explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2583: Chorded Keyboard

2025-08-30T22:09:58Z

47.218.100.209:

Why is it H+<Left> rather than H+<Right>? [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 03:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
:Probably for the rhyme with "Shift" in the previous verse. In terms of practicality, though, I agree — <Right> would make more sense for a real keychord. {{unsigned ip|108.162.246.154}}
::A pity Shift and Left don't rhyme very well. But then neither do Chord and Word. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.79|172.70.85.79]] 03:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
::It works if you're from New Zealand. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.16|162.158.111.16]] 10:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
::Wow, I totally missed that {{w|near rhyme}}. It's not quite so bad if you sing it, though. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 03:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
::: Eh, {{w|Tom Lehrer}}'s certainly done much worse slant rhymes. -- [[User:KarMann|KarMann]] ([[User talk:KarMann|talk]]) 03:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
::Sadly, too, there was the opportunity for "The other hand, hits H and ''lift.''" Alas. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 04:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
::I don't know about other people, but I can reach H+<Left> on my keyboard with the index finger and pinky of my right hand, but H+<Right> requires thumb and pinky and doing something terribly awkward with my wrist. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.161|172.70.110.161]] 06:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
:::Interesting to note that in vi, the '''H''' key ''is'' left. [[User:Dansiman|Dansiman]] ([[User talk:Dansiman|talk]]) 23:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
::I added some (necessary?) additional contextualising of how it mirrors the original song, consider it a bridge/middle-eight, so that those who still don't quite get that bit of popular culture get a bit more of the idea than before.
::In the process I made an executive decision to comment about the rhyming (or not) along the way.
::...but I strayed into 'Cueball's Computer Problems' territory, and then noticed (sorry, missed it before diving in) that it's mentioned again (but chronologically before!) at the the end of the explanation. I'm not quite sure how to remove the redundancy. The lyrical trailing-off really needs to mention this, I feel, but removing repetitions from the other person's text will need extra thought too. If someone gets in there before I do and modifies either/both of the sections nicely then that'll be Ok, but I'll try to revisit it myself (and {{wiktionary|kill_one%27s_darlings|'kill my darlings'}} if necessary) if nobody else sees fit to in my stead. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.22|172.70.86.22]] 19:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
:presumably he programmed his keyboard to use chord-logic for ALL common words.... if he has ctrl, alt, shift, and at least two special function keys, such as win and alt-gr.... that's 2^5=32 possible signal combinations from function keys. if he uses the 8 direction keys on the numeric keypad, that's 32*8= 256 possibilities for command modifiers to each letter. So, in theory, he could program in an unique combination of key strokes that chooses between the 256 most common words that begin with each letter, totaling 6656 possible words that can by typed using chording. The combination that results in "hallelujah" just happens to be ctrl-shift-h-left. hopefully there's a graphical prompt which shows you the 8 possible current words to choose from, given the most recent combination of function keys and a given letter.
::I happen to know that if you're typing in Japanese phonetic letters using MS Word, there are actually so many homonym words which have different logographic symbols, and different meanings, but which all SOUND the same, and thus are phonetically TYPED the same, that's it actually NORMAL for Word to list a pop-up context menu with the top-8 word choices you might have just meant to enter, and require you to select one before continuing. and then it swaps out the correct logograph symbol for the phonetic symbols you just typed. I don't think it uses the numpad directional arrows to make the choice, but honestly, it would be a lot more user-friendly if it did.... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.170|162.158.74.170]] 05:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it steganography? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.41|108.162.237.41]] 04:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
:Stenography* [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.239|198.41.242.239]] 19:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
:Stenotype actually (though they use special typing machines, but there's software to use any keyboard for stenotype). It's been a cornerstone of court reporting and live captioning for over a century, and it doesn't seem to be replaced anytime soon by transcription "AI", given how horrible it still is. I'm surprised it's not been mentioned in the article.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.190.113|162.158.190.113]] 12:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
:it is most likely not stenography. the keys are usually much more ergonomic than the comic describes. [[Special:Contributions/47.218.100.209|47.218.100.209]] 22:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Ironically, having considerable knowledge of one of those covers of the song can lead to more confusion than less familiarity with any of them. My wife was recently moderately obsessed with Rufus Wainwright, including his cover of 'Hallelujah'. So when I read this comic, I didn't catch on until most of the way through what other Randall was up to. But when she read it, she caught on in the first line, and yet, didn't get the title text at all until I explained it to her (having compared some versions overnight before then), since that line isn't included in Rufus' version. No particular point here, just, well, 'Talk'. -- [[User:KarMann|KarMann]] ([[User talk:KarMann|talk]]) 01:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone recorded a cover with these lyrics yet? I had kind of assumed that would happen soon after this was posted. --[[User:Sensorfire|Sensorfire]] ([[User talk:Sensorfire|talk]]) 04:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Kind of disappointed that the explanation isn't itself written in verse form after Hallelujah. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.73|172.70.85.73]] 11:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

;Control Shift H
https://defkey.com/what-means/ctrl-shift-h shows the shortcut action in 113 programs. (Who knew there was a website devoted to keyboard shortcuts?) In Firefox, it shows your history as soon has you hit the H. (I like to think that Randall uses good ol' open source Firefox.) Your history will show the current XKCD page first, of course, but that listing does not include the word "HALLELUJAH." The next keydown is interpreted as a separate keystroke. Nothing interesting happens with the 8 permutations of Ctrl-Shift (up or down) and (left arrow, numpad left, left tab, backspace). I was kinda hoping that Mozilla had secretly conspired to tweak this keystroke combination in the last update. In short, I have nothing to add to the explanation, but not for lack of trying. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.187|108.162.219.187]] 23:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC) (This is my first explainxkcd comment. I'll properly sign up before I comment again.)

We can add a javascript snippet that captures this keychord and shows "Hallelujah" on this website, right :P
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.188.81|172.70.188.81]] 04:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting that the strip is "technically incorrect" in two ways, in order to make the song work. Firstly, while key-combos are often referred to as "chords", when they are user-configured they are typically called "macros" instead... but that would break the joke. Secondly, *Corded keyboards* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorded_keyboard) are a very, very different thing to "perfectly normal keyboard hardware connected to a system where someone has set up macros". A corded keyboard would not typically have any of the keys described in the strip: they normally have a half-dozen keys or less, though some exist with two or three rows of about four keys.

Also, the current explanation is incorrect both in that macroing is in any way a thing of the past, and also that it is always application-level. Things like AutoHotKey (windows), BetterTouchTool (mac), AutoKey and IronAHK (Linux) etc permit system-level macroing, so that the key-combo can inject the word hallelujah into whichever application currently has keyboard focus, typos can be automatically fixed, etc. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.162|108.162.238.162]] 16:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

: To be clear, the closest thing that exists to any kind of special keyboard hardware required to support chords/macros is a keyboard with *N-key rollover* ({{w|Rollover (keyboard)}}) ... but this would not be required for the chord described in the strip. There are also gaming keyboards which have additional keys (eg Logitech's with extra "G keys") which allow you to map macros to those extra keys using custom keyboard driver software... but this is explicitly there to prevent you needing to chord to fire a macro. Neither of these are called "chorded keyboards", either. Fairly sure Randal would know all this and was just stretching facts to fit the joke. It'll be interesting to see if his alternative meaning for "chorded keyboard" becomes popular after this strip. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.130|162.158.187.130]] 16:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

'''Randall is not a millennial''' (& popularization of the interface hacks described, pre-dates millennials), so I have changed the first occurrence to read "gen-X", & corrected the past-tense phrasing farther down, to allow for modern usage (especially since alternative keyboards are ''more'' widely known\used now, than in the past). Randall has even done comics about this obnoxiously persistent & utility-reducing shift in terminology around "millennials": ''Not everyone born after the "baby boom" generation is a millennial!'' There were ''two'' generations in between. Regardless, common usage persistently shifts toward calling everyone since the Baby Boomers a "Millennial". In point of fact, many (or most?) of the social phenomena commonly associated with millenials, were well established over a decade before the millennium ("meme" image captions, digital nativism, eschewing traditional career & transportation modes, et cetera). Unfortunately, because the generation subsequent to the baby boom was comparatively so small, they are largely insignificant in terms of marketing & finance. (Gen-X also happen to have the lowest average income of any living generation.) Hence, everything post-BabyBoom tends to be attributed to "millennials", because ''actual'' millennials are the first generations since the baby boom, to comprise a population segment too large to be marginalized. <br />
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
:(Moreover:)
:In reality, increased interaction between age groups has largely erased any clear "generational" segmentation in behavior, rendering useless the entire concept of distinctly divided "generations": Age is an increasingly poor indicator of social set, & there is no globally consistent swell & decay cycle in birth rates, to produce meaningful points of demarcation between clusters. In other words, while age may ''sometimes'' still provide statistically useful clues toward an individual's behavior, there is no longer any clear dividing line between age groups over time. More practical & applicable to any year, are terms such as "teens" (13-19), "young adults" (<35), "middle aged", & "geriatric". Terms defining a "generation" by arbitrary decade rollovers, are increasingly disinformative & constitute poor set optimization.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
::Actually... Randall is a millennial. I won't revert the change as I find these generational categories silly and don't see how mentioning it adds anything to the (already very bloated) explanation but general consensus (i.e. wikipedia) is, that the term "Millennial" describes those born between 1981 and 1996. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials Randall was born in 1984. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the phrase "millenial". I meant like the 80s and 90s but didn't know the right term. I'm surprised that the link to the section of the wikipedia showing open source hacker keyboards like the one randall depicts was changed back, dunno. It would be cool to link the image in from that article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorded_keyboard#/media/File:Chording_Keyboard.png ) or any other image. The current wording of the article added some inclusion around GUI operating systems, maybe like Windows, which is great, but do they have the level of customisation that linux and emacs hackers enjoy? When you code it yourself you can make arbitrarily large chords. It's been a long time since I've customised a GUI OS, so I'm imagining things have changed and you could somehow set up a homebrew chorded keyboard on windows or osx as well nowadays. It's certainly gotten _harder_ on linux, where things are much less barebones than they used to be. Probably a software package for all the environments somewhere. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.99|172.70.114.99]] 22:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
:"I'm surprised that the link to the section of the wikipedia showing open source hacker keyboards like the one randall depicts was changed back"... I did that. The link was for Chorded Keyboards, not for specificall the open-source ones. The reader who follows your link would have to scroll up to find out what a chorded keyboard ''was'', and might be excused for imaginging there was no relevence to the next section down about Commercial Devices was also not being possibly referenced.
:As pointed out, it appears that it was a lyrical thing, and it was a standard keyboard with various settings, but at the point of the link it was explaining the principle of any chorded keyboard, like a Braille-writer...
:...which, incidentally, does ''not'' do "whole words" with a combination, except if set up that way through optional configuration, much as Cueball has done for his regular-seeming non-chorded keyboard, but is calling a "chord".
:(I personally often set up many shortcuts on my Windows machines. I seem to be able to use Ctrl-Shift-Alt-<character> with impunity to launch many programmes or other features, because there are virtually no situations in which my four-fingered-salute would be something another program with keyboard-focus is likely to misinterpret as being an instruction built into it. Generally that's a mnemonic <character> to the thing I want to speed-launch, but I have occasionally used a cursor. I must admit I have never tried to hack a two-meta-two-'normal' key thing, so not sure whether I need to use something a bit more interesting than inbuilt Windows functionality for that. Will check next time I'm back on an MS OS. And I've never used it to speed-type things, which would need me to call something I've written/appropriated that does a configurable buffer-dump.)
:Anyway, I see in you a fellow verbose individual, like I'm striving (and failing) not to be. Welcome, if you're new to this site! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.121|172.70.90.121]] 01:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Based on prior discussion about Milennial vs Generation-X, I think the solution is to go with the Xennial term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xennials. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.69|162.158.146.69]] 23:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
:I already thought, when the whole age-group-of-Randall was first brought up, that it was an unnecessary commentary. It's Cueball, who could be anybody of whatever age you want across a whole swathe of Gen-X and onwards. If I were of a mood to editorialise it to my own tastes I'd just put it back to "this is something that certain technically-minded people do" (to paraphrase, without looking up if it was written as hackers/geeks/whatever).
:The bit about "and his original audience" just confuses me. Is this a message to the far future when people like me (not a customised-keyboard user, but been reading xkcd almost from the beginning, so 'original' to that extent) are dead and gone? Or out virtually picketting the Metaverse so we no longer have time to keep up with CyberRandall 2.0's output anymore? It's a messy paragraph that seems to have something of an agenda behind it, not just simple explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.113|172.70.85.113]] 00:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
:: Agree. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 13:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

New user here, apologies if formatting inadequate - just wanted to observe that this is not the first XKCD to reference Cohen's secret chord song, it's also in the background of XKCD 1234 "Douglas Engelbart 1925-2013. Chris [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.85|162.158.159.85]] 08:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This comic seems to have sparked a brief but bloody editing war over the efficiency of dvorak and qwerty, that issue raising its hoary head once more. It was funny to watch in real time. [[User:Requiscant|Requiscant]] ([[User talk:Requiscant|talk]]) 09:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Does the title text imply that a fatal accident occured due to a misconfigured keyboard?
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.41|141.101.76.41]] 14:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

If I remembered correctly, then the "1" key is supposed to type an entire word on a standard Cherokee keyboard, which can also be considered "Chorded". [[User:ColorfulGalaxy|ColorfulGalaxy]] ([[User talk:ColorfulGalaxy|talk]]) 10:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Nowadays it's possible that all the keyboard config is happening on the board. Modern firmware like qmk allows you to remap keys, program macros, do chords, have different layers and modifier keys, and more. Especially if you code it all custom, you can have your "keyboard config" be compatible with any system, any OS, and even with limited or no permissions. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.69|162.158.62.69]] 05:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1173: Steroids

2025-08-26T03:08:43Z

47.218.100.209: oaeidd comppunicnegt

Does anyone know what that 'something' is? That's what I came here to find out... :/ --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 11:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:I had a lot of ideas, but I don't know. It might be a molecule, some sort of portal transmitting sound, a star, a future life form.
:--[[User:Jaap-Jan|Jaap-Jan]] ([[User talk:Jaap-Jan|talk]]) 12:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

::My first instinct was that Megan was talking to the asterisk that gets put next to world records held by athletes who have been suspected of using steroids.
::[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:::It looks to me like the God from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal. Though that God would know all about the steroid scandal, presumably. [[Special:Contributions/98.234.113.134|98.234.113.134]] 00:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

::::It's the crystalline life-form from the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Home Soil". When not killing red shirts, it keeps taunting humans that they're "ugly bags of mostly water".[[User:Columbus Admission|Columbus Admission]] ([[User talk:Columbus Admission|talk]]) 00:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::My first association was this "entity of pure energy" from Futurama: http://theinfosphere.org/Energy_being [[Special:Contributions/94.126.74.17|94.126.74.17]] 10:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::It reminded me of the white hole from Diane Duane's "So You Want to be Wizard".

:::::::It's not supposed to be anything. Just some non-human entity that can't grasp the whole steroid scandal in a human way. [[Special:Contributions/195.23.253.48|195.23.253.48]] 12:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::::It does look a lot like [[Wikipedia:Chocky|Chocky]]. --Squiggle^4 {{unsigned ip|108.162.230.113}}

I think the "artificial boundary" isn't so artificial. There is a clear difference between food chemicals, which are healthy for us, vs steroid chemicals, which cause all sorts of health problems. Of course, then Megan would have to explain that we have limited lifespans and we greatly value our quality of life, and these steroids would decrease our quality of life. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 13:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
:So on the one side of this "clear boundary" you'd have something like Big Macs (food, good for us) and on the other you'd have vitamin supplements (non-food chemicals, bad)?

I have wheat allergy and gout. There are commonly available staples that cripple me. I would like to try marijuana oil but am law abiding. On several occasions I have been denied pain killers by arbitrarily chosen nincompoops who would rather believe I am a liar/would be drug abuser rather than suffering pain.

On two occasions I've suffered peritonitis. The last time the bowel blew a fuse through to the outside of my body. That was unpleasant.

Nobody should have the right to deny me what god designed to help me. Not quite on topic but by and large, pretty much the gist of the comic.

Back on topic, I am pleased to note I am not the only person who finds it incredible that grown men can get paid to chase a bladder.[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 12:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

::I think the theory is that things that improve athletic performance but hurt the body should not be allowed. That way, athletes who are willing to sacrifice their health in order to win do not have an advantage over those who are not willing to make such a sacrifice. If people want to eat Big Mac's they are welcome to because it doesn't give them any advantage. Basically, you can put bad stuff into yourself all you want, but not if it gives you a competitive advantage. [[Special:Contributions/74.92.219.153|74.92.219.153]] 17:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Which is good theory except that we have hardly any idea what are long-term effect of most chemicals, not speaking about fact that any chemical which is beneficial in reasonable amount (which we often don't know and it may depend on individual or other condition) is dangerous if you take it too much. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C L-ascorbic acid] is particularly interresting example, as the official recomendation is 90mg per day, but depending on doctor and on situation (like illness or stress level) even 10,000mg may be considered healthy. Another good example is already mentioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone testosterone], which IS actually steroid. Oh yes, and then there is the problem of DETECTING that the athlets are getting those "unnatural" chemicals. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Your argument seems to suggest that just because we can't catch all criminals, or because we don't know the long term effects of people's actions, we should just release convicted murderers. No one ever said the system's perfect. I grant that there are many grey areas, and we can't come close to policing every athlete. I don't think we should stop athletes from taking vitamin C given our current amount of knowledge, but I do think we should try to stop the athletes that are detected to be using chemicals in quantities that are known to be unhealthy in order to gain a competitive advantage.[[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

70.31.159.230 21:45, 18 February 2013 You make a very clear argument for having all your posts reviewed with the idea of erasing them. Since all athletes take drugs except the ones that haven't been caught yet and won't admit it, we must allow all athletes to do as they like and follow them to their graves to see how dementia figures spike for old athletes and when such aberrant data first appeared.
Or does anyone believe that just because they are fit and healthy when young they are automagically stooooopid?[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 17:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

:Like trying to line up all the people in the world and draw a clear line to divide blacks from whites, it's too much of a gradual spectrum to be anything other than arbitrary. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 17:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
::I explained my point very poorly. "Good" performance enhancing chemicals (like healthy foods) tend to also make us more healthy while "bad" performance enhancing chemicals (like steroids) cause all sorts of health problems. Athletes are generally encouraged to take the "good" stuff while avoiding the "bad" stuff. Of course there's a huge grey area in between (including non-performance-enhancing Big Macs), but I think steroids clearly fall outside this grey area. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 19:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
:::|Um, you do realize that the human body itself creates "Steroids"? Which are also in found within the plants and animals that we eat. (Especially soybeans.) Testosterone is supposedly one of these "bad" steroids, which cause many problems for humans. [[Special:Contributions/69.181.140.191|69.181.140.191]] 12:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
::::I suppose my point requires further explanation; devil's advocates will never be satisfied. Testosterone isn't intrinsically "bad" for us (as you mentioned, it is an integral part of our chemistry), but taking significant amounts of it from external sources has been shown to damage our bodies' ability to produce it and/or regulate its levels, among other effects. Hence, taking steroids is bad for us. Compare that with healthy food, which is generally accepted to "increase" our athletic performance (compared with unhealthy food, or no food) without any serious avoidable side effects.
::::However, you do bring up the point of testosterone being present in some things we consider to count as "food". I guess there is a certain amount of testosterone you are allowed to ingest (for these contests) that cause a negligible effect. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 13:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::So it should be permitted to take non-dangerous levels of steroids? Either way, blood doping is the practice of boosting the number of red blood cells in the bloodstream, seems like a difficult argument to make for that to be bad (unless you have too many, but until that point). [[Special:Contributions/67.87.171.116|67.87.171.116]] 07:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::I guess by my logic, it should indeed be permitted to take steroids at a non-dangerous level. It sort of is the way things are; if I take 1 miligram of testosterone a day I don't think anyone would stop me because they couldn't catch me. At such a low level, I doubt it would have an effect on my blood testosterone levels. It gets a lot murkier when you get into the question of "what is the highest amount you should permit?"[[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Blood doping is not the same as steroid use. {{unsigned|‎98.204.81.157}}
:EDIT: I think for the purposes of this discussion, blood doping does have its recognized risks. I guess it's another form of performance enhancement that is difficult to do properly, and can kill you or transmit dangerous diseases if done improperly. Check out the Wikipedia article for more information. I think it should be controlled in the same manner as steroids, not because it's inherently bad, but because it can be difficult to self-regulate for athletes. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel that the title text has a strong Douglas Adams flavour?
And if so, can we make that hard with a quote from one of his books?

:It's a biblical reference, Genesis 3:19, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return", King James version.[[User:Jasqm|Jasqm]] ([[User talk:Jasqm|talk]]) 14:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:D.N.A. has been known to reference the bible:
:-"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people unhappy and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
:-"And then one day, nearly two thousand years after one man was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if people were nice to each other for a change..."
:[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:You're probably thinking of his quotes that reference digital watches and what a big mistake it was to leave the oceans (combined with the scene from the show where the guy walks back into the ocean).[[User:CityZen|CityZen]] ([[User talk:CityZen|talk]]) 21:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:"...questions including, 'Why are are people born?' 'Why do do people die?' and 'Why do they spend so much of the time in between wearing digital watches?'"

:"Most of the people were pretty much unhappy for pretty much most of the time; many solutions have been suggested for this problem, but they mostly involve the movement of small green pieces of paper, which is odd, because on the whole, it wasn't the small green pieces of paper which were unhappy."

Ive said that Douglas Adams write for XKCD for years now...Notice if you change all the letters to their corresponding number (A=1, B=2, etc) and add them, you get 42 ;) [[Special:Contributions/90.205.199.80|90.205.199.80]] 12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
:Yeah, I'm pretty sure we all know that was a coincidence; Randall said so.
:I wrote a quick program to check for four-letter combinations and add their value. I'm assuming (hoping) that I coded correctly and got accurate results (I was using a library that I am unfamiliar with). Of the 26^4 possible letter combinations, 8840 (roughly 2%) will result in a total of 42 (order matters). This comes to 449 different sets of letters (in whatever order) that total 42. The numbers change if we assume Randall would only choose a letter once to be in the title. I'd rewrite the program to count up all combinations that total 4 to 104 for comparison (with and without repetition), but it's after 5am now. [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 10:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Not just a Biblical reference, the comic is published on (western christian) Ash Wednesday... [[User:Patmiller|Patmiller]] ([[User talk:Patmiller|talk]]) 14:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think of Douglas Adams when I read it, I thought of Paul Erdos' definition of a mathematician as a device for turning coffee into theorems. [[User:MGK|MGK]] ([[User talk:MGK|talk]]) 15:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

:That quote was was actually due to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfr%C3%A9d_R%C3%A9nyi Alfréd Rényi]. [[Special:Contributions/203.6.77.2|203.6.77.2]] 07:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

::I've never heard this quote before - thank you both, I love it! ([https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1053:_Ten_Thousand 10,000 Day . . . ]) [[User:L-Space Traveler|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler|talk]]) 14:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That was exactly the thing that crossed my mind when I read it... Spot on! {{unsigned ip|193.105.85.4}}

I've learned that Mr Armstrong is a future hero (Thank you Mr. XKCD). We will need to help out evolution to make us stronger and faster when we need it (sorry Jet pilots of today, you will need to continue enduring those coughing fits until we figure something out). Considering we need to do so by choice, drugs are the only way we know how at this time. Mr. Armstrong was trying to teach us a lesson that if you practice moderation and have will power to put in the work as well (drugs are no pathway toward the easy life), you can overcome any limitation (such as getting over cancer) to become one of the greatest human athletes we have ever known (and yes, I do believe you are both are still as awesome as ever Mr. Armstrong and our teacher Mr. XKCD). -e-inspired [[Special:Contributions/24.51.197.187|24.51.197.187]] 19:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

''The Sphere baffled asks if that is so bad, to which Megan states that this is awful.'' That's not what the sphere said AT ALL. But [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 17:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

My problem with the “controversy” section is that it says that a reason for banning chemical is in cases that they cause harm to the athletes, but wouldn’t that also be a reason to ban most sports entirely? Just look at all the (potentially debilitating) injuries athletes often get (especially football players). [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 14:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

guys, i had this theaoruy that were all just a byprodycut of the second law of thermodynamics,,, like all foreeces can be moddeled as converting potential energy to kinetic energyu,, and you knsow all chemicerola reactions are just minimisezzicng enorerrgy,,, the ungingevere iis trying to go straight from the big bang to the heat deasth, and doeing a bad jjuorg at it (i should probably go to sleep) [[Special:Contributions/47.218.100.209|47.218.100.209]] 03:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)