explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1122: Electoral Precedent

2021-05-21T17:14:10Z

172.69.54.45: /* Table of Broken Precedents */ Fixed broken wikipedia link to Alien and Sedition Acts

{{comic
| number = 1122
| date = October 17, 2012
| title = Electoral Precedent
| image = electoral_precedent.png
| titletext = No white guy who's been mentioned on Twitter has gone on to win.
}}

==Explanation==

During election season in U.S. presidential elections — and especially in election night coverage — it is common for the media to make comments like the ones set out in the first panel of this comic. [[Randall Munroe|Randall]] is demonstrating the problem with making such statements, many of which simply come down to coincidence.

After the first panel the next 56 panels in this comic refer to each one of the {{w|United States presidential election#Electoral college results|56 presidential elections}} in U.S. history before {{w|Barack Obama|Obama's}} re-election in 2012. The panels depict a pre-election commentator noting a quality or condition that has never occurred to a candidate until one of the candidates in that election broke the streak. In other words, one can always find at least one unique thing about a candidate who has gone on to win (or in some cases, lose) or the circumstances under which they won (or lost) that is unique from all previous winners (or losers). It's worth noting that some of these 'firsts' were truly precedent-setting (such as the first incumbent losing, the first president to win a third term, the first Catholic president, etc.), but the fact that they hadn't happened was no assurance that there wouldn't be a first time. As the years pass on, these 'streaks' become more and more nested and complicated, and then brought by Randall to the point of absurdity by pointing out very trivial things, such as "No Democratic {{w|incumbent}} without combat experience has ever beaten someone whose first name is worth more in {{w|Scrabble}}" (1996).

The flaw made by pundits while reporting such streaks is that there will always be ''something'' that has never happened before in an election, and they purport to suggest that these things are related to the candidate's win or loss. Randall considers this a logical flaw. A common one is, as noted in several panels, candidates can't win without winning certain states. The question, however, is one of {{w|Correlation does not imply causation|cause or effect}}.

Given that there have only been 56 elections, there are always going to be things that haven't happened before. If you go out looking for them, you're sure to find some. There is no magic about why these events haven't happened. In most cases, it is merely a coincidence.

In the last two panels, two more statements like the previous are given. They were both true before the {{w|United States presidential election, 2012|election in 2012}} on November the 6th. The comic came out in the middle of the campaign on October the 17th. The statements were constructed so that the first predicts that Obama can't win over {{w|Mitt Romney}}, and the second that he cannot lose. As Obama won the election he thus ended the streak ''Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers'' whereas the other streak is still valid.

The title text refers to the fact that {{w|Twitter}} was founded in 2006. Obama won in 2008, so at the time of the comic it was true that no white male person mentioned on Twitter had ever gone on to win the presidency; although certainly some former presidents, all of whom were white males, have subsequently been mentioned on Twitter. This streak was broken in the next election year when Donald Trump won the 2016 election.

During these last four weeks before the election, Randall posted no fewer than four comics related to this election. The others are: [[1127: Congress]], [[1130: Poll Watching]] and [[1131: Math]].

In 2020, Randall posted an update to this comic: [[2383: Electoral Precedent 2020]].

===Table of Broken Precedents===

''<font color="red">Please have someone else validate your row, as to make sure the table is accurate</font>''

{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"
|-
! Year !! Broken Precedent !! Explanation !! Validity
|-
| 1788
| No one has been elected president before. ...But Washington was.
| Discounting the Articles of Confederation and its {{w|President of the Continental Congress|president}}, Washington is the first president of the US.
| True
|-
| 1792
| No incumbent has ever been reelected. ...Until Washington.
| Washington is the first person who had a second term. He was unopposed so there was no challenger.
| True
|-
| 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.
| True
|-
| 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 {{w|Alien and Sedition Acts}}. He was defeated by the challenger, Jefferson.
| True
|-
| 1804
| No incumbent has beaten a challenger. ...Until Jefferson.
| The 2 previous incumbents were Washington, who was unopposed, and Adams, who lost as an incumbent (to Jefferson).
| True
|-
| 1808
| No congressman has ever become president. ...Until Madison.
| While George Washington served in the House of Burgesses, Madison served as congressman for Virginia's 5th district from 1789 to 1793 and the 15th District from 1793 to 1797 in the U. S. Congress.
| True
|-
| 1812
| No one can win without New York. ...But Madison did.
| While it is true New York voted against Madison but he still won, New York did not vote for Washington due to an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1788%E2%80%9389_United_States_presidential_election#New_York's_lack_of_Electors internal dispute].
| False
|-
| 1816
| No candidate who doesn't wear a wig can get elected. ...Until Monroe was.
| Despite popular misconception, Washington did not wear a wig, but in fact powdered his hair white.
| False
|-
| 1820
| No one who wears pants instead of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culottes breeches] can be reelected. ...But Monroe was.
| The first 5 presidents, including Monroe, all wore breeches.
| False
|-
| 1824
| No one has ever won without a popular majority. ...J.Q. Adams did.
| Jackson won the plurality of the popular vote and Electoral College. But as it was a four way election, he did not achieve a majority - so the vote went to Congress, who elected John Quincy Adams.
| True
|-
| 1828
| Only people from Massachusetts and Virginia can win. ...Until Jackson did.
| Jackson was from South Carolina, while all previous presidents were from Massachusetts or Virginia.
| True
|-
| 1832
| The only presidents who get reelected are Virginians. ...Until Jackson.
| Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were the only re-elected presidents at that time, and they were all Virginians.
| True
|-
| 1836
| New Yorkers always lose. ...Until Van Buren.
| Martin Van Buren is the first president from the state of New York.
| True
|-
|1840
| No one over 65 has won the presidency. ...Until Harrison did.
| He was 68 and the first over 65, and died of pneumonia 31 days after giving the longest inauguration to date.
| True
|-
|1844
| No one who's lost his home state has won. ...But Polk did.
| Assuming "home state" refers to the state of residence, Polk is the first, losing Tennessee to Clay but took 15 of the 26 states including New York. However, if you count it as state of birth, Jackson and Harrison already did.
| True
|-
|1848
| As goes Mississippi, so goes the nation. ...Until 1848.
| Prior to 1848, every candidate who had won the state of Mississippi had won the election, with the only exception being the 1824 election, where John Quincy Adams was elected by Congress, due to no one winning the Electoral College. In 1848, Lewis Cass won the state of Mississippi, but lost the election to Zachary Taylor.
| True
|-
|1852
|New England Democrats can't win. ...Until Pierce did.
|Pierce is the first candidate from the Democratic Party from New England, specifically New Hampshire, and he won the election of 1852.
| True
|-
|1856
| No one can become president without getting married. ...Until Buchanan did.
| While other presidents were widowers, Buchanan was the first unmarried president, being a life long bachelor.
| True
|-
|1860
| No one over 6'3" can get elected. ...Until Lincoln.
| Lincoln was the first president over 6'3" president, at 6'4" tall, making him the tallest president to date.
| True
|-
|1864
|No one with a beard has been reelected. ...But Lincoln was.
|Lincoln was the first U.S. president to have a beard.
|True
|-
|1868
|No one can be president if their parents are alive. ...Until Grant.
|The veracity depends on if BOTH parents have to be alive, or if any parents are alive. If either parent can be alive, then Washington's mother, Mary Ball Washington, died four months after he became president. If both have to be alive, Grant was indeed the first president to have both parents alive when assuming office.
|Maybe
|-
|1872
|No one with a beard has been reelected in peacetime. ...Until Grant was.
|Grant was the second U.S. president (behind Lincoln) to be reelected with a beard, but only Grant was reelected during peacetime.
|True
|-
|1876
|No one can win a majority of the popular vote and still lose. ...Tilden did.
|Samuel Tilden won a majority of the popular vote, with 51%, but lost in the electoral college in a {{w|1876 United States presidential election|contested election}}, resolved by the {{w|Compromise of 1877}}. (During the election of 1824, Jackson won the popular vote but did not win more than half of it, a majority)
|True
|-
|1880
|As goes California, so goes the nation. ...Until it went Hancock.
|Since being a state in 1850, the winner of California had won the election - until 1880 when Winfield Hancock won California but lost the election to James Garfield.
|True
|-
|1884
|Candidates named "James" can't lose. ...Until James Blaine.
|James Blaine was the first major candidate with the first name "James" to lose an election, losing to Grover Cleveland.
|True
|-
|1888
|No sitting president has been beaten since the Civil War. ...Cleveland was.
|Grover Cleveland was the first president since the end of the Civil War to be defeated by a challenger, losing to Benjamin Harrison. Andrew Johnson was not chosen as the Democratic candidate in 1868. Ulysses S. Grant served 2 terms and did not run for a 3rd term. Rutherford B. Hayes and Chester A. Arthur (who became president after the assassination of James Garfield) did not seek reelection after their first term.
|True
|-
|1892
|No former president has been elected. ...Until Cleveland.
|Cleveland was the first (and thus far only) president to serve 2 non-consecutive terms, winning the presidential election in 1884, losing in 1888, and winning in 1892.
|True
|-
|1896
|Tall Midwesterners are unbeatable. ...Bryan wasn't.
|William Jennings Bryan lost the 1896 election to William McKinley. Bryan's measurements have been lost to history, but contemporary historians described him as "a tall, slender, handsome fellow".
|True
|-
|1900
|No Republican shorter than 5'8" has been reelected. ...Until McKinley was.
|At the time, McKinley was only the 3rd Republican who was reelected (behind Lincoln and Grant). And he was the shortest of them all, at 5'7" tall.
|True
|-
|1904
|No one under 45 has been elected. ...Roosevelt was.
|At the start of his presidency, Theodore Roosevelt was the youngest president, taking office at the age of 42 when McKinley died in 1901. However, he was not elected President until 1904, by which time he was no longer under 45.
|False
|-
|1908
|No Republican who hasn't served in the military has won. ...Until Taft.
|Taft was the first Republican to win an election and not serve in the military - Lincoln served during the Black Hawk War; Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, and McKinley served in the Civil War; and Theodore Roosevelt served in the Spanish-American War.
|True
|-
|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.
|From Lincoln's presidency to Wilson's, only one Democrat won- Grover Cleveland, who had a mustache but no beard.
|True
|-
|1916
|No Democrat has won while losing West Virginia. ...Wilson did.
|Since its statehood in 1863, Wilson is the first Democrat to lose West Virginia, but win the national election.
|True
|-
|1920
|No incumbent senator has won. ...Until Harding.
|Harding was the first sitting Senator to become President - he resigned his position as Senator to become President.
|True
|-
|1924
|No one with two Cs in their name has become president. ...Until Calvin Coolidge.
|'''C'''alvin '''C'''oolidge was the first with "two C's in his name". Presidents with "one C" in their names prior to Coolidge were John Quin'''c'''y Adams, Andrew Ja'''c'''kson, Za'''c'''hary Taylor, Franklin Pier'''c'''e, James Bu'''c'''hanan, Abraham Lin'''c'''oln, '''C'''hester A. Arthur, Grover '''C'''leveland and William M'''c'''kinley.
|True
|-
|1928
|No one who got ten million votes has lost. ...Until Al Smith.
|Smith was the first candidate to get more than 10 million votes and lose. He received over 15 million votes, but lost to Herbert Hoover, who received 21.4 million votes, and won the electoral college, 444-87.
|True
|-
|1932
|No Democrat has won since women secured the right to vote. ...Until FDR did.
|FDR was the first Democrat to win since 1919 when women secured the right to vote.
|True
|-
|1936
|No President's been reelected with double-digit unemployment. ...Until FDR was.
|FDR was reelected during the Great Depression when unemployment peaked at 22-25%.
|True
|-
|1940
|No one has won a third term. ...Until FDR did.
|FDR is the first and only president to be elected for 4 terms due to his popularity/policies. This is now made impossible by the {{w|Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution|22nd amendment}}, which limits a president to 2 elected terms.
|True
|-
|1944
|No Democrat has won during wartime. ...Until FDR did.
|The United States has engaged in many minor wars near-constantly since its formation, although it being "wartime" in the country for many of these is debatable. Martin Van Buren won during the Second Seminole War, Franklin Pierce won during the Cayuse war and Apache war, James Buchanan won during Bleeding Kansas, the Third Seminole War, the Yakima War, and the Second Opium War, Grover Cleveland won during the Garza Revolution, and Woodrow Wilson won during the Border War, the Occupation of Nicaragua, the Occupation of Haiti, and the Occupation of the Dominican Republic.
|False
|-
|1948
|Democrats can't win without Alabama. ...Truman did.
|Although technically true, the Democrat party did not appear on the ballot in Alabama in 1948, making it impossible for them to have won under any circumstances. It's also worth noting that Alabama had consistently voted Democrat in every election since Alabama's formation as a state except for 1864, when it was in the confederate states, and in 1868 and 1872, where Ulysses S. Grant would win both times. A democrat would not lose a popular vote in Alabama while appearing on the ballot until 1968, and would not win an election while losing the vote in Alabama until 1992.
|True
|-
|1952
|No Republican has won without winning the House or Senate. ...Eisenhower did.
|This is false as Republicans won control of ''both'' the {{w|1952 United States House of Representatives elections|House}} and {{w|1952 United States Senate elections|Senate}} in 1952. This precedent would be broken in 1956 after Democrats flipped both chambers in 1954.
|False
|-
|1956
|No one can beat the same nominee a second time in a leap year rematch. ...Until Eisenhower.
|The phrase "leap year" excludes the elections of 1800 and 1900, which were not leap years in the U.S. or most other countries (although they were leap years in Russia, which was still using the Julian calendar).
|True
|-
|1960
|Catholics can't win. ...Kennedy beat Nixon.
|The only other Catholic to be nominated until 1960 was Democrat Alfred E. Smith in 1928.
|True
|-
|1964
|Every Republican who's taken Louisiana has won. ...Until Goldwater.
|Prior to 1964, only two Republicans had won Louisiana: Rutherford Hayes in 1876 and Dwight Eisenhower in 1956. Both won, however in 1876 the election in Louisiana was contested until the Compromise of 1877 resolved it in favor of Hayes.
|
|-
|1968
|No Republican vice president has risen to the Presidency through an election. ...Until Nixon.
|Theodore Roosevelt, the winner of the 1904 election, was a Republican former Vice President, but he had already risen to the Presidency in 1901 when McKinley died in office.
|True
|-
|1972
|Quakers can't win twice. ...Until Nixon did.
|The only Quaker president before Nixon was Herbert Hoover. Hoover only served one term.
|True
|-
|1976
|No one who lost New Mexico has won. ...But Carter did.
|From its statehood in 1912 to 1972, New Mexico had been a reliable bellwether state.
|
|-
|1980
|No one has been elected President after a divorce. ...Until Reagan was.
|Reagan was the first divorced President.
|True
|-
|1984
|No left-handed president has been reelected. ...Until Reagan was.
|Reagan is one of 8 left-handed presidents (as of 2020). None of the 4 left-handed presidents prior to Reagan was reelected (James Garfield was assassinated in his first year in office and Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman, and Gerald Ford only served one full term each).
|True
|-
|1988
|No one with two middle names has become president. ...Until "Herbert Walker".
|George H. W. Bush is the first and to date only president with 2 middle names.
|True
|-
|1992
|No Democrat has won without a majority of the Catholic vote. ...Until Clinton did.
|The exact breakdown of the Catholic vote in each individual election is unknown until the advent of demographic-based exit polling, however Catholics have historically been strongly Democratic until 1968. In 1976, Carter won an estimated 54-57% of the Catholic vote, while in 1992 Bill Clinton only won 44% due to the independent campaign of Ross Perot.
|
|-
|1996
|No Dem. incumbent without combat experience has beaten someone whose first name is worth more in Scrabble. ...Until Bill beat Bob.
|This refers to {{w|Bill Clinton}} and {{w|Bob Dole}}. However, their legal names are William Jefferson Clinton and Robert Joseph Dole. Their first names are William and Robert, not Bill and Bob.
|
|-
|2000
|No Republican has won without Vermont. ...Until Bush did.
|Vermont had voted for Republicans in every presidential election from 1856 (the first contested by the Republicans) to 1988, with the exception of 1964. George W. Bush was indeed the first Republican to win the presidency while losing Vermont.
|
|-
|2004
|No Republican without combat experience has beaten someone two inches taller. ...Until Bush did.
|John Kerry served for 4 months in the Vietnam war, while George Bush has no combat experience; and yes John kerry is 11cm taller than George Bush (which is actually about 4 inches, not 2).
|
|-
|2008
|No Democrat can win without Missouri. ...Until Obama did.
|Missouri had been a Democratic stronghold for the later half of the 19th century and was a {{w|Missouri bellwether|key bellwether state}} from 1904 to 2004. Obama is the first Democrat to win without Missouri, and 2008 was considered the year when Missouri ceased being a bellwether.
|
|-
|2012?
|Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers.
|Barack Obama is 6' 1" (185 cm), and Mitt Romney is 6' 2" (188 cm). When Obama won, it broke the streak.
|...Until Obama.
|-
|2012?
|No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost.
|This apparently refers only to major party nominees, as many third party and other nominees with a first name containing "K" have lost, such as {{w|Frank T. Johns}} of the Socialist Labor Party of America. Major party nominees with a "K" have won, such as Democrats Franklin Pierce, Franklin Roosevelt, and Barack Obama. If Romney had won, it would have broken the streak with respect to major party nominees, although not the streak as stated, which had already been broken with respect to all nominees.
|True
|-
|Title text
|No white guy who's been mentioned on Twitter has gone on to win.
|Twitter was founded in 2006; Barack Obama was the first president elected since its founding, and although he had been mentioned on Twitter prior to his election, he is not a white male and so did not break the streak. The streak was broken in 2016 when Donald Trump was elected.
|...Until Trump.
|}

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

:[Each statement below has its own panel. The year is in a caption, the precedent is stated by a standing Cueball in the main panel, and the president who broke it is below the panel.]
: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... As goes Mississippi, so goes the nation. ...Until 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 parents 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 been elected. ...Roosevelt did.
:1908... No Republican who hasn't served in the military has won. ...Until Taft.
:[The precedent takes up the entire panel this year. Consequently, there is no Cueball.] 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 while losing West Virginia. ...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 one can beat the same nominee a second time in a leap year rematch. ...Until Eisenhower.
:1960... Catholics can't win. ...Until Kennedy.
:1964... Every Republican who's taken Louisiana has won. ...Until Goldwater.
:[The panel is zoomed in on Cueball's head in this frame.] 1968... No Republican vice president has risen to the Presidency through an election. ...Until Nixon.
:[The panel is zoomed in on Cueball's head in this frame.] 1972... Quakers can't win twice. ...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.
:[The panel is zoomed in on Cueball's head in this frame.] 1988... No one with two middle names has become president. ...Until "Herbert Walker".
:[The panel is zoomed in on Cueball's head in this frame.] 1992... No Democrat has won without a majority of the Catholic vote. ...Until Clinton did.
:[The precedent takes up the entire panel this year. Consequently, there is no Cueball.] 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.
:[The panel is zoomed in on Cueball's head in this frame.] 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.
:[This year has two panels.] 2012... [Panel one] Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers. [Panel two] No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost. [Text under panels] Which streak will break?

==Trivia/Errors==
* There was an error in the original 1800 panel of the comic, as Jefferson (not Adams) was the first challenger to beat an incumbent, when Jefferson beat then-president Adams in 1800. This was later corrected.

* The first president with a wig was technically Washington, who did not wear a wig, but in fact powdered his hair white.

* Although Theodore Roosevelt became the first president under age 45 and was later elected president, he was not elected before the age of 45.

* Also, one of the statements of a streak for the 2012 elections can be considered wrong: in 1952, the Republican candidate/running mate Eisenhower/Nixon defeated the Democratic alliterative ticket Stevenson/Sparkman (in what can only be described as a landslide). The comic has been changed, and now reads "Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers" as the streak which would have the Republican ticket as the winners.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Statistics]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Elections]]
[[Category:Comics featuring John F. Kennedy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring politicians]]

606: Cutting Edge

2019-12-06T14:38:44Z

172.69.54.45: corrected a typo in a link

{{comic
| number = 606
| date = July 6, 2009
| title = Cutting Edge
| image = cutting_edge.png
| titletext = I remember trying to log in to the original Command and Conquer servers a year or two back and feeling like I was knocking on the boarded-up gates of a ghost town.
}}

==Explanation==

''{{w|Half-Life 2}}'' is a computer game, specifically a {{w|first-person shooter}}, released in 2004. In the above comic, [[Cueball]] plays the game in 2009 since newer games usually require more recent and powerful computers which are more costly. However, even a very weak computer developed in 2009 will comfortably run a 2004 game as the technologies are much more likely to "match up". Newer games simply require more CPU power, more RAM and pricier graphics add-ons.

Additionally, the price for an older game is considerably less than those of the more recent variety. Even the price of a once-new, highly anticipated {{w|Video game industry#Economics|AAA}} game is almost definitely guaranteed to have fallen due to the presence of newer games and the relative maturity of the present game. Most of the expected sales of a game happen near the release. A game would not be deemed that lucrative after 5 years, prompting a price drop to justify its sales or even printing. Sometimes, a game will be released with several, if not all, expansion packs at a fraction of the price of purchasing them all separately during the initial release.

However, the downside to Cueball's strategy is that your gaming knowledge will be five years out of date. In a subculture that moves as fast as video games, it's almost impossible for Cueball to embarrass himself harder.

On the last panel, "The cake is a lie" and "This was a triumph" are references to ''{{w|Portal (video game)|Portal}}'', a video game released in late 200'''7'''. The cake references originate from the promises of cake that GLaDOS, a character in the game, makes to the player. Exploring the levels reveals several hiding places that seem to have been used, in one of which the player can find the words "The cake is a lie" repeatedly scrawled on the wall. ''Portal'' was indeed considered old-fashioned by early 2013, with the developers themselves stating they were sick and tired of the endlessly parroted jokes. Both ''Portal'' and ''Half-Life 2'' were released by the same company, {{w|Valve Corporation|Valve}}, and ''Portal 2'' was released in 2011.

The song "{{w|Still Alive}}", which the lyric "This was a triumph" comes from, was previously referenced in [[375: Pod Bay Doors]], and later referenced in [[1141: Two Years]].

The title text also points to another flaw in this strategy: multi-player gaming requires other players, so if you play a game five years after everybody else, there's nobody else to play with. It's even worse with online gaming, as the company hosting the online server may have shut it down a long time ago.

==Transcript==
:[Megan is standing. Cueball sits at a computer.]
:Megan: Where've you been all week?
:Cueball: Playing Half-Life 2!
:Megan: ...that came out in 2004.

:Cueball: I get games on a five-year lag. That way, I never have to buy a high-end system, but get the same steadily-advancing gaming experience as people who do - and at a fraction of the price.

:Cueball: There are no downsides!
:Megan: I can think of ''one''...

:[Early 2013.]
:Cueball: Guys!
:Cueball: The cake is a lie!
:[Musical notes surround an italic line, suggesting Cueball is singing.]
:Cueball: ''This was a triumph.''
:Cueball: The cake is a lie!
:Megan and a Friend: ''Sigh''

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Video games]]

838: Incident

2019-11-11T16:49:58Z

172.69.54.45: /* Explanation */ Use "UNIX" instead of "Linux". Sudo is not unique to Linux (it is even missing from certain distributions such as RHEL or Debian <9) and while it is not part of POSIX, it is available on almost all UNIX systems

{{comic
| number = 838
| date = December 24, 2010
| title = Incident
| image = incident.png
| titletext = He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he's copied on /var/spool/mail/root, so be good for goodness' sake.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic was posted on {{w|Christmas Eve}}. While {{w|Christmas}} is principally a {{w|Christian}} holiday, celebrating the birth of {{w|Jesus}} on December 25, there are many traditions around it, among them {{w|Christmas Eve#Gift_giving|a tradition}} that on {{w|Christmas Eve}} {{w|Santa Claus}} will make his round delivering gifts to good children.

[[Rob]] sits behind a UNIX computer and tried to change his user account from his normal access to the access of a super user by using the command "{{w|sudo|sudo su}}". Sudo is a famous phrase in xkcd lore, made famous by comic [[149: Sandwich]]. Before allowing administrator access (as root user), it asks for a password. The field is blank because, in most UNIX systems, the characters of the password are not shown. When Rob is unable to use the command his account is not authorized and the system says that the incident "will be reported" (usually to the system administrator, so he can see if someone is making repeated attempts at accessing administrator privileges).

In the comic, however, sudo and the system report the incidents to {{w|Santa Claus}}, who, in Christmas lore, makes a list of who is naughty and who is nice. If you are nice then you get presents, while if you are naughty, you get a lump of coal. When sudo reports to Santa that Rob's account is not authorized, he puts Rob on the naughty list.

In the title text, which is a parody of the famous Christmas song, "Santa Claus Is Coming To Town", <code>/var/spool/mail/root</code> is the root (superuser) mailbox on a Linux system, where the incident described in the comic would commonly be reported to.

==Transcript==
:[Rob is sitting at a computer. The computer's prompt is shown.]
:<code>robm@homebox~$ sudo su</code>
:<code>Password:</code>
:<code>robm is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.</code>
:<code>robm@homebox~$ █</code>

:[Megan approaches.]
:Rob: Hey — who does sudo report these "incidents" ''to''?
:Megan: You know, I've never checked.

:[Santa Claus is sitting at a desk supported by candy canes, with a red monitor. On the wall are two lists labeled 'naughty' and 'nice'. He is in the process of adding a line to the 'naughty' list.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Rob]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Linux]]
[[Category:Christmas]]

Talk:2147: Appendicitis

2019-05-11T09:46:59Z

172.69.54.45:

started a very brief explanation. I'm unsure what actual medical procedure the "salting of the abdomen" is supposed to refer to.[[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 17:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
: probably refers to this: {{w|Salting the earth}}. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.167|172.69.33.167]] 17:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I suspect it refers to the saline lavage at the end of the surgery - isotonic saline is used to wash out any remnants of pus that might cause a new infection. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.54.45|172.69.54.45]] 09:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Not a medical expert, but could this be cancer? [[User:Netherin5|“That Guy from the Netherlands”]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 18:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
: my guess is appendicitis (as that is the title of the comic). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.59.160|162.158.59.160]] 18:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Randall was supposed to appear at an Adam Savage book release event Tuesday night, but the host reported he was in the hospital recovering from Appendicitis, so I amended the comment about the possibility to make it certain. [[User:MAP|MAP]] ([[User talk:MAP|talk]]) 19:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
: Is this reported somewhere, like in the news or on Twitter? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.58.243|162.158.58.243]] 19:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
::Do you know where was this reported? I've searched for it but I haven't found it yet. If you have the link I can add it to the explanation. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 20:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
:::It was announced on stage at the book signing (and I was really looking forward to Randall and Adam interacting), but I don't know anywhere else it may have showed up.[[User:MAP|MAP]] ([[User talk:MAP|talk]]) 06:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
"Zapped you with energy beams" sounds like it's referring to X-rays, rather than MRI. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.204|162.158.111.204]] 20:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
: Close, contrast CT is more common for diagnosing acute appendicitis, which is basically X-rays, but more of them [[Special:Contributions/172.68.2.70|172.68.2.70]] 04:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
:: Also sure it is not a reference to MRI but to x-rays, probably in the form of a CT. It does not fit with energy beam, putting the patient in a magenetic field and using radio frequencies... I will correct this. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a little weird to me. Five years ago a bout of appendicitis led to a cancer diagnosis for me. There was, indeed, a sword, biological and chemical weapons and a salting of my interior to prevent further growth. I hope Randall is okay. [[User:KevinLeeC|KevinLeeC]] ([[User talk:KevinLeeC|talk]]) 20:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
:Appendicitis is not linked to cancer, but when you open a patient up, there is the chance the doctors discovers a so far unnoticed cancer. I do not think this is the case here, and also since he makes this comic already he cannot be really bad off. But appendicitis is serious enough. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought the title text referenced Randall mocking his internal organs in the comic. [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 21:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

[[Ponytail]] has appeared in several comics as a doctor, should we add a corresponding category? Maybe a "Doctor Ponytail" or "Doctors" category. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 06:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
:I think it is enough to have it mentioned in the ponytail page? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

== Appendages? ==

Is there a subtle joke contained herein in that Dr. Ponytail has no appendages that don't appear as hooks? Or am I reading too much in to the discrepancy between her coat and hands as Randall just draws stick figures anyway? {{unsigned|162.158.74.69}}
:I think it's just Randall's standard stick figures, although I think Ponytail is making fists in panels 2 and 3, and raising a single finger in the last panel. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 15:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

== We can't do this without @WikiDocJames ==

The only person who has the proper permissions to approve an explanation of this comic is Editor James '@WikiDocJames' Heilman, MD, Wikipedian and twitterer. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.166|162.158.146.166]] 06:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2133: EHT Black Hole Picture

2019-04-10T09:39:50Z

172.69.54.45: pinterest

...someone edited the page to describe the EHT as "This comic references the non-existent "Event Horizon Telescope", an international project dedicated to deceiving the masses into thinking that black holes are real, in accordance with the whims of the Zionist conspiracy." wot? [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 17:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:Seems like there are a lot of vandals nowadays... I don't think I would be against requiring registration to edit pages. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 19:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::I totally agree. It doesn't really detract from the ability to edit a page, it's still easy, but it just adds an extra step for vandals. [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 19:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::I am also in favor of a registration requirement. I don't see a great proportion of helpful edits from users who aren't logged in. Requiring registration to edit seems like it could potentially be more effective & easier to implement than other moderation tactics. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::::As someone who has made a half dozen or so edits (including once writing the first draft of a description of a comic) and probably two dozen comments over the past 5 years without ever creating an account I won’t say you are wrong, but there will be fewer people editing and making comments if registration is required. Will registering keep vandals from vandalism? I very much doubt it. Who will enforce the termination of accounts?and what’s to stop vandals from creating multiple accounts? Again, I’m not saying you are wrong, but I will suggest that registration isn’t the panacea you might hope it to be... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.82|162.158.78.82]] 04:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::I'm honestly surprised it isn't a requirement already...--[[User:Jlc|Jlc]] ([[User talk:Jlc|talk]]) 21:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
::::::I will echo the sentiment of [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.82|162.158.78.82]] - registration would mean that I would not edit pages when the fancy strikes me [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.131|141.101.104.131]] 08:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
::I probably wouldn't register but I do like to make the occasional comment.
:::Most sites that allow comments require you to log on. This also means others can recognise you and your comments, and read them knowing what you are like. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.28|162.158.214.28]] 11:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:It's true, and you know that it's true, fucking shill. {{unsigned|108.162.246.215}}
::I know that it exists, and I'm not going to argue it. Oh, also not signing a post doesn't hide your IP. You can literally see the IPs of anyone who edits the page, Mr. 108.162.246.215 [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 17:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::The IPs are irrelevant anyway, they're CloudFlare's -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.36|162.158.90.36]] 18:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::"Shill" implies that someone's paying us to correct these fallacious & bigoted statements. Do you really think any of us get paid to remove these blatantly offensive & frankly ridiculous assertions that space exploration is somehow a worldwide Jewish deception? Personally, I just enjoy accuracy. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::Couldn't "shill" also mean somebody acting as if they weren't part of the group, to test that somebody was loyal and obedient?
::: "Fetch me an idiot, son, and there's a shilling in it if you're fast enough!" [[Special:Contributions/172.69.46.58|172.69.46.58]] 11:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.210|172.68.65.210]] 22:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:It seems like many of these vandals are using IPs associated with generally good-willed editors in the past, e.g. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.215]]. Are they just connecting from places with public wifi? --[[User:Youforgotthisthing|Youforgotthisthing]] ([[User talk:Youforgotthisthing|talk]]) 02:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
::Those are Cloudflare's IPs, so not necessarily. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 06:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
In the transcript, Cueball is described as standing behind a podium. He may be standing /on/ a podium, but he is standing /behind/ a lectern.
[[User:Seezee|Seezee]] ([[User talk:Seezee|talk]]) 17:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:Arent podiums and lecterns the same thing? [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 17:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::No - https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-lectern-and-vs-podium/
::No. Podium (from the Latin root meaning "foot") is the thing you stand on, a raised platform or dais. Lectern (from Latin "to read") is the stand that provides a place for notes or other written prompts, from which a speaker may read during a lecture or presentation. It's not uncommon for people to conflate them. [[User:Seezee|Seezee]] ([[User talk:Seezee|talk]]) 18:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::If enough people conflate them, it's not a mistake any more, it becomes another definition. And lexicographers often use written uses as confirmation, so anyone who wants to see podium get this sense should forward this URL to all the dictionary publishers.[[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::::What's the threshold for "enough people" (itself a grammatically incorrect phrase; see https://grammarist.com/usage/amount-number/)? In any case, I'm not getting into a debate about prescriptive vs. descriptive lexicography as it's off-topic and trollish. Besides, the transcript has been updated. [[User:Seezee|Seezee]] ([[User talk:Seezee|talk]]) 18:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
"Enough people" is fine grammatically because "enough" can refer to either an amount or a number; it the case of "enough people" it's referring to a number of people. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.28|162.158.214.28]] 02:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
::[[1661: Podium]] [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 19:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::Heh. I'd forgotten that. Thanks, Jacky720! [[User:Seezee|Seezee]] ([[User talk:Seezee|talk]]) 19:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::Totally forgot! Awesome [[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 20:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:Thank ''goodness'' someone corrected that. A million people using the wrong word doesn't mean it's the right word (especially when the root words have obviously different meanings); It just means a million people are using unclear\inaccurate language. Common usage ≠ correct usage. It's utility that matters: In this case, if a lectern is also a podium, what is the thing you stand on??? Podium is a common error, but it's still an error. Popularity doesn't equal truth. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::That is very incorrect. Language is not a natural resource; it can't be measured or described outside of how it is used. If podium commonly used and understood to mean the thing you stand behind, and it's been used that way by many people for a long tome, the thing you stand behind is a podium. You can disagree with that usage all you like, it isn't any less correct. [[User:HisHighestMinion|HisHighestMinion]] ([[User talk:HisHighestMinion|talk]]) 13:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:::HisHighestMinion, English (all varieties) is unusual in being user led, rather than being controlled by an Academy. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
::In my opinion the reason for the podium vs lectern comes from the person speaking not having to stand to read notes of operate their presentation. Thus they can now speak from the podium, rather than at at the lectern. Also a lot of podiums* are stages. *anti-pedant point... When a word is adopted into English, English plural rules apply. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
:I would call that a stool. Also, FWIW, words have different meanings from their roots all the time. Incredible originally meant unreliabe. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.67|162.158.62.67]] 14:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there really anything else we need to add to the explanation? It seems complete.[[User:9yz|9yz]] ([[User talk:9yz|talk]]) 19:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, Pinterest. That website where you have to create an account to view pictures. And then once you do that and get to the post you want, you discover the original “pinner” literally just posted a photo from somewhere with zero indication of where it came from or how to find it so now you’re back to square one but have wasted a bunch of time, been spammed to death by emails and sold your soul to Pinterest. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 06:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:Tha's why whenever I do a Google search I add -pinterest . . . .[[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.28|162.158.214.28]] 11:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
::It's the only resonable thing one can do. I hate pinterest with a passion. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.54.45|172.69.54.45]] 09:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if these are appropriate for the explanation, but [https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1114950810444677121 NSF and ESO have been being coy on Twitter]. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.143.162|172.68.143.162]] 23:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we understand this joke at all. This image was supposed to be released on April 2017 and is now being released on April 2019. This must be relevant. Is the black hole only visible once a year due to our orbit? Sounds relevant if so. Why couldn't they release it in _2018_ if 2017 didn't work? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.58|162.158.78.58]] 00:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
: Well obviously, the picture from the first year was blurry, and the second time they put the flash on the wrong setting.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.46.58|172.69.46.58]] 11:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

1. Are you serious with the “needs more explanation”? It needs tweaked explanation for sure, but not longer. 2. VANDALS!!! (Imagine me shaking my fist in the air and saying “Vandals” like “Curse you Perry the Platypus”) 3. Not the Podium vs. Lecturn thing again...... [[User:Netherin5|“That Guy from the Netherlands”]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 14:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

[https://twitter.com/jsalsman/status/1115397415622729728] om nom nom
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.143.126|172.68.143.126]] 08:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)