explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:992: Mnemonics

2025-12-23T20:45:59Z

2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727: Uhmmm..., geology edition

The most memorable resistor code mnemonics I know are not...politically correct, shall we say. But they are memorable. [[User:Blaisepascal|Blaisepascal]] ([[User talk:Blaisepascal|talk]]) 19:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
:tell pls [[User:SuperSupermario24|Just some random derp]] 23:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
::Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls But Violet Gives Willingly [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.77|172.68.132.77]] 22:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
::: And that's one of the better ones. Some use "black" instead of "bad", which is better in that it disambiguates (that color is actually black IIRC), but worse in that it's even more terrible and has added racism. [[User:Hppavilion1|Hppavilion1]] ([[User talk:Hppavilion1|talk]]) 07:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I learned: Bad Beer Rots Our Young Guts But Vodka Goes Well (thanks to my college physics teacher). {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.119|13:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)}}

I feel like he got lazy at the end and didn't provide an "or" to the Jesus one mnemonic. Also, why is mnemonic often pronounced "new-monic" ?

Mnemonic is supposed to be pronounced "nim-monic"; "new-monic" is rather a malapropism, given that is a correct pronunciation of "pneumonic" (meaning related to lungs or to pneumonia"), similar to how some people pronounce "nuclear" as "nu-kyoo-lar" (reminiscent of "-cular"-ending words, such as: perpendicular, particular, jocular, etc.).
:I pronounce it as written, same for "gnome" - keeps those muscles going. (Try it with "knight", you'll get an approximation of Chaucer. Seriously.) --[[User:Qwach|Qwach]] ([[User talk:Qwach|talk]]) 02:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
:My dictionary says it's a schwa sound. Both "nim" and "new" are putting too much emphasis on the first syllable. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.202|108.162.219.202]] 06:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
::Yes, it should be nuh-MAHN-ic (n'monic) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 02:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Mnemonics are actually counter-productive. They claim to help you remember something but, in actuality, they replace what you're supposed to remember with something useless, thus causing you to FAIL to remember.[[Special:Contributions/76.29.225.28|76.29.225.28]] 03:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"Mnemonics are actually counter-productive." I disagree. They provide the '''order''' to the list of already known, or mostly known, words. They provide a little extra help.--DrMath 20:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The only one I ever learned:
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.
Fucking stupid brain! (It HAS been useful, although I don't recall why at the moment. (Fucking stupid brain.)) [[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 07:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Big Brother Reptilian Overlors. This aren't Raptors or Tyranosaurs?? I remmeber any 'fear' from Monroe to they -- {{unsigned ip|108.162.210.252}}
:"It's the most remarkable word I've ever seen!"[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.174|173.245.50.174]] 05:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed the Order of Operations is Out of Order? Please Email Dad & Mum A Shark? - Apostrophyx ([[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.221|108.162.249.221]] 03:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC))
:It's not out of order, multiplication and division are one tier together. 6 x 5 / 2 and 6 / 2 x 5 have the same result. [[User:Cflare|Cflare]] ([[User talk:Cflare|talk]]) 14:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I learned "Kahn's Hot Dogs Use Dead Cow Meat" as a mnemonic for SI prefixes. Covers all the common ones, but leaves out extreme ones like Giga or Zepto.--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.64|173.245.55.64]] 20:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

My favorite is for SOHCAHTOA: "Some Old Hippie Caught Another Hippie Tripping On Acid." [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.228|199.27.128.228]] 05:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

And this, fundamentally, is why people don't like Pluto not being a planet. Sure, it's logical, but you took away our nine pizzas and gave us only nachos in return. Who wouldn't be mad about that?[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.174|173.245.50.174]] 05:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
:Not to mention the self-referential "My very educated mother just showed us nine planets." [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 02:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

My personal favorite for taxonomy is "Dumb kids playing catch on freeways get squashed."[[User:RedHatGuy68|RedHatGuy68]] ([[User talk:RedHatGuy68|talk]]) 01:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
:Exactly what I was thinking. That one seems to be more traditional because I got taught that back in school. [[User:625571b7-aa66-4f98-ac5c-92464cfb4ed8|625571b7-aa66-4f98-ac5c-92464cfb4ed8]] ([[User talk:625571b7-aa66-4f98-ac5c-92464cfb4ed8|talk]]) 03:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
:Do Kindly Please Come Over For Green Soup [[User:Cosumel|Cosumel]] ([[User talk:Cosumel|talk]]) 01:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Marx didn't "invent" either socialism or communism. Both terms predated him. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 17:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I know one for SI prefixes: Kalium, magnesium, gallium, thallium, palladium, erbium, zinc(, yttrium), for the >1 ones, and "Magnesium, manganese, natrium, palladium, actinium, zinc(, yttrium)" for <1. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.188|162.158.88.188]] 10:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It can be noted and I suggest this onto the trivia section that the ''only'' sexually suggestive traditional mnemonic has the only sexually non-suggestive suggested mnemonic besides the suggested SI mnemonic. ''(Sorry, but the more traditional version for taxonomy is "King Phillip Came Over For Good '''Spaghetti'''")'' [[Special:Contributions/172.69.186.58|172.69.186.58]] 11:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

My favorite one is for the digestive system: Mouth, Esophagus, Stomach, Gall Bladder, Small Intestine, Large Intestine, Rectum, Anus. Better remembered as "Mother Eats Squirrel Guts Because She Is Living In Rural Arkansas." [[User:Cosumel|Cosumel]] ([[User talk:Cosumel|talk]]) 01:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I learned "Patrick Eats Markers Daily At School."
Also, from CGP Grey: "My Very Easy Method Just Speeds Up Naming (Planets)"
[[User:Wilh3lm|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm|talk]]) 12:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Can someone make an updated version for ronna and quetta? [[User:IJustWantToEditStuff|IJustWantToEditStuff]] ([[User talk:IJustWantToEditStuff|talk]]) 19:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Karl Marx Gave The Proletariat Eleven Zeppelins, Yelling "Rise!, Quickly!" [[User:Sci09273.15|Sci09273.15]] ([[User talk:Sci09273.15|talk]]) 15:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:Small: "Microsoft made no profit from all Zunes yelling really queasily". [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 20:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Am I the only one who remembers King Henry Died Drinking Chocolate Milk {{unsigned ip|172.70.111.147|22:47, 28 January 2024}}
:...I do. (EMOTIONAL MUSIC) On a related note, another traditional mnemonic for PEMDAS was "please excuse my dope ### swag"... [[User:Z1mp0st0rz|Z1mp0st0rz]] ([[User talk:Z1mp0st0rz|talk]]) 16:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

For geologic periods of the Phanerozoic, it's: "Carl, Oscar, Serena don't call Paul: John checkmated Paul now, Paula helped" (iff we include Pleistocene and Holocene; 3 people don't call a 4th (possibly as part of a wager) due to losing in a chess match to a 5th one). [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 20:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:992: Mnemonics

2025-12-23T20:31:52Z

2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727: small gets its extension as well

Talk:3157: Emperor Palpatine

2025-12-23T20:25:02Z

2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727: top hat as opposed to a "funny" hat;

What happens when he is five years old in canon Star Wars [[User:Mathmaster|Mathmaster]] ([[User talk:Mathmaster|talk]])
:As a Youngling, he would obviously get a funny hat and a 'not quite so dangerous' training-lightsaber. At least for Jedi training, can't speak for Sith training, which probably goes with the exact opposite (funny shoes and a lightsaber that has no hilt?)... ;) 22:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
::A top hat and an [[1433|infinite]] saber, damaging planets, asteroids, comets with its gamma rays. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 20:25, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
I don't think the title text is sarcastic. Making Palpatine look older in Return of the Jedi allowed the actor's age to be very precise for the character in the 3 subsequent movies (while allowing the same actor playing the character). --[[Special:Contributions/181.236.188.58|181.236.188.58]] 22:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

My first thought when reading the alt-text was of the reincarnated leader of the History Monks in the Discworld, analogous to the Dalai Lama. The memories and personallity of an old man, in the body of a toddler. The wise old man is normally in control, but sometimes the toddler takes over, leading to him wanting a biccie. {{unsigned ip|92.239.132.210|15:34, 21 October 2025}}

If he actually included a data point at Ian=74, Emperor=119 for Rise of Skywalker instead of just claiming "undefined", the trendline would have a positive slope...regardless of whether or not 119 is accurate, he clearly appears older than he does in Return of the Jedi, and even adding a point at (74, 89) would still result in a positive slope. However, I can get behind the idea of pretending Rise of Skywalker doesn't exist. [[Special:Contributions/136.226.154.60|136.226.154.60]] 16:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Just by film chronology (because the EU and extended-EU already dealt with it, but has been largely decanonised since then), the true age of any particular Palpatine clone (there still may have been other extant ones, as well as such dead failures as might remain) is probably not much older than Jango's initial contribution to the Clone Trooper project, the same process being used (though not also on Kamino), and so roughly as old as Bobba Fett would be at that point (if surviving the Sarlak, etc), having had little to no 'aging up' treatment. Though ''with'' the aging up, effective developmental age is accelerated, and with both the hit'n'miss nature of the emperor-cloning process and the need of Exegol's caretakers to always try to keep a not-too-decrepit clone at hand to become a ready vessel for Sheev's spirit to occupy, his body's true age is probably quite young even if his apparent age is far older. And, in terms of psychological age, he's probably ''exactly'' as old as if he had not jumped-bodies, or maybe that minus any 'gap time' that his Sithish force-ghost might have had to have spent in some form of stasis as the transplantation process was being put into effect. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.236.174|82.132.236.174]] 21:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The current explanation reads like an AI response. [[User:Xseo|Xseo]] ([[User talk:Xseo|talk]]) 07:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
:Or maybe it's just that AI responses tend to read like a collaborative edit by various people each with their own particular obsession to obscure details...?
:I'm not saying you're wrong to (presumedly) dislike the style and content, even the bits that I thought were both informative and interesting, but I don't actually know what bit(s) you might want to be different. You're welcome to make your own edits to your own satisfaction, however, in turn to be edited by those who come after you (or return) with their own stylistic/informational needs to fulfil. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.183|82.132.244.183]] 09:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Couldn't the toddler stuff in the caption be accomplished using motion capture instead of prosthetics? Think of Benjamin Buttons. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3104: Tukey

2025-12-23T20:18:01Z

2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727: Planck time!!

i dont get this comic :( [[User:Broseph|Broseph]] ([[User talk:Broseph|talk]]) 20:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)\

The main panel makes a joke that the figure of 110,000 years is precise but wildly wrong while that Tukey's birthday is "sometime this week" is vague but basically correct. The alt-text is most likely true (I haven't checked) because of leap years.
: I think you'll find it is 110.000, not 110,000 [[Special:Contributions/1.146.44.41|1.146.44.41]] 23:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
:: Maybe they live in that country mentioned in [[3102|the alt text of two comics ago]]. [[Special:Contributions/2601:647:8500:1E09:D4EE:315E:E684:A802|2601:647:8500:1E09:D4EE:315E:E684:A802]] 02:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
::: yes {facepalm}. I think I'll find I need to increase font size everywhere yet again so that "." Looks different from "," because I read 110 thousand and not the correct of 110 point 000. Not sure if the joke is different and is funny either way. It's ibuprofen* getting old but Saul Goodman because of the alternative. [[Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:164E:4264:ACA5:3DBE:8045:7E6B|2607:FB91:164E:4264:ACA5:3DBE:8045:7E6B]] 05:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
::: * Spellcheck suggested "ibuprofen." I don't know why or what I typed to. Love you [[Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:164E:4264:ACA5:3DBE:8045:7E6B|2607:FB91:164E:4264:ACA5:3DBE:8045:7E6B]] 06:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
:::: yeah I think the joke is that rather than providing an approximate answer to a vague question or am exact answer to a precise question, there's an implied precise question of "exactly how old in years is Tukey", which he answers approximately by adding "sometime this week" to it. In theory he could add as many significant digits passed the decimal as he wants to 110 since it will fall within that one week range no matter what. The actual instant that he turns 110 is of little consequence {{unsigned ip|2600:4041:2e5:b900:4331:7a73:2a81:46ae|19:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)}}

The one day difference is probably because of the rules of leap years. Most century years (like 1800, 1900, 2100) do not have a leap year, but 2000 did have a leap year. Leap year placement is done to approximate Earth's ratio of 365.2422 days per year. Oh, wait. Tukey (1915-2000) and Randall (1984-2094) both lived through the 2000 leap year. So it must just be because Randall was born shortly after Feb 29 of 1984, whereas Tukey was born shortly before Feb 29 of 1916. So Tukey would have had 28 leap days vs. Randall's 27 leap days on their 110 year birthdays. [[Special:Contributions/134.134.139.69|134.134.139.69]] 21:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
:I hadn't read this, before I edited in my version of the explanation (and a few more things surrounding it). Yes, it's basically where the "spans of four years" lie within the whole 110 width. Tukey had one soon (within a year) of his 0th birthday and another just in time (just more than a year) before the 110th birthday. It'd work the same for any year-span that started on the same day on any similar ''Y mod 4'' type of year (1915, also 1911 or 1924), so long as you didn't let the range start before 1900 or finish later than 2100. It gives the same result for 1918+-4n, too, for the same 16th June date in other respects. But shift to the same date in 1916(+-4n) or 1917(+-4n), and it traverses one less leap-day. You can move the date around, of course. If you keep it the right side of the the last/Feb->1st/Mar boundary, as you do for Randall's DOB, then it's still faithfull (1984=1916+4n, where n=17). If you jump back into January or February, it'll become an honourary member of the prior year's thing, but not applicable.
:Anyway, Randall's Leap-pattern is two years adrift from Tukeys, which guarantees that his leap-day-count is one different. One way or another. (A one-year mod-difference would half the time be "in the same pairing" and the other half be "in the other pairing".)
:Though that only applies for relative ranges that are both entirely within-and-inclusive of 1/Mar/1900 to 28/Feb/2100. You'd have to add another Zeller-like term to the [Y mod 4] thing to 'adjust' if you went further out, and may be able to find two year-ranges that had daycounts ''two'' different from each other, I guess, as well as ones that might be the same even though being on mod4+2... But I leave that as an excercise to data-divers wanting to go beyond merely the two indidividuals that the comic specifies. (And don't forget the Julian-to-Gregorian conversion scheme/timing, if you start to encroach upon dates that (for a given locale) are further complicated by a 10-13 day (2, 3, 0 or 1) mod-shuffle. Not including those (e.g. Lithuania, etc) who jumped back out to Julian 'temporarily' again, just to [[2867: DateTime|further complicate matters]]. Ignoring any possibility of the non-400-year manifestation of the 100-year glitch that would warrant a minor additional detail) [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228|92.23.2.228]] 23:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Note that this is not saying 110,000 (1.1e5) years, but 110.000 (1.1e2), which is in fact the correct number of years. The value has three digits after the decimal point to imply sub-year precision, which is seldom meaningful with birthdays. [[Special:Contributions/2403:5803:BF48:0:0:0:0:1|2403:5803:BF48:0:0:0:0:1]] 21:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
:0.001 years is about 8 hours, so you do need that many digits to be precise to the day. But then he approximates with "sometime this week" -- a week is about 0.02 years. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Wow 🤯 [[no name|no name]] 02:00, 19 June 2025 (CEST)

One day younger, but exactly the same age in sidereal years (or epochal seconds). [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 01:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

For a moment there I thought that 110.000 was a binary number, chunked every three digits to make it easier to convert to octal. But the number comes to 48 decimal (60 octal), which is clearly not enough for Tukey's age! --[[User:Itub|Itub]] ([[User talk:Itub|talk]]) 11:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Tukey gave us a bit of weird nomenclature for mathematical constructs, such as a cepstrum of quefencies. He caused consternation for editors and proofreaders. (My spell-check thingee wants cepstrum to be strumpet, but I shan't change it.) [[Special:Contributions/173.188.194.66|173.188.194.66]] 13:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Two persons born the same day can have an age difference of almost 50 hours, if person A was born at 0:00 on {{w|Line Islands}} and person B at 23:59:59 on {{w|Howland Island}} or {{w|Baker Island}} (the latter two are currently uninhabited, however). Yes, measuring time of birth with second precision is debatable ... --[[Special:Contributions/134.102.219.31|134.102.219.31]] 14:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
: Or if one of them was accelerated to close to the speed of light for a sufficiently long journey. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 15:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
:Arbitrarily close (possibly up to Planck time) to 50 hours (180,000 s). If B were born 1 qs (10−30 s, i. e. a nonillionth of a second) before the next day on any of these islands, that is a distance of 179,999.999999999999999999999999999999 s (but again, measuring time of birth with this precision is probably impossible to say the least, but anything beyond second (maybe .1 second) precision has outstandingly high probability of being perfectly capable to identify 1 person). A Planck time is c. 5.3×10−44 s. If someone were born exactly (up to a distance of ''t''P) on midnight, one may have some trouble to determine which day the birthday is. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 20:18, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
One of my favourite XKCD comics yet [[no name|no name]] 19:35, 19 June 2025 (EST)

I'm having trouble parsing that Tukey quote. What can always be made more precise? [[Special:Contributions/155.190.35.5|155.190.35.5]] 14:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
:At it's core "It is far better to have 'an approximate answer to the right question' than 'an exact answer to the wrong question'."
:The former is being said to be often vague (given that we already know "the answer" is approximate, I'm reading that as "the question"). It is suggested that the latter can always be made made more precise (similarly, by my reading it's not the answer, which is already exact, but the question, which was wrong).
:But noting that "precise" and "exact" don't necessarily mean the same thing. Compare precision and accuracy (or possibly vice-versa). It'd be nice to know the surrounding context, as per the speaker's field and conventional use of language, to narrow down what is supposed to mean what... assuming I'm even asking the right question in the first place! [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228|92.23.2.228]] 17:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3184: Funny Numbers

2025-12-23T16:30:36Z

2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727:

It should be"The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy". {{unsigned ip|2001:5a8:60da:3300:c94a:564:dc6d:d811|05:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)}}
: In response to above unsigned post: fixed! You could've edited it too :) [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 05:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:: In response to your response: post marked as unsigned! You could've done that too ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 11:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

this is crazy [[User:Qwertyuiopfromdefly|Qwertyuiopfromdefly]] ([[User talk:Qwertyuiopfromdefly|talk]]) 06:08, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:67 in Numberphile... now in xkcd... very sad (maybe they are related? on YouTube, Numberphile released 12 hours ago, which may be too close, but I don't know if they do Patreon or something) [[User:R128|R128]] ([[User talk:R128|talk]]) 09:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
::Ya all are way too sad about something this inconsequential. As xkcd rightly notices the so-called brainrot is just rebranding of equally dumb memes of yesteryear with the main difference being that you grew up with one and not the other. Decently funny strip overall. [[Special:Contributions/206.245.134.17|206.245.134.17]] 11:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
::For one: it is the 19th prime, and 19 is the 8th prime. Also, its digit sum is 13, which is the 6th prime. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 16:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Bad comic, Randall. Put it back. [[Special:Contributions/47.141.37.161|47.141.37.161]] 06:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:It's called depublishing. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 16:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
"If you have to ask, you're not old enough yet," is there like, some kind of comprehensive guide to sex and sexuality I was supposed to receive on my 18th birthday or something? All I got was 18 $1 scratch tickets. [[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 08:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:For that matter, maybe your sense of humor is finally old enough to not amount to "haha sex funny". Incidentally appropriate IP, by the way. [[Special:Contributions/206.245.134.17|206.245.134.17]] 09:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:I admit I was trying to be cute, I fully expected someone to "correct" it. It was reminiscent of the analogous question in the Baker House Purity Test (which I'll also admit I didn't get at the time). https://www.mit.edu/~iggy/Amusements/Purity_andnerd_tests/pure.baker.male [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I observe that the explanation leaves [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6-7_meme 67] off the list of numbers... (it has no real meaning, just a fun thing the kids do to each other and enjoy the adults being confused about) (And now I feel stoopid for not noticing the big link at the very top — but still think it should be in the list.) [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 08:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:=-1. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 16:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
I daresay no Robert Anton Wilson clone will immortalize "6 7" in 100 years on. Todays memes have a half-life measured in milliseconds. I say that without assessment. Only observing. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:307A:46A3:7D5E:A7C0|2A02:2455:1960:4000:307A:46A3:7D5E:A7C0]] 10:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

<blockquote>69 -- if you have to ask, you're not old enough.</blockquote>
Information technology archeologist in the 31st century, sobbing: "I am 374 years old. How much longer?"[[Special:Contributions/109.43.49.174|109.43.49.174]] 11:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:Apparently, that meme is old enough not to have the several milliseconds of half-life (or if it does, it's dilated well to years, for I sometimes do see things with the "69 is funny" appearing). Unless "not old enough" refers to "born [chronologically] too late (i. e. too far from the Big Bang)". [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 16:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
While I do accredit the audacity to keep the humor in the explanation of 67, the act feels a little unprofessional. It feels like laziness or lack of knowledge, rather than a play on the popularity of the meme across the youth (I have no idea what the meaning behind six-seven is, and have always considered it pure absurd). [[User:Benzaldehyde|Benzaldehyde]] ([[User talk:Benzaldehyde|talk]] 14:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Could someone reorganize the order of the number descriptions? I initially read it as left column down, then right column down, which I think is also chronological. [[User:CreatorOfWorlds|CreatorOfWorlds]] ([[User talk:CreatorOfWorlds|talk]]) 14:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:I'm sure we could ascribe creation-estimates to them all (first being 23, etc, last being 6 7), but I don't see any obvious chronological layout, either row-by-row or column-by-column. 69 ''after'' 42? (Unless we accept the Lewis Carol origin, in which case it should even be before 23.) Calculators (suitable types by at the latest 1957) not until after the necessary hacker/BBS culture (early Internet and/or FIDONet era, with maybe the earliest possible date of 19''67<funny-hand-movements>'')? [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.136|82.132.237.136]] 15:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:On further looking, though I ''suppose'' the list (up until the latest addition, being just now tacked on at the end for simplicity) is definitely ''numerically''-sorted by column-first reading order... Depending upon the sorting algorithm, it'd be interesting to see where 6<space>7 gets shuffled to (and, moreover, how it shuffles anything that now comes after it) in a subsequent year's "list of numbers historically adopted by young people". Could be first, or between 42 and 69. ''Could'' still be last, but tricky to explain that against 23 (with non-numerical parts) being first this time round. Unless typesetting needs trump alphanumeric ordering, too. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.136|82.132.237.136]] 15:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh my a completed transcript already i literally just found out about this comic --[[User:Utdtutyabthsc|Utdtutyabthsc]] ([[User talk:Utdtutyabthsc|talk]]) 15:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3184: Funny Numbers

2025-12-23T16:27:30Z

2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727:

It should be"The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy". {{unsigned ip|2001:5a8:60da:3300:c94a:564:dc6d:d811|05:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)}}
: In response to above unsigned post: fixed! You could've edited it too :) [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 05:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:: In response to your response: post marked as unsigned! You could've done that too ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 11:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

this is crazy [[User:Qwertyuiopfromdefly|Qwertyuiopfromdefly]] ([[User talk:Qwertyuiopfromdefly|talk]]) 06:08, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:67 in Numberphile... now in xkcd... very sad (maybe they are related? on YouTube, Numberphile released 12 hours ago, which may be too close, but I don't know if they do Patreon or something) [[User:R128|R128]] ([[User talk:R128|talk]]) 09:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
::Ya all are way too sad about something this inconsequential. As xkcd rightly notices the so-called brainrot is just rebranding of equally dumb memes of yesteryear with the main difference being that you grew up with one and not the other. Decently funny strip overall. [[Special:Contributions/206.245.134.17|206.245.134.17]] 11:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
::For one: it is the 19th prime, and 19 is the 8th prime. Also, its digit sum is 13, which is the 6th prime. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 16:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Bad comic, Randall. Put it back. [[Special:Contributions/47.141.37.161|47.141.37.161]] 06:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:It's called depublishing. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 16:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
"If you have to ask, you're not old enough yet," is there like, some kind of comprehensive guide to sex and sexuality I was supposed to receive on my 18th birthday or something? All I got was 18 $1 scratch tickets. [[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 08:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:For that matter, maybe your sense of humor is finally old enough to not amount to "haha sex funny". Incidentally appropriate IP, by the way. [[Special:Contributions/206.245.134.17|206.245.134.17]] 09:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:I admit I was trying to be cute, I fully expected someone to "correct" it. It was reminiscent of the analogous question in the Baker House Purity Test (which I'll also admit I didn't get at the time). https://www.mit.edu/~iggy/Amusements/Purity_andnerd_tests/pure.baker.male [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I observe that the explanation leaves [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6-7_meme 67] off the list of numbers... (it has no real meaning, just a fun thing the kids do to each other and enjoy the adults being confused about) (And now I feel stoopid for not noticing the big link at the very top — but still think it should be in the list.) [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 08:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I daresay no Robert Anton Wilson clone will immortalize "6 7" in 100 years on. Todays memes have a half-life measured in milliseconds. I say that without assessment. Only observing. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:307A:46A3:7D5E:A7C0|2A02:2455:1960:4000:307A:46A3:7D5E:A7C0]] 10:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

<blockquote>69 -- if you have to ask, you're not old enough.</blockquote>
Information technology archeologist in the 31st century, sobbing: "I am 374 years old. How much longer?"[[Special:Contributions/109.43.49.174|109.43.49.174]] 11:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

While I do accredit the audacity to keep the humor in the explanation of 67, the act feels a little unprofessional. It feels like laziness or lack of knowledge, rather than a play on the popularity of the meme across the youth (I have no idea what the meaning behind six-seven is, and have always considered it pure absurd). [[User:Benzaldehyde|Benzaldehyde]] ([[User talk:Benzaldehyde|talk]] 14:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Could someone reorganize the order of the number descriptions? I initially read it as left column down, then right column down, which I think is also chronological. [[User:CreatorOfWorlds|CreatorOfWorlds]] ([[User talk:CreatorOfWorlds|talk]]) 14:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:I'm sure we could ascribe creation-estimates to them all (first being 23, etc, last being 6 7), but I don't see any obvious chronological layout, either row-by-row or column-by-column. 69 ''after'' 42? (Unless we accept the Lewis Carol origin, in which case it should even be before 23.) Calculators (suitable types by at the latest 1957) not until after the necessary hacker/BBS culture (early Internet and/or FIDONet era, with maybe the earliest possible date of 19''67<funny-hand-movements>'')? [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.136|82.132.237.136]] 15:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:On further looking, though I ''suppose'' the list (up until the latest addition, being just now tacked on at the end for simplicity) is definitely ''numerically''-sorted by column-first reading order... Depending upon the sorting algorithm, it'd be interesting to see where 6<space>7 gets shuffled to (and, moreover, how it shuffles anything that now comes after it) in a subsequent year's "list of numbers historically adopted by young people". Could be first, or between 42 and 69. ''Could'' still be last, but tricky to explain that against 23 (with non-numerical parts) being first this time round. Unless typesetting needs trump alphanumeric ordering, too. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.136|82.132.237.136]] 15:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh my a completed transcript already i literally just found out about this comic --[[User:Utdtutyabthsc|Utdtutyabthsc]] ([[User talk:Utdtutyabthsc|talk]]) 15:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)