explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2841: Sign Combo

2023-10-14T11:52:41Z

162.158.74.23:

Theoretically you can get around this limitation by turning off the road before the sign and doing whatever maneuvers you need to out in the wide open area to the right or left of the road. It's not a U-turn if you're not on the road, and you didn't enter a restricted part of a road either, and didn't stop on the road. After which you calmly make a turn onto the road when traffic is clear. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.207|108.162.245.207]] 02:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure swerving off of a road is also illegal. [[User:SteveTheNoob|SteveTheNoob]] ([[User talk:SteveTheNoob|talk]]) 04:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
:: You can always just pull over - if a cop asks, just tell him you were lost or tired or had to take a phone call. And then take the opportunity to ask about the bloody sign! Anonymous 07:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
So does making a three point turn count as a u-turn? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.66|172.69.58.66]] 02:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Wouldn't putting it in reverse stop you briefly as you switched from forward acceleration to reverse?
:Yes, this is also an example of Rolle's theorem as seen in [[2042]]. [[User:SteveTheNoob|SteveTheNoob]] ([[User talk:SteveTheNoob|talk]]) 04:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immelmann_turn Immelmann!] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_turn Hammerhead!] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_eight Half Cuban Eight!] [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 03:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You could obey the title text if it was 45 miles per hour and 65 meters per hour, respectively. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.96|162.158.90.96]] 04:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Take notice of the road markings too. At least here in Europe double white lines are not to be crossed. And they go past the point of the sign.--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 07:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

:Double lines are also "do not cross" in America. And I think in this case it's supposed to be yellow, the dashed-and-solid combo indicates a one-sided passing zone into a lane with on-coming traffic, and double lines in general are only use to separate anti-parallel lanes of traffic, both of which use yellow. "Solid double white lines" do exist, but are only used in very specific cases. Near me, there's a very congested exit, and the solid double whites are used to indicate "no really, you should have switched lanes ages ago, it's too late now!", but since it isn't a Jersey barrier or a line of rods or even a full on median, nobody actually follows the rule. Anonymous 07:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

:: BTW in Europe, yellow lines are reserved for temporary use, and then take precedence over any existing white lines. Makes lots of sense, because there are so many construction sites here. (And the yellow lines are actually just adhesive tape.) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.87.102|162.158.87.102]] 08:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

And I completely forgot why I was posting in the first place: I think there's good reason to create a full "traffic signs" or "road signs" tag, not just "traffic lights". I know there's a page with a very complicated "this is what the road ahead looks like" sign that just says "good luck", and of course there's "Next Five Miles" and "Ahead Stop". Thoughts? Anonymous 07:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

More thoughts: if you must not make a U-turn to the left, you should do it to the right.
And then return on the same lane, because of the double line.
And finally, the sign itself may be valid and not contradicting itself; it is your fault if you got on this road. ;) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.87.102|162.158.87.102]] 08:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, the message on signs are only valid behind the sign (with the exception of the "precedence way" (voorrangsweg), where outside of built-up areas, the signs are after a junction (though technically... way before the ''next'' junction) , so a driver stopping /u-turning here wouldn't be violating anything except the double white lines.
Also, stopping out of necessity (e.g. the car in front is also stopped) is ''never'' illegal. [[User:IIVQ|IIVQ]] ([[User talk:IIVQ|talk]]) 09:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

:Stopping on a road with double white lines to your left may count as obstructing the road, which I can imagine to be illegal in many places? [[User:Gpvos|Gpvos]] ([[User talk:Gpvos|talk]]) 10:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

If I had to comply with these instructions, I would just put the car into reverse and argue that I was never "stopped". If I actually saw this in real life, I think I'd just slow down, put on my hazard lights, and make a u-turn when appropriate.[[User:Jsnider3|Jsnider3]] ([[User talk:Jsnider3|talk]]) 10:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC

UK equivalents: [[File:UK_traffic_sign_616.svg|50px]][[File:UK_traffic_sign_614.svg|50px]][[File:UK_traffic_sign_642.svg|50px]]
(Vertically, obviously).<br />...and Title Text would require suitable numeric alterations on: [[File:UK_traffic_sign_672.svg|50px]][[File:UK_traffic_sign_670V20.svg|50px]]
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.23|162.158.74.23]] 11:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2841: Sign Combo

2023-10-14T11:51:34Z

162.158.74.23:

Talk:2822: *@gmail.com

2023-09-01T22:12:16Z

162.158.74.23:

Why not send to *@*.*? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.45|172.69.247.45]] 03:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
:Either *@* suffices (if not just a *), or (because of non-standard wildcard parsing) it would reach neither ''<whatever@mydomain.me.uk>'' nor ''<something@business.com.au>''... But it'd depend upon how you invoke the query of the relevent MXRecords. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.22|172.71.178.22]] 03:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on the caption of the comic, I believe the real joke is that many GMail recipients of the original mass email would incorrectly use the "Reply-All" functionality of their email client and thereby further bomb the gmail server with a much larger volume of emails. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 03:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

:That's certainly part of it, but getting millions of emails is far more annoying than the typical few. [[User:DownGoer|DownGoer]] ([[User talk:DownGoer|talk]]) 04:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I have a setup to shorten mail notifications and "XKCD: *.gmail.com" totally looks like something it could output as the sender name, so for a moment I got very confused why the latest comic was suddenly sent from a GMail address and with no subject. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 05:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Add to this the unfortunate tendency to promote Top-Posting (I'm looking at you, Outlook Express, but the various successors and competitors over the last three decades need not have followed that most unconventional convention too!) and 'email chains' of nested replies so easily build up in volumes that never would if each sender were encouraged to actually read through the prior chain of messaging (perhaps realise their contribution was unnecessary, given what someone already else said two iterations ago!) and judiciously prune out the historic ">>>>..."ed contributions that they aren't replying to.<br />It also lets you mid-post (respond to a paragraph/point immediately after that embedded paragraph/point, to skip and excising later points intelligently) and stops it from becoming a hige hidden upside-down tree of ''everything'' in that message's history. (Which can also be a different problem... Something might have been said early on that might be best not to repeat to a later "copied in" contributor, for security or even politeness reasons, but now it's there to be discovered.)<br />But, instead, the modern solution is to hide these top-post tree-roots behind client-side "collapsed"-content and keep forwarding all historic context ''unless'' someone takes time to scroll down-down-down from their "Yeah, I agree" simple response and snip the "..."-worthy stuff out (as well as many, many repetitions of "Please don't print this email out if you don't have to", "This email is intended only for the stated recipients", "The views of this sender do not necessarily reflect the views of his company", etc, often adding up and combining into .sig additions much larger than their respective senders' contributions). Plus an often confusing attempt to "threadify" multiple received messages, which (done right) would actually do better than the retention of a full and unexpurgated reply tree within Every. Single. Individual. Email!<br />...can you tell that I've been annoyed about this for pretty much almost thirty years? And it really hasn't been made any better over the last decade or so. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.153|172.71.178.153]] 12:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Inevitably someone would reply all with "Me too" to *@aol.com [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 13:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any implication in the comic of "attempting to expand the resulting lists within the mail body of the above email"; I just read it as the user typing that literally, like someone might write "I'm looping in sales@" instead of "I'm looping in the Sales Team" - they're not expecting the client to do anything magic with the body of their e-mail, just explaining what they've typed into the To / CC box. - [[User:IMSoP|IMSoP]] ([[User talk:IMSoP|talk]]) 14:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
:Looked to me like invoking some scripting language. e.g. "loop <address> in (*@outlook.com, *@yahoo.com) do add_address(_To_,<address>)", or somesuch according to required syntax, but I also didn't know whether this script fragment was supposed to be parsed/expanded/invoked/exec()ed within the To: or Body: fields.
:I suppose "looping in" could well be a synonym for "copying in" (perhaps implicitly ''not'' "Cc:ing in", but adding to To: field), but I've not been aware of that precise terminology so that's probably why I too defaulted to thinking it's some sort of macro command being invoked at some level (despite there being few such mechanisms established to do so).
:But, if you're more sure/correct than the prior editors apparently were, go ahead and edit it... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.68.99|141.101.68.99]] 16:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
::Right, [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/loop_in#English to loop in] is a common bit of jargon for "include in communication", related to [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_the_loop in the loop]. "I'm looping in Jane and John" would be a common phrasing in business e-mails. I'll edit that into the explanation. - [[User:IMSoP|IMSoP]] ([[User talk:IMSoP|talk]]) 09:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
:::'Common business phrasings' always make me twitch. I still can't take "touch base" seriously, after all these years. I suspect there are some people out there busy inventing the contexts for new verbed nouns and adjectival verbs just to sound sillier. (They're the ones who invented both "podiumed" and "medal(l)ed" for sports contexts, too.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.138|172.70.90.138]] 10:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
::::On the other hand, English is very, very adaptable and allows a lot of new usages, such as where a noun becomes a verb. Functionally irrelevant opinion notwithstanding, the meaning is clear, even when you hear it for the first time, as the semantic structure is so robust (yet plastic). Like when you ironied there, in the use of "verbed".[[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 21:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::And don't forget "adjectival".  [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.23|162.158.74.23]] 22:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

On another note, a notable real-life incident involving this was [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/nhs-email-reply-all-down in the UK National Health Service], involving a distribution list of 1.2 million users! - [[User:IMSoP|IMSoP]] ([[User talk:IMSoP|talk]]) 14:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

A relatively famous Perl programmer had a legal, deliverable email address of <code>*@qz.to</code>, and has retained the * for his current email. I have an auto-reply bot at <code>fred&barney@stonehenge.com</code> as a demonstration to anyone that it's a legal address but often rejected by stupid regexen. [[User:RandalSchwartz|RandalSchwartz]] ([[User talk:RandalSchwartz|talk]]) 23:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

2089: Christmas Eve Eve

2020-12-26T07:05:19Z

162.158.74.23: /* Trivia */

{{comic
| number = 2089
| date = December 24, 2018
| title = Christmas Eve Eve
| image = christmas_eve_eve.png
| titletext = It turns out that saying "Oh, so THAT'S why they call it Boxing Day" is a good way to get punched a second time.
}}

==Explanation==
This year's [[:Category:Christmas|Christmas comic]] was posted on December 24, 2018, the {{w|Christmas Eve}} of 2018.

The evening or day preceding a special day such as a holiday is often referred to as the ''eve'' of that day (derived from the same word from which we get ''evening''). Thus December 24 is Christmas Eve. Some people extend this and call December 23 "Christmas Eve Eve," as Christmas Eve is itself a noted holiday. The day before ''that'' would be "Christmas Eve Eve Eve," adding one "Eve" for each night before Christmas morning, although the increasing extension leads to each additional "Eve" being continuously less common.

[[Cueball]] notes the general idea, and [[Megan]] acknowledges it. Cueball follows by naming December 24 as Christmas Eve, December 25 as Christmas, and then mentions that the following day is his favorite. Megan's "Oh no" implies that she knows what Cueball will say next.

Since December 26 is the 364th day before Christmas (when the following year is not a leap year, which was correct in 2018 when the comic was released), it follows that it is "Christmas" followed by "Eve" 364 times.

Megan finds listening to Cueball recite this unacceptable. As such, she announces that she will not give him gifts, taking the extra step of returning the gifts she'd already bought. As Christmas presents in America are first handed out on Christmas Day's morning (unless the giver and recipient are aware in advance they will be unable to meet in person on that day; Megan's presence on Christmas Eve indicates this is not a threat), she has not given it to him yet.

The title text refers to the {{w|Boxing Day}} holiday celebrated the day after Christmas in the UK and many parts of the former British Empire. Although the exact origin of the name is unknown, it is believed to be in [https://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/holidays-christmas/10-christmas-myths8.htm reference to the Alms Box] placed in areas of worship to collect donations to the poor, which was then opened right after Christmas. Most Americans don't know this and make jokes about how it refers to {{w|Boxing|the sport of boxing}}. In this title text we can presume Cueball was punched (or ''boxed'') after his litany of 364 ''Eve''s, to which he replies, "Oh, so ''that's'' why they call it Boxing Day." As this is a pun of groan-inducing triviality, {{tvtropes|LamePunReaction|he receives another punch}}.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball with his arms out is talking with White Hat and Megan. In Cueballs long last remark the letters get smaller from line to line.]

:Cueball: Today is Christmas Eve. Yesterday was Christmas Eve Eve.
:Megan: Uh huh...
:Cueball: Of course, tomorrow is Christmas. And then, my favorite...
:Megan: Oh no.
:Cueball: ...Christmas Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve  Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve  Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve  Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve  Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve  Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve  Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve  Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve Eve! 
:Megan: I'm returning the presents I got you.

==Trivia==
*The day before this comic was released (that is on the actual Christmas Eve Eve day) a {{w|Nancy (comic strip)|Nancy}} comic with a similar theme was released:
**[https://www.gocomics.com/nancy/2018/12/23 Nancy 2018/12/23]

*The Code Golf Stack Exchange put out a contest to display the current date in this format in the smallest amount of code. The author states they had not read the comic before coming up with the idea.
**https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/178003/encode-the-date-in-christmas-eve-format

*Each line has the following number of eves:
:# 11
:# 14
:# 14
:# 14
:# 15
:# 16
:# 17
:# 17
:# 18
:# 20
:# 21
:# 22
:# 24
:# 25
:# 27
:# 30
:# 32
:# 27
:*364 total!
::*The first line also has Christmas along with the 11 eves, and do take up more space than the 14 eves below.
::*The last line is only partially filled, with 4 eves from the line above on each side (so room for more than 35, probably 40, eves in one line with that font size.)
::*The first three lines with 14 eves becomes clearly shorter, before more is added almost in every line after this, except two lines with 17 each.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Christmas]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]