explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:906: Advertising Discovery

2021-03-05T00:35:16Z

162.158.63.60:

It's only trained Wikipedia veterans who believe that. Most people have no idea what the square brackets mean. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 01:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

:[citation needed] [[User:Promethean|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean|talk]]) 02:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

:[Dubious:Discuss] [[Special:Contributions/120.145.27.228|120.145.27.228]] 17:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

:This just in. Wikipedia veterans are gullible idiots.
:: I knew it all along. [[User:Cflare|Cflare]] ([[User talk:Cflare|talk]]) 21:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, What if? has conditioned the readers to assume that anything with a [Citation Needed] sign next to it is an obvious fact and doesn't need a citation. [[User:Caeleste Alarum|Caeleste Alarum]] ([[User talk:Caeleste Alarum|talk]])

:vice versa, the Wikipedia geeks all get a heart attack when reading What if? (or Explain Xkcd) for the first time. [[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 04:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

THE FOOTNOTES AREN'T IN A VALID ORDER IF THE BIT SHOWN IN THE COMIC IS THE ONLY PART OF THE AD! sorry, just needed to vent that annoyance.

906: Advertising Discovery

2021-03-05T00:32:46Z

162.158.63.60: Added joke footnote.

{{comic
| number = 906
| date = June 1, 2011
| title = Advertising Discovery
| image = citations.png
| titletext = When advertisers figure this out, our only weapon will be blue sharpies and "[disputed]".
}}

==Explanation==
On {{w|Wikipedia}}, a well-referenced text or statement indicates credibility. References for particular facts are linked to by bracketed blue little numbers in {{w|superscript}}.<ref>Aha! I fooled you and this is a real ref tag! However, there are no references.</ref>[3][4] When faced with a statement followed by these, readers will normally believe it without further ado,[6][10] since they take it on trust that there are directions on the bottom of the page, leading to a reliable source or two, agreeing with what the statement says. The effect becomes strengthened when such information often is confirmed to be correct.

In the comic, advertisers have realized that it has gone so far that people in general will take any nonsense for granted if there is just the right amount of Wikipedia-style reference tags to it. The penis pump e-commerce can suddenly flourish (again?) and the spammers won't even need to bother making up findings to cite.

Turgidax{{w|Registered trademark symbol|®}} is something [[Randall]] formed from ''{{Wiktionary|turgid}}'', meaning swollen. One reason that the attaching of ''-ax'' creates a typically pill-like name is simply that ''-ax'' (and ''-ex'') are common Latin adjectival word endings, and that many drugs have names formed from Latin words. -Ax is also, specifically, the root of the -acious ending in English, as in "audacious" or (appropriately) [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bodacious bodacious], meaning "extra" or "especially". The idea is it makes the genitalius extra or especially turgid. ''{{Wiktionary|Cardiovascular}}'' means relating to the heart and blood vessels.

The title text is about how Wikipedia users have been able to add "disputed"-tags (nowadays "disputed – discuss") after challenged facts, with {{w|Template:Disputed-inline|this template}}, since the dawn of time.[11][disputed – discuss] So when faced with the new advertising trick {{w|Real life|IRL}}, we could counter by scribbling those tags all over with blue {{w|Sharpie (marker)|Sharpie}} marker pens, and so automatically revive the {{w|critical thinking}}.

==Transcript==
:Advertising discovery:
:[Person sits at computer, reading an ad on the screen. The bracketed superscripts are blue.]
:Ad: Turgidax® triples[2] your penis size overnight,[2][5] improving both your sexual attractiveness[2][7] and your cardiovascular health.[7][8][9]
:Person (thinking): Sounds legit.
:Caption: Wikipedia has trained us to believe anything followed by little blue numbers in brackets.

==Trivia==
* Randall changed the image name from advertising_discovery.png to citations.png, since adblocking extensions interpreted it as an ad and made the comic blank. He had the same problem just three months earlier with [[870: Advertising]].

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Penis]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Talk:2431: Leap Year 2021

2021-03-04T07:56:25Z

162.158.63.60:

It's amazing how quickly some of us got to edit this. I hope I didn't cause too much edit-conflict confusion just by my changing the date value. Honestly just checked, before turning in, to find two (so far) other edits follow so quickly after... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.152|141.101.98.152]] 02:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry,I did not see anything when I started
:I wouldn't expect you to (the first Categories adder, yes?), until you perhaps tried to save. But that's what being shown edit-conflicts is important for. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.244|141.101.98.244]] 03:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If someone actually did this, how many years would it take for the calendar to line back up again where it started? 365? [[User:Captain Video|Captain Video]] ([[User talk:Captain Video|talk]]) 02:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
: 365 years plus (around) 33% more because every fourth year (except every hundredth, except except every 400th) is already ''expected'' to have a 29th, so you'd not be able to shift the year that year and have to do those days after the first 365 mostly-shifted consecutive years - with the necessary overflow days ''still'' being only to be done for 3/4(ish) of the next 91ish years, leaving maybe 23 more years to be shifted. But 24 years would only allow 18 shifts, so 6 more years than that ''probably'' would use 5 years. And one year may be absorbed already, or left over. So 365+91+23+6. Ish. Because it'd depend exactly which year you start as to which non-expandable years occur within the strict (0.75)+(0.25*0.75)+(0.25*0.25*0.75)+... series. But that's the likely area of the answer, off the top of my head. Around 485 years, give or take. Unless I've made a big error! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.244|141.101.98.244]] 03:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
::A quick evaluation of the geometric progression (a/1-r = 365/(1-1/4)) gives an answer of 486.666... This means it would take at least 487 years to come past full circle (488 on a leap year) if not for the pesky 400-year rule. Given where the date lies, there can be either one or two per cycle; thus, we find a minimum of 488 years and a maximum of 490. If we started this current year, on a non-leap year with no round 400 in the next 87 years, it would take the minimum amount, 488 years, to cycle through 489 revolutions of the Earth around the Sun. Happy Leap Year, my friends! [[User:BlackHat|BlackHat]] ([[User talk:BlackHat|talk]]) 03:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
::It's a bit messier, but the rough calculation was indeed close. I did a quick Excel calculation (well, OpenOffice Calc, but essentially the same - easiest thing at hand without Perl-diving). Actual 'next synchronised' period is 482-484 (solar) years, in an intruiging but not surprising pattern. Prior to 2000's unusual leap-day (but not too early to miss encompassing the one in 2400) it is 484 actual years (483 uniformly 'enhanced' ones) - but if you start in the period of any year leading up to a LD (I was running of 28th of February baselines, but any time from March 1st the prior year would count) you get the 485th year meshed too. (These periods contain two quatrocentenial LDs. And obviously ''starting'' with a 'normal' leap-year means the very next year is just as accurate, before it gets shifted the year after.)
::2001 until the late 2010s it's one set of 483 years to three of 484 (one of each has two synchronised years, 484th and 485th, because of adjacent starts landing on the same end), having just one century LD within. As you get close to 2020 you get a further non-LD century in (2020+480_and_change is 2500+) and 482 and/or 483 actual-years. "And/or" because only every second 482 ends on run-up to a LD so that the 483rd meshes as well, the 483s are not meshed correctly to do the same.
::The cycle ''beyond'' that is individually roaming through the same 482 to 484 range (and a number of end-point adjacents) but as it plays hopscotch through and around the centennial patterns it adopts an off-rhythm variation that doesn't even really make simple sense at the millenial level, as you might imagine. It might make an interesting artistic 'regularly purturbed noise' at even longer sample-sizes, though. Hack it into a graphical format, maybe, various possible options according to taste. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.193|141.101.99.193]] 08:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Can someone make a [[:Category:Calendar]] that is a subcategory of [[:Category:Time]]? I feel like there are several comics that could fit, e.g. [[994: Advent Calendar]], [[1140: Calendar of Meaningful Dates]], [[1930: Calendar Facts]], [[1073: Weekend]], [[1061: EST]], etc. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.210|162.158.255.210]] 02:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sweden tried something like this in the early 18th century. When switching from Julian to Gregorian calendar, some bright spark decided to do it gradually, by removing all leap days between 1700 and 1740. The leap day of 1700 was skipped (It was a leap day in the Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian), but due to war and other things they 'forgot' to annul the leap days of 1704 and 1708. In 1712 it was decided to revert to Gregorian calendar, by adding a double leap day, resulting in the only known occurrence of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-standard_dates#February_30 February 30]. From 1700 to 1712 Sweden was out of sync with both the Gregorian and Julian calendars, resulting in quite a lot of confusion. For example, Carl Linnaeus birthday can be given as May 12, 13 or 23, depending on what calendar is used. [[User:Popup|Popup]] ([[User talk:Popup|talk]]) 07:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the explanation of the title text. I understood it to be spoken by Black Hat to reinforce his disregard of people who might suffer in the future since he lives firmly in the present, one day at a time, as it were. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 12:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

My take on the title text was just a reference to the common statement (esp. as people get older), "I've lived in <city/state/etc.> for my whole life and I'm not about to move now." [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.222|172.68.65.222]] 15:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Pat

I don't see why the explanation is incomplete. Can someone please tell me why so I can fix it? [[User:Quillathe Siannodel|Quillathe Siannodel]] ([[User talk:Quillathe Siannodel|talk]]) 17:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the title text is black hat using "living in the present" as a justification for causing unnecessary problems in the future. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.148|172.69.34.148]] 19:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

There needs to be some reference to how "living in the present" has a different meaning than "living at some time which is neither the past nor the future." It can also mean that they "live for today" or that "they are aware of that happens around them" or other, similar platitude. [[User:Cwallenpoole|Cwallenpoole]] ([[User talk:Cwallenpoole|talk]]) 20:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Another interpretation of the title text is that the calendar only affects people who (live in/plan for) the future, as in those concerned about events other than those in the present. As a calandar is arguably useless to those who don't plan for future events, such a change would not really affect them.

For me, the comic itself was not available until the day after it was expected (March 2, 2021). I wonder if this was deliberate, and refers to how we readers often use the regularity of the xkcd comics as a calendar. Anyway to check the actual (Gregorian) date it was posted? Will future comics now be released on Tuesdays Thursdays Saturdays, until leap year 2022?
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.164|172.69.55.164]] 06:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
: 2022? Don't you mean 2024? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.60|162.158.63.60]] 07:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

1698: Theft Quadrants

2021-02-06T03:46:29Z

162.158.63.60: /* Explanation */ Updated the renewal date for tinyurl.com

{{comic
| number = 1698
| date = June 24, 2016
| title = Theft Quadrants
| image = theft quadrants.png
| titletext = TinyURL was the most popular link shortener for long enough that it made it into a lot of printed publications. I wonder what year the domain will finally lapse and get picked up by a porn site.
}}

==Explanation==
This is an "{{w|Time management#The Eisenhower Method|Eisenhower box}}" comparing how difficult it is to steal a specified object with the severity of the theft.

It is very hard to steal {{w|Gold Codes|nuclear launch codes}}. They are protected by many layers of federal security. That's a good thing, too, since if they were stolen, they could be used to start a {{w|Nuclear warfare|nuclear war}}, which would cause untold death and destruction.

It is also hard to steal the {{w|Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom|Crown Jewels}}, since they are protected by a [http://yeomenoftheguard.com/Windsor%20Castle.jpg complex security system]{{Citation needed}}. But if they were stolen, it wouldn't be so bad for most people; the only direct loss would be to its owners, the British royal family, who are well-insured for thefts and only use the Crown Jewels as a display piece for museumgoers. It would also be a loss to the public as a cultural and historical artifact, but would have little practical effect on the world.

It wouldn't be too hard to steal the a {{w|Wienermobile}} (a car shaped like a hot-dog, advertising the Oscar Mayer brand). There have been made several versions of this car, and it would not be more difficult to steal than any other car, although harder to hide. [[Randall]] seems to consider that such a stolen vehicle would not be too bad, although he has previously referred to a stolen Wienermobile in [[935: Missed Connections]], which is driven recklessly, almost hitting someone. But it is not bad enough to consider it a big problem in a context when it is compared with stolen nuclear launch codes.

It also wouldn't be hard (or at least, not as hard as stealing nuclear launch codes or the Crown Jewels) to steal the {{w|TinyURL|tinyurl.com}} domain name, but the consequences of that could be significant and is thus listed under very bad. The joke is of course that this is listed as just as bad as the risk of a nuclear war, and of course it is not as significant, but it could swiftly result in damage to a lot of important computers, and ruin references in journals etc.

TinyURL offers a URL shortening service. They provide short URLs that redirect to long ones. This is useful if you want to write down a very long URL as it saves typing and is more accurate. Other companies, including [https://bitly.com/ bit.ly],[https://goo.gl/ Google] and Twitter offer a similar service. TinyURL was, for a while, the most popular of these URL shortening services. If their domain name were stolen, all the redirects from short URLs could be changed to forward traffic to sites hosting, for example, malware. This would have significant effects on a large number of people, because TinyURL is used in many places both online and (as the title text notes) even sometimes offline.

In the title text Randall implies that stealing the tinyurl.com domain could happen when it next expires. A [https://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=tinyurl.com&type=domain whois search] as of February 2021 finds that the tinyurl.com domain is next due for renewal in January 2029. However, [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expired-2013-05-03-en rule changes made by ICANN] (the organization in charge of domain name registrations) now make it effectively impossible to steal a domain name because the owner allowed its registration to lapse. Current rules for .com registrations now allow for the original owner to renew their domain name after it expires during a 0-45 day auto-renew grace period. The exact length of this grace period depends on what company the domain is registered with. All registrars are then required to give a 30 day redemption grace period during which the domain may be renewed with penalty. As a result, tinyurl.com would have a 30-75 day period after expiration during which the domain is not available for registration by a third party. ICANN rules state that DNS resolution must be stopped during the redemption grace period, which means that there will be a 30 day period during which tinyurl.com will no longer work but the company will have the ability to quickly restore ownership of their domain. It is very unlikely that any company that is still in business would not notice that their domain name has expired before the end of the 30 day redemption grace period.

Another way to steal a domain name would be through {{w|Domain hijacking|domain name hijacking}}. There have been some high profile cases of domain name hijacking, with one of the more notable domains being [http://www.computerworld.com/article/2595655/networking/companies-point-fingers-over-nike-web-site-hijacking.html nike.com in 2000]. However, whether or not this is a risk for any particular domain name is difficult to estimate. Additional security mechanisms such as domain name locking and private registrations have been introduced to mitigate the threat of domain name hijacking. Further, domain name hijacking relies on situation-specific attacks such as hacking email accounts, spoofing emails, and social engineering attacks against either the company who owns the domain name or the company who registers the domain name. For security-conscious companies such attacks can be impossible, or at least an attacker's success may require security failures in more than one area. A summary of domain hijacking examples including an analysis of how they succeeded and what steps could have prevented them can be found [http://archive.icann.org/en/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf here]. In short though, there is no way to say for sure how vulnerable any particular domain name might be to hijacking.

==Transcript==
:[A chart with an Eisenhower box, consisting of four labeled squares. To the left the rows are labeled and two lines goes to from these labels to a description of what the labels refer to. Below is a similar labeling of the columns also with two lines going from these labels to the description.]
{| class="wikitable"
| rowspan="2"|How hard thing would be to steal
| Hard
| The Crown Jewels||The nuclear launch codes
|-
| Easy
| The Oscar Mayer Wienermobile||The tinyurl.com domain name
|-
| colspan="2" rowspan="2"|
| Not that bad
| Very bad
|-
|colspan="2"|How bad it would be if someone stole it
|}

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Nuclear weapons]]

2383: Electoral Precedent 2020

2020-11-10T17:13:21Z

162.158.63.60: /* Errors */

{{comic
| number = 2383
| date = November 9, 2020
| title = Electoral Precedent 2020
| image = electoral_precedent_2020.png
| titletext = He also broke the streak that incumbents with websites are unbeatable and Delawareans can't win, creating a new precedent: Only someone from Delaware can defeat an incumbent with a website.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an UNBEATABLE DELAWAREAN WITH A WEBSITE. Explain all broken precedents in more detail. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is an update to [[1122: Electoral Precedent]], adding "broken precedents" for the US presidential elections in 2016 and 2020. The majority of the comic's panels are duplicates from 1122, with the exception of the 2012 panel (modified to show that Obama did in fact break the streak), the 2016 panel (added to reflect the election of Donald Trump), and the two 2020 panels.

The final two panels again show how the 'precedent' have side conditions that influenced these precedents:
* No sitting president who was impeached was nominated for the office again... until Donald Trump. (Bill Clinton was the last president who was impeached, but he was not eligible for re-election due to term limits; before that, Nixon wasn't impeached but resigned from office; before that, Johnson was seeking re-election but lost in the primaries against Seymour) 
* The last time a challenger beat an incumbent was in 1992 when websites weren't nearly as predominant as now and Randall assumes the 1992 Clinton campaign not to have a website. By 1996 that had changed and both the incumbent [http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/websites/cg96/ Bill Clinton campaign] and the challenger [http://www.dolekemp96.org/main.htm Bob Dole campaign] had websites that look very simple by today's standards. There is no 'curse' on using websites. 

The 2020 election is also precedent-breaking in a few ways that Randall didn't mention:
* Biden received over 76 million votes, the highest ever, beating Obama 2008's previous record of just under 69.5 million votes. The second highest raw vote total was for Trump, with approximately 71.5 million votes, ''also'' beating Obama 2008. Turnout as a percentage of the eligible population was the highest in over a century. Consequently (especially as total population has also been rising), both major parties' raw vote totals smash previous precedents.
* At 78, Joe Biden will be the oldest president ever on the day of his inauguration.
* Biden's running mate Kamala Harris will be the first-ever female vice president, first Black vice president, and first vice president of Indian descent. A Californian, she'll also be the first Democratic president or vice president from the West.

The title text continues the theme of websites, by stating that no incumbent with a website had ever lost. Also, Biden is the first president from the state of Delaware, thus he broke the "precedent" that Delawareans can't win. Randall then proceeds to combine these 2 facts to create a new precedent: Only Delawareans can defeat incumbents with a website.

===Table of Broken Precedents===

{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"
|-
! Year !! Broken Precedent !! Explanation
|-
| 1788
| No one has been elected president before. ...But Washington was.
| Technically the Articles of Confederation had a president of Continental Congress, but Washington is the first president of the US
|-
| 1792
| No incumbent has ever been reelected. ...Until Washington.
| Washington is the first person who had a second term.
|-
| 1796
| No one without false teeth has become president. ...But Adams did.
| Washington had false teeth, made of human teeth and other materials. His successor Adams, despite having tooth decay, refused to wear false teeth
|-
| 1800
| No challenger has beaten an incumbent. ...But Jefferson did.
| Adams is the first president not to have a second term, due to signing the unpopular [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts Alien and Sedition acts]
|-
| 1804
| No congressman has ever become president. ...Until Madison.
|
|-
| 1808
| No one can win without New York. ...But Madison did.
|
|-
| 1812
| No candidate who doesn't wear a wig can get elected. ...Until Monroe was.
|
|-
| 1816
| No candidate who doesn't wear a wig can get elected. ...Until Monroe was.
|
|-
| 1820
| No one who wears pants instead of breeches can be reelected. ...But Monroe was.
|
|-
| 1824
| No one has ever won without a popular majority. ...J.Q. Adams did.
|
|-
| 1828
| Only people from Massachusetts and Virginia can win. ...Until Jackson did.
|
|-
| 1832
| The only presidents who get reelected are Virginians. ...Until Jackson.
|
|-
| 1836
| New Yorkers always lose. ...Until Van Buren.
|
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:The problem with statements like
:"No <party> candidate has won the election without <state>"
:Or
:"No president has been reelected under <circumstances>"

:<nowiki>★</nowiki> Updated for 2020 ★

:1788... No one has been elected president before. ...But Washington was.
:1792... No incumbent has ever been reelected. ...Until Washington.
:1796... No one without false teeth has become president. ...But Adams did.
:1800... No challenger has beaten an incumbent. ...But Jefferson did.
:1804... No incumbent has beaten a challenger. ...Until Jefferson.
:1808... No congressman has ever become president. ...Until Madison.
:1812... No one can win without New York. ...But Madison did.
:1816... No candidate who doesn't wear a wig can get elected. ...Until Monroe was.
:1820... No one who wears pants instead of breeches can be reelected. ...But Monroe was.
:1824... No one has ever won without a popular majority. ...J.Q. Adams did.
:1828... Only people from Massachusetts and Virginia can win. ...Until Jackson did.
:1832... The only presidents who get reelected are Virginians. ...Until Jackson.
:1836... New Yorkers always lose. ...Until Van Buren.
:1840... No one over 65 has won the presidency. ...Until Harrison did.
:1844... No one who's lost his home state has won. ...But Polk did.
:1848... The Democrats don't lose when they win Pennsylvania. ...But they did in 1848.
:1852... New England Democrats can't win. ...Until Pierce did.
:1856... No one can become president without getting married. ...Until Buchanan did.
:1860... No one over 6'3" can get elected. ...Until Lincoln.
:1864... No one with a beard has been reelected. ...But Lincoln was.
:1868... No one can be president if their parent are alive. ...Until Grant.
:1872... No one with a beard has been reelected in peacetime. ...Until Grant was.
:1876... No one can win a majority of the popular vote and still lose. ...Tilden did.
:1880... As goes California, so goes the nation. ...Until it went Hancock.
:1884... Candidates named "James" can't lose. ...Until James Blaine.
:1888... No sitting president has been beaten since the Civil War. ...Cleveland was.
:1892... No former president has been elected. ...Until Cleveland.
:1896... Tall midwesterners are unbeatable. ...Bryan wasn't.
:1900... No Republican shorter than 5'8" has been reelected. ...Until McKinley was.
:1904... No one under 45 has become president. ...Roosevelt did.
:1908... No Republican who hasn't served in the military has won. ...Until Taft.
:1912... After Lincoln beat the Democrats while sporting a beard with no mustache, the only Democrats who can win have a mustache with no beard. ...Wilson had neither.
:1916... No Democrat has won without Indiana. ...Wilson did.
:1920... No incumbent senator has won. ...Until Harding.
:1924... No one with two Cs in their name has become president. ...Until Calvin Coolidge.
:1928... No one who got ten million votes has lost. ...Until Al Smith.
:1932... No Democrat has won since women secured the right to vote. ...Until FDR did.
:1936... No President's been reelected with double-digit unemployment. ...Until FDR was.
:1940... No one has won a third term. ...Until FDR did.
:1944... No Democrat has won during wartime. ...Until FDR did.
:1948... Democrats can't win without Alabama. ...Truman did.
:1952... No Republican has won without winning the House or Senate. ...Eisenhower did.
:1956... No Republican has won without Missouri. ...Until Eisenhower.
:1960... Republicans without facial hair are unbeatable. ...Kennedy beat Nixon.
:1964... No Democrat has won without Georgia. ...Johnson did.
:1968... No Republican vice president has risen to the Presidency through an election. ...Until Nixon.
:1972... No wartime candidate has won without Massachusetts. ...Until Nixon did.
:1976... No one who lost New Mexico has won. ...But Carter did.
:1980... No one has been elected President after a divorce. ...Until Reagan was.
:1984... No left-handed president has been reelected. ...Until Reagan was.
:1988... No Democrat who has won Wisconsin (without being from there) has lost. ...Until Dukakis did.
:1992... No Democrat has won without a majority of the Catholic vote. ...Until Clinton did.
:1996... No Dem. incumbent without combat experience has beaten someone whose first name is worth more in Scrabble. ...Until Bill beat Bob.
:2000... No Republican has won without Vermont. ...Until Bush did.
:2004... No Republican without combat experience has beaten someone two inches taller. ...Until Bush did.
:2008... No Democrat can win without Missouri. ...Until Obama did.
:2012... Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers. ... Until Obama did.
:2016... No one has become president without government or military experience. ... Until Trump did. (a second text faded in the background reads: "No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost.")
:2020? No one has won after being impeached. <big>✓</big>
:2020? No challenger with a website has won. <big>X</big>

:[Caption below the comic]
:Congratulations to President-Elect Joe Biden for breaking the website curse!

==Errors==
*This comic seems to have used the same image as [[1122: Electoral Precedent]], and so under the 2016 panel there is the ghost image of the original 2012 2nd "streak": "No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost.

*The comic implies that all Presidents before Monroe wore wigs; however, despite popular misconception, Washington did not wear a wig.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Statistics]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Elections]]
[[Category:Comics featuring politicians]]
[[Category:Comics featuring John F. Kennedy]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

Talk:2349: Rabbit Introduction

2020-08-24T14:12:08Z

162.158.63.60:

Comic posted shortly after this made national news in the USA:
https://www.newsweek.com/why-hundreds-millions-genetically-engineered-mosquitoes-will-soon-released-florida-1526375
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.56|172.69.34.56]] 05:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This comic was posted incredibly early compared to the other recent comics [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.232|172.69.34.232]] 07:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah wtf it's so early [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.25|172.69.33.25]] 07:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a twitter thread at @xkcd, one word every few days, from 2020-05-15 until 2020-06-01, reading "How's it going I saw a small bun (picture)", continuing the sentence until 2020-06-25, "and an airplane crossing the moon (picture)" [[User:Chrullrich|Chrullrich]] ([[User talk:Chrullrich|talk]]) 07:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I recognise that 'bun-gap' looks like a pun, but what's it punning about? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.131|162.158.154.131]] 10:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
:I don't think it's really a pun, just an instance of the general X-gap pattern, meaning a significant difference in the amount or rate of X between two entities (e.g. the "wealth gap" between countries). [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 17:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
::Bun-gap having nothing to do with thigh-gap in this case.
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Former POTUS Jimmy Carter is unapologetically completely oppposed to the spread of any species of bunny. [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 12:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The explanation should probably distinguish between the {{w|pygmy rabbit}} which is not at all endangered and the {{w|Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit}} which is an isolated population that the US government (but not the IUCN) treats as endangered independently from the species as a whole. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 12:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

:So would it be impossible to introduce an isolated population into another location and have it count as the same population? Which would make this proposal impossible in addition to silly... I feel like that increases the humor, although I'm not sure if there's any specific term for why [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.60|162.158.63.60]] 14:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Captain Video, if you can cull speculation here, then shouldn't you be culling a lot of speculation in 1417? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.61|162.158.74.61]] 22:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)