explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

925: Cell Phones

2015-04-08T19:10:33Z

199.27.128.88: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 925
| date = July 15, 2011
| title = Cell Phones
| image = cell_phones.png
| titletext = He holds the laptop like that on purpose, to make you cringe.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is a good explanation of the correlation/causation fallacy, where one party states two unrelated events and posits that they must have influenced each other.

After hearing about the "Cell Phones Don't Cause Cancer" study, which refutes a claim made by the World Health Organization (just Google the debate, the comic doesn't focus much on it), [[Black Hat]] plots "Total Cancer Incidence" per 100,000 and "Cell Phone Users" per 100 on the same graph. The graph in frame 3 shows that the number of cell phone users rises after the number of cancer incidence, which makes Black Hat comically come to the conclusion that cancer causes cell phones.

The comic highlights a well-known fallacy known as ''{{w|post hoc ergo propter hoc}}'', often shortened to simply ''post hoc.'' The Latin translates to "after this, therefore because of this," referring to the common mistake that because two events happen in chronological order, the former event must have caused the latter event. The fallacy is often the root cause of many superstitions (e.g., a person noticing he/she wore a special bracelet before getting a good test score thinks the bracelet was the source of his/her good fortune when it was more likely to be her socks.), but it often crosses into more serious areas of thinking. In this case, the scientific research community, which often prides itself on its intellectual aptitude, is gently mocked for being nonetheless prone to such poor reasoning all too often. The different possibilities are generally known as causation, when one thing is proven to cause another, or correlation, when changes in one thing are aligned with changes in another, but there is no proof that they are actually related.

The title text refers to the way Black Hat holds the laptop in panel 2. Being that Cueball (and Randall, for that matter) are quite into computers, the potential damage to a laptop screen either from the weight of its lower body or the pressure of the user's fingers on the LCD screen is enough to make him squirm in discomfort.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball holds a cellphone. Black Hat is sitting at a desk with a laptop.]
:Cueball: Another huge study found no evidence that cell phones cause cancer. What was the W.H.O. thinking?
:Black Hat: I think they just got it backward.

:[Black Hat turns towards Cueball, holding the laptop with one hand by the upper edge of the screen.]
:Cueball: Huh?
:Black Hat: Well, take a look.

:[There is a plot of total cancer incidence and cell phone users. Cancer rises from 1970 to 1990, then stays relatively steady. Cell phone use rises from roughly 1984, and steeply after 1990, to the present.]

:Cueball: You're not... There are ''so'' many problems with that.
:Black Hat: Just to be safe, until I see more data I'm going to assume cancer causes cell phones.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Statistics]]
[[Category:Cancer]]

915: Connoisseur

2015-04-08T18:45:08Z

199.27.128.88: I believe the explination fails to account for the humor of including Joe Biden instead of a serious politician like JFK or Ron Paul.

{{comic
| number = 915
| date = June 22, 2011
| title = Connoisseur
| image = connoisseur.png
| titletext = Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.
}}

==Explanation==
[[White Hat]] is fond of good wine, and he can distinguish slight differences in different types of wine. On the other hand, [[Cueball]] doesn't mind a kind of wine or another; all of them taste the same for him. When White Hat tells Cueball that he should pay more attention to types of wine, Cueball answers that wine is not different than anything else in this respect, and chooses pictures of {{w|Joe Biden}}, famously gaffe prone {{w|Vice President of the United States}}, eating a sandwich as an example.

In the last panel, apparently White Hat and Cueball are actually running an experiment to see if people will concentrate on slight differences among pictures of Joe Biden eating a sandwich, just in the same way that White Hat concentrates on slight differences among kinds of wine. The result of the experiment is clearly going to Cueball's side.

The title text presents the same idea in a different wording. The "scale of our brains" refers to a concept similar to Richard Dawkins' {{w|Middle World}}, where things too small (say, smaller than the point of a pin) or too big (bigger than what we can see from a mountaintop) are just out of our comprehension, so the things our brains understand must be neither too small nor too big, i.e. the "middle world".

However, the title text goes further in this idea: When we find things too big (like the distance to the Moon), we shrink it so that it fits into the "middle world" we're used to. Conversely, when we find things too small (say, a mote of dust), we expand it for the same reason. In a quite similar way, if all we have is pictures of Joe Biden eating a sandwich, we "resize" that subject so that we can fill books with the details about the pictures.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat is standing with Cueball. They each hold a wine glass in one hand, White Hat is holding a bottle of wine in the other. He looks at the label.]
:White Hat: How do you stand this cheap wine?
:Cueball: Wine all tastes the same to me.

:[Close-up of White Hat.]
:White Hat: You've just never had ''good'' wine. If you paid more attention, you'd realize there's a whole world here.

:[Close-up on Cueball, who spreads his arms, sloshing his wine slightly.]
:Cueball: But that's true of ''anything!'' Wine, house music, fonts, ants, Wikipedia signatures, Canadian surrealist porn—
:Cueball: Spend enough time with any of them and you'll become a snobby connoisseur.

:[This panel has no border and is next to but aligned further down than the first three panels.]
:[The full frame of the two characters again. White Hat now has the bottle at his side.]
:White Hat: But some things do have more depth than others.
:Cueball: If you locked people in a box for a year with 500 still frames of Joe Biden eating a sandwich, by the end they'd be adamant that some were great and some were terrible.
:White Hat: You're exaggerating.
:Cueball: Oh yeah?

:[This panel is below the others, and is indented about a third of the way to the right. It is wide.]
:A YEAR LATER:
:[A box. Voices emanate from inside.]
:Voice #1: Sure, most closed-mouth frames are boring, but in #415, the way the man's jaw frames the mayo on his hand is pure perfection, and—
:Voice #2: What a surprise- ''you'' praising a mayo frame. Listening to you, I'd think there was nothing else in The Sandwich. Frankly, the light hitting J.B.'s collar through the lettuce would put #242 in my top ten even if he had ''no'' mayo on his hand at ''all''.

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

1421: Future Self

2014-09-16T16:01:12Z

199.27.128.88:

{{comic
| number = 1421
| date = September 15, 2014
| title = Future Self
| image = future_self.png
| titletext = Maybe I haven't been to Iceland because I'm busy dealing with YOUR crummy code.
}}

==Explanation==
The comic presumably shows part of a computer software file from an old project written by [[Cueball]]. The part shown in the comic consists entirely of comments. A number of computer languages, including several popular ones, use "#" to indicate "the remainder of this line is a comment". A comment is a line, or a portion of a line, of code which should not be executed. The comment symbol tells the compiler to skip to the next line, ignoring everything after the symbol. Programmers make use of comments to leave notes about what a particular line or section of code is meant to do, places that require debugging, ideas for future revisions, etc.

These comments were written with apparent foresight by Cueball's "younger self" in anticipation of being read by his "older self" at some point in the future. The language in the comments is similar to how people address themselves in personal {{w|Time_capsule|time capsules}}, in which they put letters away to read years later to see how much they've changed.

A "{{w|Parsing#Parser|parse}} {{w|Subroutine|function}}" is code that interprets some form of input and makes sense of it in a way that enables functionality in some other part of the code. Parsers are commonly used to to extract useful information from the text of a web-page that has been "{{w|Web scraping|scraped}}" off the web, or to understand the command-line arguments of a program, or in an interpreter which runs computer code. Parsing can be a difficult problem to solve, and programmers will often take shortcuts based on assumptions on the kinds of input that the parsing function will have to handle. If the programmer does not have control over the input, such as reading a page from someone else's web-site, then any changes to the input syntax in the future can cause the parser to spontaneously break even if the parsing function has not changed. In the case of a web page, the difference may be in the structure of the page and not even visible to someone looking at the page in a web browser, or it could be the result of a "site refresh" where the look and feel of the entire web-site is changed to avoid appearing dated, or the website may no longer exist, or any number of other possible differences.

Programmers often don't spend much time looking at previously written code that is working, so the younger self has made the assumption that the parsing function, which worked at one point in time, has 'failed'. Possibly it was originally {{w|kludge|kludged}} together with no expectation that it would handle future changes, since the comments indicate a firm belief that the parsing function could not be easily "re-kludged" to handle the new situation but instead would need to be re-written. This may be because the parsing function was written using {{w|Regular_expression|regular expressions}} or in some other {{w|Write-only_language|write-only language}} style, where the program is typically created through means of trial-and-error, and it is considered easier to start from scratch than try to determine how the original program worked. Or it could be that the new situation has "mightier" inputs that can not be parsed by regular expressions, for example when a {{W|regular grammar}} is replaced by a {{W|context-free grammar}}.

The parsing function has held up to the younger Cueball's expectations as it has lasted a year past 2013 (comic published in September 2014). So he has correctly judged how external factors would affect the parsing function.

Current-day Cueball feels the need to rhetorically reply to his younger self's commentary, and then notices a forward-looking, mean-spirited remark that is both prescient and emotionally hard-hitting. Past Cueball has the advantage that it is easy to predict that his future self might not follow through with aspirations or resolutions. But in the title-text current-day Cueball is refusing to accept any blame, preferring to blame someone else (his past self), a form of {{w|Psychological projection|projection}} that is very common human behavior.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is sitting at a laptop, reading code. The two separate parts of code as well as the two comments by Cueball is connected with "speak" lines, with the line from the code going down to the computer screen.]

:<nowiki>#</nowiki> Dear Future Self,
:<nowiki>#</nowiki>
:<nowiki>#</nowiki> You're looking at this file because
:<nowiki>#</nowiki> the parse function finally broke.
:<nowiki>#</nowiki>
:<nowiki>#</nowiki> It's not fixable. You have to rewrite it.
:<nowiki>#</nowiki> Sincerely, Past Self

:Cueball: Dear Past Self, it's kinda creepy how you do that.

:<nowiki>#</nowiki> Also, it's probably at least
:<nowiki>#</nowiki> 2013. Did you ever take
:<nowiki>#</nowiki> that trip to Iceland?

:Cueball: Stop judging me!
{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Programming]]

1351: Metamaterials

2014-04-04T04:47:59Z

199.27.128.88: /* Explanation */ Fixed typo

{{comic
| number = 1351
| date = April 4, 2014
| title = Metamaterials
| image = metamaterials.png
| titletext = If I developed a hue-shifting metamaterial, I would photobomb people's Instagram pics with a sheet of material that precisely undid the filter they were using.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Feels incomplete, and the title text needs to be explained.}}
Metamaterials cause light passing through them to shift. The exact color it shifts to varies based on the design of the material. The title text references this with Randel pondering making a meta material that reverses the effect of instagram filters, likely by placing the material between the camera and the subject, just before the picture is taken.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript}}
:[Picture of a red violet.]
:Megan (off-screen): Violets are red.

:[Picture of a blue rose.]
:Megan (off-screen): And roses are blue.

:[Megan holding something in front of the two flowers. Cueball stands nearby.]
:Megan: When metamaterials

:[Megan moves the object away from the flowers.]
:Megan: Alter their hue.

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

User:Dgbrt

2014-01-22T22:45:54Z

199.27.128.88: Fixed Grammar

Hello, I am a big xkcd fan.

====My introduction as xkcd fan====
My random list of favourite Comics by Randall:
[[Combination Vision Test]],
[[Up_Goer_Five]]
and of course that tiny rover never coming home:
[[Spirit]]

====I'm not native English====
...and I do not like "typos". So many THANKS for helping on this issue or even more important: Wrong grammar <-I don't like these errors I didn't see.

As a German native speaker I had to learn something like "Oxford English" in school, and I hated it. My knowledge about the (American, British, more...) English language mostly belong to later experiences. International contacts, science (especially physics), programming (Randall does not know how funny IBM does translations for German, "Copy from To" is in German just "Copy Until"), AND the main language at the internet of course is English.

Also I was even bad on the German language sessions at school. But that's just an other story.

I'm happy about corrections on my typos and grammar, but on essential content I will discuss.

Thanks to [[User: Spongebog]] for some smaller edits at this page. I'm still learning English...<br />
Thanks to [[User: Spongebog]] again for fixing a really damn typo...

Talk:1319: Automation

2014-01-22T22:41:44Z

199.27.128.88: How?

How do you make a comment?

Talk:1238: Enlightenment

2013-12-27T09:06:19Z

199.27.128.88:

I can't help but feel he toadaly missed out on "herd"!
Should this make me feel icky? Please help!
Monteletourneau [[User:Monteletourneau|Monteletourneau]] ([[User talk:Monteletourneau|talk]]) 05:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice the (most likely intentional) typos in that sentence they told her to type? "... and THEIR DEFINATELY good" (they're definitely) {{unsigned ip|‎115.30.33.36}}

Didn't you notice "you're" and "idea's" as well. I would assume it is highly improbable that these were not intentional. [[Special:Contributions/74.125.16.2|74.125.16.2]] 04:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)GusGold

Of course those were intentional. That was the joke. The exercise for INTERNET enlightenment and getting rid of insecurities is to make typos and grammatical errors freely. You may also notice them saying on the last panel "wasnt" and "its", instead of "wasn't" and "it's".
Megan just wasn't able to do this task of making intentional mistakes, which would result in people online thinking she's dumb (insecurities), so she broke the laptop and left. [[Special:Contributions/95.35.58.179|95.35.58.179]] 05:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
:Why do we think she broke the laptop and left? What's the circle on the ground for? (Looks like a StarTrek Transporter pad. And the pedestal just appeared as needed, must be virtual. Rather, I think she got UN-enlightened and zapped away into nothing-ness. [[Special:Contributions/12.234.99.131|12.234.99.131]] 16:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Zake

There's a huge difference between accepting others' misspellings and repeating them yourself...not commenting on someone typing "definately" is completely different than being told to spell it that way yourself. [[User:Wotpsycho|Wotpsycho]] ([[User talk:Wotpsycho|talk]])

I read you're explanation's and their definately helpful! --[[Special:Contributions/129.187.90.96|129.187.90.96]] 09:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Having your ideas "approved" by someone who can't even spell might feel much worse than having them simply shot down.{{unsigned ip|89.31.118.161}}

Does anyone else think Ponytail appears to be levitating? --[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 16:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone deleted my edit, so I'm bringing it up here on the discussion page. The sentence contains more than just common misspellings; it also contains a common grammatical error. "I read your ideas and they're definitely good" is a run-on sentence. Joining two independent clauses requires BOTH a comma and a coordinating conjunction ("I read your ideas, and they're definitely good"). The sentence omits the comma. While certain style guides allow the comma to be left out when the two clauses are short enough, Megan's obstinate grammar-nazism is the entire point of the comic. It is unlikely she would let it slide. [[Special:Contributions/193.67.17.36|193.67.17.36]] 16:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
:"they're" refers to "ideas", the sentences are not independent.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
::That's not what an independent clause means. Can they be separated into two sentences? "I read your ideas. They're definitely good." Yes - it still makes sense as two sentences, thus the two clauses are independent. (An example of a dependent clause would be "I read your ideas while I was driving home." "While I was driving home" cannot stand on its own as a sentence, so it is not an independent clause.)[[Special:Contributions/193.67.17.36|193.67.17.36]] 18:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
:::I'm not a native English speaker, and I have learned only British English at school. But your statement makes sense. My first sentence is correct?--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Yep, your first sentence is fine. I'm going to add the note about run-on sentences back into the Explanation; I hope nobody has any more objections. [[Special:Contributions/193.67.17.36|193.67.17.36]] 19:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
:::"...''whilst'' I was driving home"? ;) (And bear in mind as well that "while" can more commonly mean "until", instead of "during", in certain English-speaking dialects. Ok, I'm being picky, now.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.50.23|178.98.50.23]] 05:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Gr8 example of Internet forum tangental one-upmanship! [[Special:Contributions/12.234.99.131|12.234.99.131]] 16:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Zake
:This explanation makes a lot of sense. It helped me to stop being angry at the sentence they wanted her to type, and to pay attention to the bigger picture, especially when combined with the alt-text. Randall, I heard you're idea's and their definately good. (Also, I'm assuming that Internet Enlightenment allows me to be disgusted with myself for writing that, as long as I was willing to do so.) [[Special:Contributions/68.231.138.149|68.231.138.149]] 04:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
::It is perfectly correct to join two independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction and no comma. In fact it is often considered bad style (if not actually incorrect) to include both a comma and a conjunction when joining only two clauses.[[Special:Contributions/129.22.117.158|129.22.117.158]] 17:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
:::I'm not native English, as I explained before, but please give some more background information and not only a statement of your mind. And consider: This is American English, there are some odd commas. I'm still not sure what's correct.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
::::I'm not native either. What I've found on several sites [http://pages.uoregon.edu/munno/Writing/ClausesandCommas.html], [http://www.ego4u.com/en/cram-up/writing/comma?09] is ''two independent clauses connected by "and" or "but" are separated by a comma''—basically, because you would make a little pause at that point when used in speech. Contradicting this on {{w|simple:Run-on sentence}} I currently see ''"I looked over the hill and I saw the bear." is a complete sentence.'' (not two independent clauses—although grammatically possible), so simple-wikipedia could be wrong, or there is some tolerance, when two clauses are actually connected. In the end, I'd say this comma is not really worth that discussion, and I would suggest making some kind of neutral statement, e.g. ''and there might be a {{w|Run-on sentence|comma}} missing''. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 22:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
:::It is not perfectly correct to omit the comma. Chtz cited two sources above, here are a few more: [http://www.towson.edu/ows/conjunctions.htm], [http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm], [http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/020204WhenCommaBfAnd.htm]. There is a little leeway for stylistic reasons, but as I mentioned above, the entire point of the comic is that Megan does not give leeway when it comes to grammar nazism. The corrected sentence in the explanation should be actually correct, not mostly-correct-but-given-a-little-stylistic-leeway.[[Special:Contributions/193.67.17.36|193.67.17.36]] 18:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
::::I (poster from 129.22.117.158 above) have looked into things more and stand corrected. I heard all you're ideas, and their definately good.[[Special:Contributions/209.152.196.210|209.152.196.210]] 13:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if there's an additional level of meaning here. To me, the <i>most</i> striking thing about the sentence Megan won't type is not the bad spelling, but the fact that it involves agreeing with someone. On the Internet, people are always arguing with other (as in, for example, http://xkcd.com/386/). Maybe what Megan had to do to become "enlightened" was not just to ignore the rules of spelling, but actually to agree with someone for a change?{{unsigned ip|134.226.254.178}}
:Well, that's why I wrote the third paragraph, about how important agreement can be. Do you have any suggestions as to how we could emphasize this point more? [[User:PinkAmpersand|PinkAmpersand]] ([[User talk:PinkAmpersand|talk]]) 22:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Be associated with bad grammar, Yoda would not. [[User:Alcatraz ii|Alcatraz ii]] ([[User talk:Alcatraz ii|talk]]) 08:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
;Incomplete or not?
I did add the tag again because there are too many edits at this page and also the discussion is still not clear. I would like to see the grammar issue solved by more explain, even when it's not easy.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning any more comparisons, but I'd put it don't here at least: It reminds me of Schindler's List when Schindler tries to convince Amon Goeth, a commander of a Nazi concentration camp, that true power is when you have the power (and justification) to kill someone, but you spare them. This is an attempt to change the behaviour of Amon, who has a habit of killing random camp internees (and _believes_ he has the right to do so).{{unsigned ip|Svend}}
:Hey, you compared something to the Nazis! I invoke Godwin's Law! http://xkcd.com/261/{{unsigned ip|134.226.254.178}}

Note I have removed a misguided rant from Dgbrt regarding Svend's thoughtful post. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.88|199.27.128.88]] 09:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This xkcd is all about how hard it is not to be a grammar nazi. --[[Special:Contributions/84.60.134.161|84.60.134.161]] 02:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

1269: Privacy Opinions

2013-12-10T04:18:44Z

199.27.128.88: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1269
| date = September 25, 2013
| title = Privacy Opinions
| image = privacy opinions.png
| titletext = I'm the Philosopher until someone hands me a burrito.
}}

==Explanation==
According to the title, the comic is about opinions on internet privacy in general. Six positions are offered as options. Four of the positions are tagged negatively by the author by their subtitles alone: the Crypto Nut, the Conspiracist, the Nihilist, and the Exhibitionist, all of which have negative valences in contemporary English. That the viewer is encouraged to identify negatively with these four positions is further encouraged by the content of the panels, as those characters are depicted either as having such boring lives that they have no need for privacy (the Crypto Nut, the Nihilist), or as being crazy (the Conspiracist, the Exhibitionist).

A fifth position, the Philosopher, is tagged somewhat ambivalently by the author: Megan is depicted as boring her interlocutor, yet in the title text, the author admits that he is usually the Philosopher. Also, “Philosopher” in vernacular English is neutrally valenced, potentially having the ability to expound either wisdom (sophia) or sophistry. It is also a synonym for Sage, the sixth position. As the author condones his own movement from Philosopher to Sage, he thus indicates that the Philosopher is to be viewed negatively, even if it is a tempting position to hold.

The title of the sixth position, the “Sage”, is positively valenced in contemporary English, and the author in the title text states that once he obtains a “burrito” – i.e., a “real” thing, he switches from the Philosopher to the Sage. The internal evidence presented thus far therefore is entirely consistent; the author encourages the reader to identify with the Sage.

By presenting five negatively tagged positions followed by a positively tagged sixth and final one, the author follows a rhetorical commonplace of listing and refuting a number of positions one by one, concluding with the favored and best one, which is not refuted and should be accepted both on its own merits and by virtue of being the last one standing. The comic therefore implies that no other (significant) positions exist.

Having completed the rhetorical analysis of the comic, we are now in a position to understand the meaning of “Internet Privacy”.

Panels #3 and 5 directly reference the American NSA. Panel #5’s “exhibitionist” also references Google, but the characters in the panel appear to be NSA agents (one wears an official cap and they are viewing the exhibitionist on an official, government-looking monitor). Likewise, the focus of the “Nihilist” is that the joke is on the people who gather the data, rather than those who are subsequently able to make use of it (such as Facebook’s users rather than "Facebook" itself; i.e., Facebook's employees and, by extension, its advertisers). The content of the actual data is only mentioned in panels #2, 4, and 5, and in each panel, it is suggested that it is meaningless or trivial. The Sage underscores the notion that any data known about him does not bother him, and therefore must be meaningless or trivial. The reader is thus encouraged to believe that it does not actually matter whether others discover personal data about him/her.

The comic is therefore what social theorists call *reductive*, because it reduces the range of possibilities of “Opinions on Internet Privacy” to an artificially and simplistically narrow subset; in this case, individuals concerned with government or corporate agencies using data that they have gathered on individuals, and the futility of worrying about such things. The comic does not admit the possibility of other “opinions on internet privacy” – namely, that individuals might have legitimate concerns with governmental or corporate uses of their data, let alone other individuals’ access to data that is assembled and distributed by corporations such as Facebook. The comic likewise does not consider the possibility of individuals having more interesting lives than the characters depicted, and therefore very real concerns about their privacy due to the activities that they engage in that are potentially more career limiting (should they be discovered) than obsessing about cryptography or eating a burrito.

The comic is “functionally” reductive, as opposed to “intentionally” reductive, because the reduction is the function or effect of the comic for readers who read it straightforwardly. There is not enough internal evidence in the the comic to maintain that the author intentionally excluded other viable opinions on internet privacy; it could be that they are just not on his radar. For example, we do not have enough information in the comic to claim that the author is against civil rights; it could be simply that he doesn’t often think about them. Likewise, it would exceed the evidence of the comic to claim that the author believes that schoolteachers who use the internet to facilitate legal but frowned-upon sexual behaviors should lose their jobs if they are found out due to internet privacy breaches; it could be that the author simply hasn’t bothered to worry about these matters if they don’t affect him personally. This adjudication – whether the comic is “intentionally” reductive or not – may only be made on the basis of external evidence; that is, data known about the author from sources beyond this comic.

Additional observations about the comic follow.

* The {{w|Philosopher}} - the intellectual who likes to talk about the topic, often boring those around him who don't think or worry much about privacy.
* The {{w|Cryptography|Crypto Nut}} - the one who goes crazy with security, even for things needing none.
: Since a large percentage of people and companies present in the internet don't have the ability or intention to do strong cryptography, the crypto nut's communication is limited to talking with other crypto nuts - which indicates cryptography as a topic. A real crypto nut will encrypt not just the important stuff because otherwise the attacker (in this context, assumed to be a government agency, network operator or corporation) will know which mails contain stuff that was secret enough to warrant encrypting, thus giving them information about whom he's doing secret business with.
* The {{w|Conspiracist}} - the one who sees super-secret data-gathering agencies everywhere.
:The (data) warehouse mentioned is the {{w|Utah Data Center}} which seems to be of impressive size. The punchline is created by taking the iceberg and warehouse analogies literally.
* The {{w|Nihilism|Nihilist}} - Nihilists believe that life lacks purpose and meaning. Someone who espouses this philosophy would think that a life spent spying someone else's meaningless life is hence doubly lacking in meaning.
* The {{w|Exhibitionist}} - Assumes people are invading his privacy, and using it to show off.
: This type is predominantly associated with twitter, but other social networks as well. This archetype is humorously combined with a ''sexual'' exhibitionist, who gets a sexual rise from the knowledge that others are spying on him/her.
* The {{w|Wisdom|Sage}} - Seems to know the difference between the real and the imaginary.. or does he?
: The monolog alludes to a scene in {{w|The Matrix}} in which Cypher arranges with the evil machines to become a traitor.
: The Sage is apparently immediately satisfied when he has food and prosperity. He does not need privacy or other democratic rights as long as he does not individually suffer from their absence.

The release of the comic on this date could be to coincide with the premiere of {{w|South Park}}'s 17th season on the same date, which starts with an episode ({{w|Let Go, Let Gov}}) in which Cartman discovers that the NSA has been spying on him.

The title text is to suggest that he enjoys burritos so much that being handed one even while philosophising (his natural state) would stop him in his tracks to eat the burrito, thus becoming a ''pseudo-sage'' concerned only with the burrito at the exclusion of the topic of internet security.

==Transcript==
:'''Opinions on Internet Privacy'''
:The Philosopher:
::Megan: "Privacy" is an impractical way to think about data in a digital world so unlike the one in which our soci--
::Ponytail: ''' ''So bored.'' '''
:The Crypto Nut:
::Cueball: My data is safe behind six layers of symmetric and public-key algorithms.
::Friend: What data is it?
::Cueball: Mostly me emailing with people about cryptography.
:The Conspiracist:
::Cueball talks to Megan.
::Cueball: These leaks are just the tip of the iceberg. There's a warehouse in Utah where the NSA has the ''entire'' iceberg. I don't know how they got it there.
:The Nihilist:
::Megan: Joke's on them, gathering all this data on me as if anything I do means anything.
:The Exhibitionist:
::Cueball is watching a surveillance console, Officer Ponytail stands behind him.
::Console: ''Mmmm,'' I sure hope the NSA isn't watching me bite into these juicy strawberries!! ''Oops,'' I dripped some on my shirt! Better take it off. Google, are you there? Google, this lotion feels soooo good.
::Cueball: Um.
:The Sage:
::Beret Guy and Cueball sitting at a table.
::Beret Guy: I don't know or care what data ''anyone'' has about me. Data is imaginary. This burrito is real.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]