explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1116: Traffic Lights

2012-10-08T16:17:15Z

46.142.23.214: /* How in the hell did no one notice this earlier? */

I doubt that this comic carries any deeper meaning. [[Special:Contributions/108.233.253.211|108.233.253.211]] 16:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Traffic signals really are one of the most inscrutable inventions to ever be made. I mean, red means stop, yellow means caution, green means go. Unless you're in a turn lane, which means you have to watch for the green arrow, if there is one, or wait for an opening. Unless you're turning right, which is permitted to turn at any time providing there aren't any cars. Unless there's a sign that says "No Right Turn On Red". There's also the crazy cities that have special right turn lights. Then there's the intersections that have a sign for each lane telling what can and cannot be done. Or, if you're really lucky one of those intersections that has the LED screen that dynamically changes what the lane can and cannot do. And to top it all off, the Colorado Department of Transportation (as well as a few other states I'm sure) are testing out a 4-stage left turn light to increase the safety of drivers. [https://www.auroragov.org/cs/groups/public/documents/document/003604.pdf] Yes, you read that pamphlet correctly. There is a special 4th light, just to blink yellow, because you couldn't just make the yellow light blink, like it does anyway after 9pm. No. There has to be a whole special light that indicates when a left-turn-er must use special caution to turn.

: Note that New York City doesn't allow right turns on red, unless a sign is posted that says otherwise. I suppose this helps reduce the incidence of pedestrians being run into/over. You might also think it helps keep vehicles out of crosswalks, but it doesn't. [[User:CityZen|CityZen]] ([[User talk:CityZen|talk]]) 01:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I'm done driving. Bring on the self-driving cars, people are officially idiots. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
: There is a problem with a blinking yellow arrow. Blinking yellow is already used. It means you have the right of way, but the other direction may proceed as well. What is wanted here is blinking red, which means that you stop, but may proceed, as someone else has the right of way. As for adding a fourth light, this just confuses things even more, particularly with respect to color blind individuals. Having said that, Virginia's variant is to have lights with both left arrows and solid greens. If it is green arrow, you have the right of way, while solid green means the other direction also has a green. There is almost always a sign reading "left turn yield on <solid-green-circle>" [[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 18:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

::so the blinking yellow left arrow generally means the same as a round green light - you can go when it's clear, but the opposite traffic has a green light too. I love this idea because a lot of the time where there is a separate left-turn signal, there are advanced lefts for both ways, and then left turners get a red left arrow and have to stop while people going straight get a green - so even where there's no oncoming traffic, you can't turn. this way, you just lose your "advance" status and go back to the regular rule of "turn if you can, otherwise you end up turning as the lights go yellow"

::I think what Lcarsos is pointing out if you check the PDF link, is that the new left-turn lane has 4 lights, all of which are left-arrow shaped. Thus, his point is why couldn't they make the 2nd light (yellow left arrow) blink, instead of installing a third light which is also a yellow left arrow whose job is to blink?

::I can think of a few possible reasons - first, perhaps an all-blinking light has different bulbs which are more efficient for blinking and won't burn out as much; second, because they want to distinguish between the two lights more strongly (i.e. if you glance over between blinks, you don't have to wait a moment to see if it will blink - if you see the 3rd light up, you know it's going to blink without waiting for it to actually blink); similarly, I suppose there could be colour blindness issues where they want to make it clear which light is which.

::PS: Right on Red is more common in north america than other places, but even here there are a few exceptions that do not allow right turns on red lights. New York City is one. Montreal is another. Most of Mexio is a third. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 21:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

:From the first traffic light in London 1868 until standardization in the 1920s people tried out many crazy lights (see http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/T-VT.1970.23426) including---literally---bells and whistles to announce changes. It seems this phase is still not really over.[[Special:Contributions/134.169.34.172|134.169.34.172]] 10:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... not one to do the actual analysis, I still wonder whether there could be some message encoded in the pattern of lights -- in binary ASCII, baudot, Morse, or something. Hmm... [[Special:Contributions/208.54.40.227|208.54.40.227]] 19:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

=== Red and yellow ===

In Poland you can sometimes stumble upon '''red and yellow''' -- while yellow alone means that there shortly would be a red, and you can proceed if you are at or almost at crossing, but stop otherwise, red and yellow is to mean that there shortly would be green (go), and to prepare oneself. But it is quite rare. [[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 06:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

:In Germany all traffic lights behave this way. [[User:Joha.ma|Joha.ma]] ([[User talk:Joha.ma|talk]]) 07:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

::At least some lights in Czech behave this way too. -- [[Special:Contributions/89.177.52.2|89.177.52.2]] 08:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the way ALL UK lights behave.

In Brazil some cities have greens and red in a row, and they decrease to indicate how long the green or red will last. something like http://www.guiasjp.com/fotos_noticias/foto_1165344648.8822.jpg [[Special:Contributions/189.125.162.182|189.125.162.182]] 20:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
In BRazil too, in Goiânia there's a nice one here for pedestrians, with leds, that show an animated pedestrian walking and when the time is running out HE RUNS FASTER! Like, it's about to go green for the cars, but feel free to cross... IF YOU'RE FAST!

== Obvious ==

It's how traffic engineers troll you when you are going the wrong way on a one-way. Learn to read signs!

== How in the hell did no one notice this earlier? ==

This comic has some tongue in cheek self reference to [[277: Long Light]]. #Meta And definite trolling, by [[Randall]]

:What about [[781: Ahead Stop]]?

== Turing Machine? ==

Any chance it is one?

== Etc ==

I was almost expected to see the Konami code in the left light, though I'm not sure how "B A Start" would have been shown. [[User:CityZen|CityZen]] ([[User talk:CityZen|talk]]) 01:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1117: My Sky

2012-10-08T16:06:52Z

46.142.23.214:

I wonder if the "It's not the same color as anything" line is a reference to Microsoft's cloud service which is named "Azure". "Azure" in conventional speech, is a color. Properly, is a shade of Sky Blue. However, the HTML color Azure is incorrect (propagated from an error in the Linux source code), and is set to a shade of Off-White, coincidentally making it the color of clouds. [[User:jamescurran|James Curran]]

:Any reference to that? Specifically the Linux and Microsoft connection? #F0FFFF does looks blue to me ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

::#F0FFFF is really very light cyan: White with a little of Red removed. How it is actually perceived depends of a number of factors like screen calibration, printer calibration, colors and paper used, and - last, but not least - the eye of the beholder. --[[Special:Contributions/46.142.23.214|46.142.23.214]] 16:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC) madd

Why was the comment taken out about how "WOW" upside down is "MOM"? I thought it was incredibly clever. http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1117:_My_Sky&oldid=13991 [[User:Jillysky|Jillysky]] ([[User talk:Jillysky|talk]]) 19:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
:No worries. I just added it back. [[User:Mgh|Mgh]] ([[User talk:Mgh|talk]]) 14:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Jeff suggested that I post it again down here, to see if anyone knew why it was removed.

An alternate explanation for the Title Text is that, if he was hanging upside-down from the earth, then Randall's actual first word would have been "Mom!".

--[[User:Carlneely|Carlneely]] ([[User talk:Carlneely|talk]]) 20:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

*Well you'd have to flip over the exclamation mark, too (all or nothing). "iMom". [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 02:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I do think that was the point of the title text. The current "explanation" on this part in place is hardly an explanation, as all it does is define "wow". As this (and 1115) have been about perspective on the sky, that would explain it. And the most common word word is "mom," after all. [[User:Bobidou23|Bobidou23]] ([[User talk:Bobidou23|talk]]) 22:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

*I think it should go back up. Nobody *says* "exclamation point", and wow->mom is very much in line with Randall's type of sneakiness. Almost nothing he does is ever on accident or by chance, and since "mom" is definitely one of the top baby words... Put it back up, Carlneely. You have the right, and even the first page says nothing is set in stone. If someone disagrees with it, too bad for them. [[User:Jillysky|Jillysky]] ([[User talk:Jillysky|talk]]) 17:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

::For this comic, the title text doesn't seem to be a statement from Beret Guy. Beret Guy usually expresses his feelings in a more abstract way. On the other hand, recently, Randall has been posting many inspirational comics, that are awe-inspiring about the world, so it makes sense that a direct awe-inspired comment would be from him. In the comic, by the time Beret Guy says "wow" he standing "upright" again. The title text doesn't say that he was upside-down, just looking at the sky. Being horizontal doesn't count as being upside-down. Now, if the title text said that he was doing hand-stands, and said wow, absolutely, then the wow-mom joke would work. On a more technical note, it is not a right to edit a wiki, it is a privilege, and other editors have the privilege to go back and edit your work. Let's not {{w|feature creep|feature-creep}} the definition of the word 'right'. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 20:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

::: He doesn't need to be doing a handstand; these two comics are about perspectives, right? If the image of his saying "mom" were depicted as in the first panel here (i.e. with the earth towards the top), if would be "wow", wouldn't it? And the profound statement also works, but isn't a double meaning plausible? — Comment by [[User:Bobidou23|Bobidou23]] ([[User talk:Bobidou23|talk]]) ''(please sign your comments)''

::::I'm not arguing that there are different perspectives in these two comics. I'm saying that you can't attribute a statement made by one character, to the actions of another. Beret Guy is the one upside-down, Randall is the one saying "wow" with a reference to his mother. If you have a gluten intolerance, it does not mean that your cousin will throw up after eating a slice of bread, that is a logical fallacy, it's a version of {{w|post hoc ergo propter hoc}}. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 02:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

:Explanations do not need to be wordy to be complete. Being overly wordy is the sign that you are trying too hard, and probably missing the point. That said, this is a wiki, anyone can edit the explanation as they wish to. Sometimes it may spark an edit war, but if you think the explanation is insufficient, if someone who came here for help in understanding this joke still wouldn't get it, then please, flesh out the explanation. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 20:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting to me that Beret Guy's head and beret both appear to be transparent except for their outlines. [[User:Erenan|Erenan]] ([[User talk:Erenan|talk]]) 15:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1117: My Sky

2012-10-08T16:05:41Z

46.142.23.214:

I wonder if the "It's not the same color as anything" line is a reference to Microsoft's cloud service which is named "Azure". "Azure" in conventional speech, is a color. Properly, is a shade of Sky Blue. However, the HTML color Azure is incorrect (propagated from an error in the Linux source code), and is set to a shade of Off-White, coincidentally making it the color of clouds. [[User:jamescurran|James Curran]]

:Any reference to that? Specifically the Linux and Microsoft connection? #F0FFFF does looks blue to me ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::#F0FFFF is really very light cyan: White with a little of Red removed. How it is actually perceived depends of a number of factors like screen calibration, printer calibration, colors and paper used, and - last, but not least - the eye of the beholder. --[[Special:Contributions/46.142.23.214|46.142.23.214]] 16:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC) madd

Why was the comment taken out about how "WOW" upside down is "MOM"? I thought it was incredibly clever. http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1117:_My_Sky&oldid=13991 [[User:Jillysky|Jillysky]] ([[User talk:Jillysky|talk]]) 19:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
:No worries. I just added it back. [[User:Mgh|Mgh]] ([[User talk:Mgh|talk]]) 14:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Jeff suggested that I post it again down here, to see if anyone knew why it was removed.

An alternate explanation for the Title Text is that, if he was hanging upside-down from the earth, then Randall's actual first word would have been "Mom!".

--[[User:Carlneely|Carlneely]] ([[User talk:Carlneely|talk]]) 20:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

*Well you'd have to flip over the exclamation mark, too (all or nothing). "iMom". [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 02:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I do think that was the point of the title text. The current "explanation" on this part in place is hardly an explanation, as all it does is define "wow". As this (and 1115) have been about perspective on the sky, that would explain it. And the most common word word is "mom," after all. [[User:Bobidou23|Bobidou23]] ([[User talk:Bobidou23|talk]]) 22:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

*I think it should go back up. Nobody *says* "exclamation point", and wow->mom is very much in line with Randall's type of sneakiness. Almost nothing he does is ever on accident or by chance, and since "mom" is definitely one of the top baby words... Put it back up, Carlneely. You have the right, and even the first page says nothing is set in stone. If someone disagrees with it, too bad for them. [[User:Jillysky|Jillysky]] ([[User talk:Jillysky|talk]]) 17:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

::For this comic, the title text doesn't seem to be a statement from Beret Guy. Beret Guy usually expresses his feelings in a more abstract way. On the other hand, recently, Randall has been posting many inspirational comics, that are awe-inspiring about the world, so it makes sense that a direct awe-inspired comment would be from him. In the comic, by the time Beret Guy says "wow" he standing "upright" again. The title text doesn't say that he was upside-down, just looking at the sky. Being horizontal doesn't count as being upside-down. Now, if the title text said that he was doing hand-stands, and said wow, absolutely, then the wow-mom joke would work. On a more technical note, it is not a right to edit a wiki, it is a privilege, and other editors have the privilege to go back and edit your work. Let's not {{w|feature creep|feature-creep}} the definition of the word 'right'. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 20:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

::: He doesn't need to be doing a handstand; these two comics are about perspectives, right? If the image of his saying "mom" were depicted as in the first panel here (i.e. with the earth towards the top), if would be "wow", wouldn't it? And the profound statement also works, but isn't a double meaning plausible? — Comment by [[User:Bobidou23|Bobidou23]] ([[User talk:Bobidou23|talk]]) ''(please sign your comments)''

::::I'm not arguing that there are different perspectives in these two comics. I'm saying that you can't attribute a statement made by one character, to the actions of another. Beret Guy is the one upside-down, Randall is the one saying "wow" with a reference to his mother. If you have a gluten intolerance, it does not mean that your cousin will throw up after eating a slice of bread, that is a logical fallacy, it's a version of {{w|post hoc ergo propter hoc}}. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 02:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

:Explanations do not need to be wordy to be complete. Being overly wordy is the sign that you are trying too hard, and probably missing the point. That said, this is a wiki, anyone can edit the explanation as they wish to. Sometimes it may spark an edit war, but if you think the explanation is insufficient, if someone who came here for help in understanding this joke still wouldn't get it, then please, flesh out the explanation. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 20:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting to me that Beret Guy's head and beret both appear to be transparent except for their outlines. [[User:Erenan|Erenan]] ([[User talk:Erenan|talk]]) 15:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)