picture quality, and not the subject, feigning complete ignorance about the car being on fire. When Megan exasperatedly tells them what she is upset about - namely, her car is on fire - they continue to act evasive by telling her that her camera stinks.

The title text continues the dialogue that basically outright suggests that they were the ones who collectively set her car on fire, probably in the middle of some nightly exploit.

As for the particular details of the digital photography terms mentioned:

*{{w|White balance}}: Indoor light is more yellow, outdoor light is more blue. The light colour can also depend on weather or time of day. The human eye is a very good judge of whiteness under a variety of lighting conditions, digital cameras often have difficulty automatically correcting for this which can cause images to look too blue or orange.
*{{w|Focus (optics)|Focus}} is a bit too close: As light passes through a camera lens, it is bent until the rays converge on the film or sensor. If the focus is too close, it implies that point of convergence from the light of the subject is slightly in front of the sensor (i.e. that Megan has accidentally focused on something closer than the car). This will result in near objects being (too) sharp, and the car being slightly blurry.
*{{w|Chromatic aberration}}: This causes coloured artifacts in an image, typically caused by a cheap lenses, which do not focus light of different wavelengths (and thus different colours) in the same way. It is usually visible as a blueish or reddish outline around objects.
*{{w|Megapixels}}: This is the number of image sensor elements of digital cameras or the pixels on digital displays. More pixels improve the resolution but also result in less overall quality for the pictures, due in part to the reduced size of each pixel sensor (because the total sensor size is typically the same for a given class of camera), and because for consumer a targeted products the total engineering budget is limited, so that extra money spent on a high megapixel sensor ends up reducing the money spent on other more critical elements such as the lenses.

==Transcript==
:[Megan stands in front of a projection of a car, with an audience of 3 people. One of the people is Black Hat, the others are Danish and Cueball.]
:Megan: Attention Please. This is a photo of my car as of two weeks ago.

:[Megan in front of a new projection of the same car engulfed in flames.]
:Megan: And ''this'' is my car as I found it this morning. Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture?

:[The audience ponders.]

:Cueball: The white balance, for one.
:Danish: Focus is a bit too close.
:Black Hat: The chromatic aberration suggests you bought your camera because it had "The most megapixels".

:Megan: '''''THE CAR IS ON FIRE!'''''
:Comment from audience: Maybe you should use the insurance money to get a better camera.
:Comment from different person: yeah

==Trivia==
*While this comic focuses on misunderstandings by people viewing pictures this could be also a reference to the [http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchResults?searchType=ID&targetCategory=I&searchCriteria.nhtsa_ids=PE11037 battery fire] in a stored, damaged {{w|Chevrolet Volt}} automobile. During a side-impact safety test, which the car passed with a five star rating[http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/hybrids/the-straight-story-on-the-chevy-volt-battery-fire-6601217], its high voltage battery pack was damaged. Part of the test procedure includes rolling the vehicle over after the impact to check for leaking fluids; during the rollover check, the vehicle electronics were flooded with coolant. The damaged vehicle was then put into storage where its high voltage battery remained energized; three weeks later the battery spontaneously caught fire, potentially due to corrosion, and destroyed the car. GM subsequently made design changes to address the causes of the fire.[http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchResults?searchType=ID&targetCategory=I&searchCriteria.nhtsa_ids=PE11037]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Danish]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

Talk:1289: Simple Answers

2013-11-13T11:51:02Z

108.162.254.157:

The title text question is not answered, but I would guess "no", mainly because I don't believe wars would stop even if we understand each other completely. On the other hand, it talks about "make war undesirable" ... isn't "making war undesirable" what nuclear weapons did? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
::This is just further info on the next-to-last question, and Randall's answer is thus "no". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.157|108.162.254.157]] 12:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
::If nuclear weapons made war undesirable, then what is the US army doing in the middle east? If anything, I think nuclear weapons just caused us to change the mechanics of war, as many weapon advancements have done in the past. And sadly, I suspect that better understanding won't make war any less desirable (as others have said already). =( --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.28|108.162.216.28]] 14:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

One could argue that technology only helps us understand about each other. Technology cannot help us to understand each other in the sense of appreciate each other. And to go further, understanding about each other can increase the likelihood of war. [[User:Grahame|Grahame]] ([[User talk:Grahame|talk]]) 00:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Grahame

Talk:1289: Simple Answers

2013-11-11T12:16:37Z

108.162.254.157: