explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3237: Husband and Wife

2026-06-08T03:21:01Z

47.28.76.207:

As a UKian, the most obvious reference here is Papa Lazarou in The League of Gentlemen. I assume that's not what Randall has in mind though (is LoG even a thing in the US?), and I have no idea what he might be thinking of. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 15:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
:It's in the title text: the movie "Borat". The title character's way of saying "my wife" became an earworm. Google it. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
:: Ah - OK - don't think the title text was appearing when I was initially looking at it. Found it now. Doesn't mean anything to me. Papa Lazarou is still more salient, and ''much'' worse. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 15:46, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
: I immediately thought of Kimura-sensei from Azumanga Daioh. [[Special:Contributions/70.40.121.82|70.40.121.82]] 16:03, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
: Hello Dave! You want to buy some pegs [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:AD6D:1900:643A:9B89:E674:2F22|2A02:C7C:AD6D:1900:643A:9B89:E674:2F22]] 17:42, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
: Ah, you beat me to it. XKCD's been updating quite late in the day recently, so I thought I was safe not checking for a new strip until now - only to find that apparently it's been up for hours, and the ExplainXKCD comments have likewise. Yes, Papa Lazarou was my first thought. "You're my wife now!" :) [[Special:Contributions/50.45.232.78|50.45.232.78]] 20:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does anyone actually use 'my wife/husband'? I've never heard about it before. Is it an American thing or something? [[User:GSLikesCats307|GSLikesCats307]] ([[User talk:GSLikesCats307|talk]]) 18:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
: In the UK it's more normal to use expressions such as "my better half" when talking about your spouse to somebody that doesn't know them, other than in that role [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:AD6D:1900:643A:9B89:E674:2F22|2A02:C7C:AD6D:1900:643A:9B89:E674:2F22]] 17:45, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
::"My better half" can be said with genuine feeling or sarcasm, either way. Then there's "my other half", "(him/her) indoors", occasionally "my spouse", "my partner" (downplays the possibility of there being an actual full marriage/similar), "the first Mrs Surname" (usually for men who think it's funny to joke about a long-time relationship maybe ending one day), "the latest Mrs Surname" (for those, again, as well as any who have gone through that at least once), and "Mr" versions of those last two (on occasions). Also "the old man" (or lady/girl/lass, etc, to suit) and other regional variations. Rhyming slang versions include "the Trouble" (and Strife, ie. 'wife'), "pot" (and pan, 'old man'), even "Danger" (mouse, 'spouse') etc... [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 19:48, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
:::You forgot SWMBO, "She Who Must Be Obeyed" - from an old Edgar Rice Burroughs story, I believe (Edit: I was wrong. It's H. Rider Haggard.), and popularised by Rumpole the defence lawyer in the books/TV show. [[Special:Contributions/50.45.232.78|50.45.232.78]] 20:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
:::: "The good lady/gentleman [insert profession here] indoors" [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:06, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
:::"...''anyone actually use 'my wife/husband'?''" I have been her 'starter husband' for 47 years now. OTOH, I was talking to a contractor and said 'Let's ask my Boss'...' Instantly understood. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 05:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
: To me (an American), the phrases "my husband" and "my wife" are so common and ordinary that I'm surprised to hear someone say they've never heard them before. Out of curiosity, where is it that people ''don't'' say things like "I went to that restaurant with my wife once," and what do they say instead (assuming that the person being spoken to doesn't know the wife's name)? -- [[Special:Contributions/2601:404:C300:8040:7A4A:8D8C:3378:DA33|2601:404:C300:8040:7A4A:8D8C:3378:DA33]] 19:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
:: Same (as an Australian). It's so normal that 1. I can't understand anyone having an issue with it, and 2. I can't think of any other way to refer to them that doesn't sound MUCH weirder. [[Special:Contributions/2400:EC40:1112:6A00:593D:B855:D8E0:1CBE|2400:EC40:1112:6A00:593D:B855:D8E0:1CBE]] 03:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
:::THIS Australian hasn't heard "my wife" or "my husband" for decades. Or even more. "My partner" sometimes, even for hetro couples, and the American usages of "My Husband" for same-sex couples sounds weird, not because they are same sex, just because "My Husband" would be so weird -- maybe at a wedding speech, for a laugh, but just not used for any other purpose. And it's a movie meme: if you want to specifically call attention to your relationship status you say "My Partner", and if you say "My Partner", people think you are specifically calling attention to your relationship status. {{unsigned ip|2001:8003:dc65:7e01:e153:e2bd:89c1:6ef0|01:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)}}
:::"This weird [woman|man] who's been hanging around me for years now despite my best efforts"? [[Special:Contributions/136.226.55.1|136.226.55.1]] 19:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
:: As another UKer, I'm frankly astonished to read about people from this country (or any other English-speaking one) finding these phrases uncommon or outdated. I wouldn't hesitate to use them, and feel like they are used all the time as everyday parts of the language. {{unsigned ip|146.90.102.115|11:19, 27 April 2026}}
: The idea that you have NEVER heard of the phrases "my husband" and "my wife" is so just.....wow. And the implication that this way to refer to your spouse is exclusive to America......truly amazing. Good job. [[User:Pieartsy|Pieartsy]] ([[User talk:Pieartsy|talk]]) 20:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
: Are you a troll or do you not speak English? [[Special:Contributions/47.28.76.207|47.28.76.207]] 03:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Where does it say Megan is concerned with "My" because it's possessive? I think she's just commenting on how fancy and formal it sounds. Also, I don't see how the comic age plays into anything. I do think there is definitely a nod to the ghost in #1108 though. [[Special:Contributions/170.187.32.34|170.187.32.34]] 17:50, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
:I agree, it doesn't seem to be related to the possessive pronoun, but with the title "husband", which is deeply rooted in how traditional heteronormative families are constructed. {{unsigned ip|177.68.176.56|17:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC)}}
::I also strongly doubt this is what concerns Megan. To me it's just the connotations to traditional, since outdated, family values that worries her. (This is probably why in the UK people appear to have stopped using the term, which must be an old thing as my parents who emigrated in the 80s also do it.) {{unsigned ip|109.88.43.61|20:48, 24 April 2026 (UTC)}}

Randall is a young pup. When someone says "my wife", the first thing I thought of wasn't Borat; it was Henny Youngman. [[Special:Contributions/136.226.20.200|136.226.20.200]] 19:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
:Exactly this! I was about to google if he died 20 years ago (I figured it was closer to 40. It's actually 28 years ago in 1998) when I saw the hover text.
:When I hear the phrase "my wife" I always end up finishing it with "Morgan Fairchild ... whom I've slept with" [[Special:Contributions/66.212.184.170|66.212.184.170]] 20:05, 24 April 2026 (UTC)'

There are a few questions about usage. Just to clarify, most (many?) Americans say "''My wife, Alice is... She likes... Alice does....''" Americans tend to say "my wife" *once* in a conversation to make the listener familiar with the relationship. I've known very few people who *never* use the spouse's name, but who consistently say "''My wife is... she likes... My wife does...''". The last person I heard doing it was a xennial from South Africa, maybe 20 years ago. That feels extremely possessive and insecure to me, particularly given that I was friends with his wife. Still, I think the comic is only commenting on one-off usage, not this insecure, possessive usage. I haven't heard any slang for "spouse" ("better half", "ball and chain") from anyone born after 1960. [[Special:Contributions/84.233.216.250|84.233.216.250]] 23:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
: So, out of curiosity from a non-English speaker, what word DO you use in conversations where the name would not be the central issue? For example, the plumber asks you whether he can come on thursday 4 pm, and you say "well, I'll have to ask [isert word] about this, since I'll not be home". --[[Special:Contributions/92.208.67.191|92.208.67.191]] 07:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
:: I would say "my wife/husband/spouse" one time (personally, I prefer common-gender nouns), and then use the appropriate pronoun for the remainder of the exchange. If it's a plumber I see frequently, rather than just once, I might say "my wife/husband/spouse, [name]". but for a one-instance transactional encounter like a cashier, etc., I wouldn't. [[Special:Contributions/191.101.157.22|191.101.157.22]] 13:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Am I in the minority? When referring to spouses, especially the 1st time, I usually say "[your|my|their|the] [Mrs|Mr]" as a noun, not including any surname @ all. Avoids this whole thing neatly, while being utterly clear & a bit ''(intentionally)'' corny. --[[User:TPS|TPS]] ([[User talk:TPS|talk]]) 03:39, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
: Did you mean "not including any ''given'' name" (first name)? "Mr." and "Mrs. are normally followed by the surname (family name). [[Special:Contributions/191.101.157.28|191.101.157.28]] 19:20, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
: Whoops, never mind. I re-read your post. [[Special:Contributions/191.101.157.28|191.101.157.28]] 19:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
I was just around a bunch of colleagues (in America) in social settings (meals, driving around) and "my wife"/"my husband" was used frequently. Not necessarily only once per person per conversation. Though we often *did* throw in the spouses' names in too, for variety. On the question whether Megan was concerned about the possessive or the formality of "husband", it's definitely the latter. Complaining about the supposed possessive is just being dense or juvenile about language. Using the phrase when you're recently married is awkward for almost everyone. [[User:Gvanrossum|Gvanrossum]] ([[User talk:Gvanrossum|talk]]) 03:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

And I feel unaccustomed to call my mom "Mom" while speaking to her [[User:Cream Starlight|Cream S.L.]] ([[User talk:Cream Starlight|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Cream_Starlight|contribs]]) 04:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

This comic is *very nice* [[Special:Contributions/99.10.82.184|99.10.82.184]] 05:06, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

In summary, it seems Randall is vastly overestimating how many people have seen and remember Borat. Really, the "most salient cultural reference"? --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 06:34, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
:Indeed, I've never seen Borat. (And being British, I always called my mother "mum".) {{unsigned ip|2a00:23cc:d248:8901:94bc:c8d7:48aa:c9cb|08:42, 25 April 2026}}
::Yeah, also British and never particularly a fan of such 'character comedy' (his Borat/Ali G/etc, Trigger Happy TV, even back to Beadles About and its prank-type TV), though of course admire the chutzpah behind them (the whole "Cake drug" setup from Chris Morris/Brass Eye, the 'snail' using the zebra crossing, getting someone to ask an 'alien' if it would like some tea). So the specific Borat quote-reference passed me by (thank the non-existant pantheon of deities that explainxkcd was here to fill me in).
::My mum's also always been called "Mum" (well, since I stopped using "Mummy!", that is), too. "Husband"s can also be "hubbie"s (not sure that the obvious counterpart of "wifey" gets so much use, but then that isn't a vocal contraction, perhaps "the missis" (however you'd spell it) is the more used direct return-term by said hubbie), as in "your hubbie, my hubbie, their hubbie, all our hubbies...".
::Having "my" imply ownership, as suggested, is not particularly well founded, considering "my slave" (definite ownership, of the target referred to) and "my master (definite ownership, ''by '' the target referred to) but between there's everything else ("my replacement", "my opponent", "my ex", "my most distantly known relative") between where it's a matter of mere association, at best.
::If I have any insight into the popular use of "husband" and "wife", it's just that marriage isn't what it used to be. Both the potential transience of such partnerships (though many aren't, those for whom it is might repeat the transience with someone else later, upping the perceived occurances) and the rising tendency of 'mere' co-habiting (at least for a while ...I've been to weddings where the couple's kids take part as page-boys/girls, ring-bearers, etc) makes marriage neither the solid default option nor an easily assumed relationship (it used, at one point, to be that the more common variation was "Yes, lovely couple, I know them well... Of ''course'' they are both married, just not to each other...")
::It seems to imply a earlier-age formality (like the comic says). If a woman talks of "my wife" or a man talks of "my husband", it's to me not really more a shock to hear ''that'' than just have a heteronormative relationship pressed home accordingly. Maybe at most introduce "this is Jack... he's my husband..." or "my wife, Jill, will be along shortly/can't be here today" then refer to Jack/Jill by name only.
::The exception might be on TV, etc, by personalities, perhaps using "husband"/"wife" (then "they"ing them) in any statements they decide to avoid any greater detail (than their respective gender) being 'outed'. Even if said partner (and the doubly-ambiguous "partner" usage seems to be less, without any rise at all in the singly-ambiguous "spouse") is also a personality, likely already well known enough. Actually ''name-checking'' the partner (first name, never mind full name) is rare except for 'celebrity couples' who lean on that relationship consciously. And bear in mind that in such marital partnerships, likely both parties have retained their professional (if not legal) surnames, so Mr Abraham Smith is probably married to Mr/Mrs/implicitly-''Miss'' Betty Jones, and all the extra reverse combinations. David and Victoria Beckham is one exception, but then "Posh Spice" was not really going to hold as much kudos for her post-Spice pursuits. The ''other'' obvious David and Victoria (Mitchell and 'Coren Mitchell' neé Coren) did it by a sort of double barelling, in her case, which seems nust traditional enough but flexible enough to have worked well for them both.
::It's become rare to the point of near-extinction for the wife to have called herself "Mrs Arthur Brown", having only technically become "Amelia Brown (neé Green)". The most you hear of it is for those in the throws of considering such a marriage ("...if I play my cards right, I shall be Mrs Humphrey Basingstoke within the year!") or on the day of any such wedding itself. I don't think there's any real tendency to go any further than changing their surname (if they even do that!), nor much practical need to present themself (factually or as a 'front') as being a 'properly kept wife' for the purposes of mortgages or other business interests that at one time were tricky to maintain without such official marital 'sponsorship').
::...but how much of this is implicit to the comic's intended meaning is... debatable. ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.236.85|82.132.236.85]] 16:19, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
::: Re: ''And being British, I always called my mother "mum".'', I was reading a novel that took place in Birmingham, England, (IIRC) and was surprised to see the characters refer to their mother as "mom". So I suppose "being British" is factually correct, but not explanatory. [[Special:Contributions/191.101.157.97|191.101.157.97]] 22:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
:::: The British sometimes watch a lot of American TV, so anything is possible, but I would assume that you are reading an American publication of a British novel, with American editing. {{unsigned ip|2001:8003:dc65:7e01:e153:e2bd:89c1:6ef0|01:33, 27 April 2026 (UTC)}}
::::: You're free to assume wrong, if you choose, but no. There are people in Birmingham who are complaining that they don't have Mother's Day cards saying "mom". [https://noai.duckduckgo.com/?q=birmingham+%22mom%22+%22mum%22&noai=1&ia=web] [[Special:Contributions/191.101.157.23|191.101.157.23]] 15:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the possessive pronouns is unlikely to be the issue presented. In Hebrew, the very word "husband" means "owner of", and it's become quite common for young people to shun it for feministic reasons.
In English that's much less prevalent though, so it's probably just how marriage is sometimes seen as an outdated, oldish, formal concept (a family consisting of a "husband and wife" does negate other forms of families). [[Special:Contributions/62.56.234.252|62.56.234.252]] 09:03, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
: Do you mean "possessive adjectives" rather than "possessive pronouns"? Possessive adjectives precede a noun: "Alex is her husband"; possessive pronouns stand on their own ("the car is hers"). Possessive adjectives include "my", "your", and "their", while possessive pronouns include "mine", "yours", and "theirs". [[Special:Contributions/191.101.157.28|191.101.157.28]] 19:20, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Is this comic political or something? What's wrong with being called a wife? [[Special:Contributions/109.86.171.138|109.86.171.138]] 14:06, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
: No, it's a reference to usage in the film ''Borat''. [[Special:Contributions/191.101.157.28|191.101.157.28]] 19:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The most salient cultural reference to "my wife" for me was uttered by Will Smith at the academy awards in 2022. But now I am going to suffer through Borat to hear Randall's meaning. Thanks? [[User:SeanNerd|SeanNerd]] ([[User talk:SeanNerd|talk]]) 14:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
:It wasn't really my cup of tea, but the film won many awards and is is on many lists of funniest movies of the 21st century. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:00, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

''Borat'' didn't come to mind at all. I saw that movie once, when it was in theaters, didn't like it, and never thought about it again until now. Although it's not "the most salient" cultural reference, the first thing that came to my mind with the phrase "my wife" was The Who's song, ''My Wife''. About a guy who gets drunk in a bar and spends the night in jail and is now afraid to go home because his wife will assume he's been cheating on her and will react with extreme violence. Not a funny topic, but John Entwistle's lyrics do make it into a humorous story. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 16:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Showing my age, I thought the "most salient cultural reference was the condescending tag line, "My Wife. I think I'll keep her!" from the Geritol commercial in the 1970s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lNfpQ_8tEw , referenced ironically in the 1990's Mary Chapin Carpenter song, "He thinks he'll keep her.").
[[Special:Contributions/2600:4040:5B41:7F00:D446:3D5D:F35D:E282|2600:4040:5B41:7F00:D446:3D5D:F35D:E282]]
:Not quite that long ago ('80s? '90s?) but "...and a fillet of fish for my wife" from a Mcdonalds ad is my equivalent of that, I think. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 18:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I honestly thought this was something else, but then again, I've not watched Borat. (was sorta thinking it was the ASDFmovie 16 thing with Alex Rochon. dunno why.) [[User:Ilios2357|Cain-In-Vain]] ([[User talk:Ilios2357|talk]]) 06:36, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
:My initial thought was J. Geils band "No anchovies, please" though initially I could only remember "... MY WIFE!" and the voice. It took a while to place though. {{unsigned|Lordpishky|15:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)}}

As another person showing their age, the most salient cultural reference that popped into my head was “that was no lady, that’s my wife!”. I’ve never been as confused by an XKCD as by this one. And the alt text only made it worse. Oh, well, everyone has to age out at some point. [[User:SSteve|SSteve]] ([[User talk:SSteve|talk]]) 06:02, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

It's rather hilarious that I seem to be in the minority for whom this comic ''immediately'' clicked [[Special:Contributions/52.213.77.206|52.213.77.206]] 07:06, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Did anyone else get the implication that these two characters are, in fact, married (at least in the context of this strip)? -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 18:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
: That seemed clear. More importantly, though, they are no-longer-just-recently married, given the adverb 'still' ("I still feel a little weird saying..."), implying that the wedding was maybe not in the past week, but maybe in the last year or two. [[Special:Contributions/191.101.157.22|191.101.157.22]] 13:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Despite having seen Borat and being a jokester of all tropes, memester of some, my immediate connection was Azumanga Daioh. {{unsigned ip|2a02:1210:92b4:4a00:c426:cc0e:6627:3308|11:16, 1 May 2026}}

I think he might be using Borat (a character people will recognize) to refer to Sacha Baron Cohen. Prior to the Borat films, Cohen made a movie called 'Ali G Indahouse'. His character (Ali G), had a banner that went across the top of the windshield of his car that had ‘Ali G’ on the driver’s side and ‘Me Bitch’ on the passenger’s side. I never watched the whole movie to confirm whether he verbally refers to his wife as ‘Me Bitch’, though. [[Special:Contributions/2603:6010:6C00:DA:49BF:A509:106C:9458|2603:6010:6C00:DA:49BF:A509:106C:9458]] 14:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Ironically, IIRC in the actual Victorian era using "my wife" was considered somewhat uncouth, since it was seen as objectifying women. This went doubly so for the second-person equivalent ("your wife"); the standard way of referring to someone's spouse was "Mr(s). [last name]". That said, "Mrs. [husband's full name]" was alright in formal contexts. {{unsigned|The-Daleks|03:52, 15 May 2026}}

Talk:3237: Husband and Wife

2026-04-24T17:49:03Z

47.28.76.207:

Talk:992: Mnemonics

2026-02-28T06:01:50Z

47.28.76.207:

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)
No. Such fake suffixes are cringe. [[Special:Contributions/47.28.76.207|47.28.76.207]] 06:01, 28 February 2026 (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)

1077: Home Organization

2026-02-11T01:40:00Z

47.28.76.207: a laptop is not a cable modem and router.

{{comic
| number = 1077
| date = July 4, 2012
| title = Home Organization
| image = home_organization.png
| titletext = Lifehacking!
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is a take on the typical "how to" which details "how to" organize your home. In many cases, finding the best organization can be difficult and/or can take a long time. To skip this problem, Cueball "Just Gives Up" and puts all his items and furniture into a box labeled "Misc" for miscellaneous, with the exception of his laptop, cable modem, and router.

Items in the box seem to include the following
* A TV
* A Lamp
* A Broom
* A Mattress
* A Chair
* A Shelf
* A Fan
* At least one Cable
* And several other unidentifiable objects

The title text is a take on the popular website Lifehacker which includes all sorts of posts on how to "hack" your life and improve it. Life hacking appears to be a common theme in xkcd, such as in [[2024: Light Hacks]].

==Transcript==
:[One big plain room with a person sitting on the floor with a laptop on one side, a modem and wireless router on the other, and a big box full of the usual accoutrements of living in the middle, with "MISC" written on the side.]

:Home Organization Tip: Just Give Up.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Internet]]

Talk:2380: Election Impact Score Sheet

2026-02-06T03:18:11Z

47.28.76.207:

Please vote, everyone! #Hashtag. ''(Unsigned. Whoever you are.)''

Cool, how to convince citizens of other countries to vote for this shitsotrm?

I always told myself that if I ever joined Twitter (rather than 'browse-lurked' the feeds of people of interest, as I do now) I would use #hashtag a lot, and other ironic self-referential things in order to stop myself taking it too seriously. Nice to know I'm on the same wavelength with Randall, but now I must further delay my inevitable signing up until I've got something newer and better in mind! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.61|162.158.158.61]] 00:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

This "as if you voted again!" should not be confused with the stuff that Trump keeps yammering about. :-) [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 02:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is Alaska four points?? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.79|162.158.62.79]] 03:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

:Alaska is only three, but who knows, it's not a close race there according to 538. They also have higher than average voter turnout too.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.42.92|172.69.42.92]] 03:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
:Not sure. However, according to [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States_by_population wikipedia]] they have the 3rd lowest population per electoral vote ratio (of the proper states), meaning that an alaskan vote in theory counts more than a texan one (which has the highest ratio). But don't ask me. I am a European with no big clue about that complicated US election system. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
:: That's ok, I'm not convinced most Americans understand it either. But then, I don't understand why so many Americans think that compulsory voting is un-democratic - particularly compared to a situation where those in power get to deliberately interfere with voters' ability to vote at all. [[User:Paddles|Paddles]] ([[User talk:Paddles|talk]]) 13:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems that "538" is a reference to https://fivethirtyeight.com which seems to be a USA election news aggregation website. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.80|108.162.216.80]] 07:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
:0h, and on a second look 538 is mentioned.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.80|108.162.216.80]] 07:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
::Uhm 538 is the number of electors in the United States electoral college, which FiveThirtyEight is named after, so it is not a reference to that program. But the note about Nate Silver of course is about him and his website. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if Randall knew about or intended the reference, but there is a website http://hashtaghashtag.org/, describing itself as "#Hashtag is dedicated to political analysis and long-form opinion pieces on politics and public policy." Or maybe he just wanted to be a smart-ass with the #Hastag. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 07:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Before "Hashtag" existed, "#' was sometimes just called "hash". Once it was combined with a word (e.g. "#blart") and use to tag things like tweets, the combined unit was called a "hashtag" (i.e. a tag containing a hash symbol). At some point "#blart" changed from being read as "hash blart" (essentially reading the individual symbols that make it up) to "hashtag blart" (the meaning of the combined symbols), sort of how "$10" is read as "ten dollars" rather than "dollar-sign ten". But then taking the reading "hashtag blart" and back-applying it to the text "#blart" has produced the use of the term "hashtag" for the "#" symbol. Hopefully this won't go around the circle again and make "hashtagtags".
:Really, though, '#' is still just called "hash". The "-tag" part refers to the whole string making up a topic description tag for the comment/tweet/blurb/whatever. "Hashtag" refers to a tag denoted by a hash symbol, and "#hashtag" prompts the system to link the user to other tweets by people discussing adding semantic meaning to user-generated text. Great for those of us who are super into text markup and metadata (though really, who isn't?). [[User:Kjmitch|Kjmitch]] ([[User talk:Kjmitch|talk]]) 19:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Vote hashtags and Google "Go Vote" doodles are dumb (Besides that they mean vote for whom I want). The people who forget to vote are many of the people who shouldn't be voting[[Special:Contributions/47.28.76.207|47.28.76.207]] 03:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

== Printable version ==

I would argue that the "[Click for printable version]" should be hyperlinked with the link to https://xkcd.com/2380/election_impact_score_sheet.pdf

Let me see if I can do that by myself.

== Added an "Actual Effect" column to the table. ==

Too early to say much about much, but eventually something like "(Pennsylvania narrowly went for) Trump, but did not stop Biden's win" or "(...) Trump, giving vital EVs to support his second term". Conversely, if it ever flips, what it meant for Biden. - I leave the content open to our future selves to fill in, but I suggest short, snappy and factual only, given the prior column's more wordy vague speculation from ahead of time. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.250|141.101.105.250]] 15:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

== Nate Silver ==
I wonder how many letters Nate Silver actually got following this comic.

Talk:2380: Election Impact Score Sheet

2026-02-06T03:17:31Z

47.28.76.207:

Please vote, everyone! #Hashtag. ''(Unsigned. Whoever you are.)''

Cool, how to convince citizens of other countries to vote for this shitsotrm?

I always told myself that if I ever joined Twitter (rather than 'browse-lurked' the feeds of people of interest, as I do now) I would use #hashtag a lot, and other ironic self-referential things in order to stop myself taking it too seriously. Nice to know I'm on the same wavelength with Randall, but now I must further delay my inevitable signing up until I've got something newer and better in mind! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.61|162.158.158.61]] 00:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

This "as if you voted again!" should not be confused with the stuff that Trump keeps yammering about. :-) [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 02:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is Alaska four points?? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.79|162.158.62.79]] 03:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

:Alaska is only three, but who knows, it's not a close race there according to 538. They also have higher than average voter turnout too.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.42.92|172.69.42.92]] 03:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
:Not sure. However, according to [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States_by_population wikipedia]] they have the 3rd lowest population per electoral vote ratio (of the proper states), meaning that an alaskan vote in theory counts more than a texan one (which has the highest ratio). But don't ask me. I am a European with no big clue about that complicated US election system. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
:: That's ok, I'm not convinced most Americans understand it either. But then, I don't understand why so many Americans think that compulsory voting is un-democratic - particularly compared to a situation where those in power get to deliberately interfere with voters' ability to vote at all. [[User:Paddles|Paddles]] ([[User talk:Paddles|talk]]) 13:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems that "538" is a reference to https://fivethirtyeight.com which seems to be a USA election news aggregation website. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.80|108.162.216.80]] 07:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
:0h, and on a second look 538 is mentioned.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.80|108.162.216.80]] 07:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
::Uhm 538 is the number of electors in the United States electoral college, which FiveThirtyEight is named after, so it is not a reference to that program. But the note about Nate Silver of course is about him and his website. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if Randall knew about or intended the reference, but there is a website http://hashtaghashtag.org/, describing itself as "#Hashtag is dedicated to political analysis and long-form opinion pieces on politics and public policy." Or maybe he just wanted to be a smart-ass with the #Hastag. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 07:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Before "Hashtag" existed, "#' was sometimes just called "hash". Once it was combined with a word (e.g. "#blart") and use to tag things like tweets, the combined unit was called a "hashtag" (i.e. a tag containing a hash symbol). At some point "#blart" changed from being read as "hash blart" (essentially reading the individual symbols that make it up) to "hashtag blart" (the meaning of the combined symbols), sort of how "$10" is read as "ten dollars" rather than "dollar-sign ten". But then taking the reading "hashtag blart" and back-applying it to the text "#blart" has produced the use of the term "hashtag" for the "#" symbol. Hopefully this won't go around the circle again and make "hashtagtags".
:Really, though, '#' is still just called "hash". The "-tag" part refers to the whole string making up a topic description tag for the comment/tweet/blurb/whatever. "Hashtag" refers to a tag denoted by a hash symbol, and "#hashtag" prompts the system to link the user to other tweets by people discussing adding semantic meaning to user-generated text. Great for those of us who are super into text markup and metadata (though really, who isn't?). [[User:Kjmitch|Kjmitch]] ([[User talk:Kjmitch|talk]]) 19:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

== Printable version ==

I would argue that the "[Click for printable version]" should be hyperlinked with the link to https://xkcd.com/2380/election_impact_score_sheet.pdf

Let me see if I can do that by myself.

== Added an "Actual Effect" column to the table. ==

Too early to say much about much, but eventually something like "(Pennsylvania narrowly went for) Trump, but did not stop Biden's win" or "(...) Trump, giving vital EVs to support his second term". Conversely, if it ever flips, what it meant for Biden. - I leave the content open to our future selves to fill in, but I suggest short, snappy and factual only, given the prior column's more wordy vague speculation from ahead of time. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.250|141.101.105.250]] 15:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

== Nate Silver ==
I wonder how many letters Nate Silver actually got following this comic.

Vote hashtags and Google "Go Vote" doodles are dumb (Besides that they mean vote for whom I want). The people who forget to vote are many of the people who shouldn't be voting[[Special:Contributions/47.28.76.207|47.28.76.207]] 03:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

2192: Review

2026-02-01T20:27:42Z

47.28.76.207:

{{comic
| number = 2192
| date = August 21, 2019
| title = Review
| image = review.png
| titletext = Controls are a little hard to figure out.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is a five star review of planet {{w|Earth}}, by [[Randall]], depicted as [[Cueball]] in his profile picture. The review is written as a video game review, praising the [[1110: Click and Drag|size]] and aesthetics of the world. The comic's humor draws from the fact that gamers cannot use reviews to decide whether they want to "play" the Earth,{{citation needed}} and the fact that there's no place that the Earth can be reviewed (with the possible exception of [[1803: Location Reviews|Google, Yelp]], or ''The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy''). The "huge world" remark is a play on {{w|Open world}} games like {{w|The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt}}, which are praised when their size allows hundreds of hours of exploration; exploring Earth would allow more than a few hundred hours of novelties.

Earth (or humans and other life forms on Earth) has many problems at the moment, such as {{w|war}}, [[:Category:Climate change|climate change]], {{w|overpopulation}}, {{w|underpopulation}}, {{w|gun violence}}, {{w|sexual violence}}, {{w|censorship}}, {{w|poverty}}, and increasing {{w|Depression (mood)|depression}}, to name just a few. This comic serves as a reminder that, despite these issues, the world is a five-star world. It encourages us to look around: there's a lot of world to explore.

A game of fictional reviews of Earth can be found on the website neal.fun on [https://neal.fun/earth-reviews/ Earth Reviews].

The title text states that the 'controls are hard to figure out', possibly alluding to the fact that it takes a lot of time to learn how to walk and talk, a rather basic thing in most video games, or to the fact that it is in general hard to navigate around in one's life, as has been the subject of many comics.

While there aren't any games that can recreate the detail that reality has (Due to the computing power required to do such a thing would be on an intergalactic level to recreate Earth 1 to 1 in a simulation), there are some games that attempt to have a map that is similar in area or graphics that look as detailed as reality. However, there are many games that have successfully implemented difficult game-play/hard to learn controls.

Examples of games with large worlds: {{w|World of Warcraft}}, {{w|Fallout 3}}, the {{w|Red Dead}} series, {{w|The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim}}, {{w|Minecraft}}, the {{w|Grand Theft Auto}} series, {{w|The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt}}, {{w|The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild}}, {{w|Elden Ring}}.

Examples of games with difficult controls: the {{w|Souls (series)|Souls series}}, {{w|Bloodborne}}, {{w|Stephen's Sausage Roll}}, {{w|Getting Over It with Bennett Foddy}}, {{w|Elden Ring}}.

==Transcript==
:[A profile picture of Cueball in a small frame is next to five solid yellow stars. Below this is a review:]
:★★★★★
:Great graphics, huge world

:[Caption below the comic:]
:My overall review of Earth

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Online reviews]]
[[Category:Video games]]

Talk:1492: Dress Color

2026-01-27T18:23:40Z

47.28.76.207: no illusion

To me, they both look blue/gold [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 06:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:To me as well. The one on the right, with a lighter background, appears more bluish and the collar is a darker brown. (The collar on the left, to my eyes, matches the face on the right.) But both definitely appear bluish with a dull yellow. - Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.120|199.27.128.120]] 16:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the illusion supposed to be? The colors of the dress look a bit darker with the light background, but not very much. Is that the illusion? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.82|141.101.80.82]] 07:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
: Agree. To me, it looks like it's definitely light blue (maybe "cornflower"?) with pale olive stripes. "Gold" would really be a stretch. It looks like that in all lighting conditions and in both backgrounds of the strip. Did I pass some kind of color-blindness test? Or fail? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.133|108.162.254.133]] 07:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
: This has nothing to do with color-blindness, but probably with certain arbitrary constants related to white-balance adjustment that differ brain-to-brain. Many people I know insist that even though the picture looks blue, it's a dress illuminated by a blue light, and based on this assumption their brain may essentially redden the whole picture to adjust for this light. The actual picture was taken in white light, not blue light. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.28|173.245.55.28]] 07:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

::It may also be related to white-balance of the MONITOR. I see original dress like black and blue and the one on left here as gold and light blue. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently for some people the left-hand-side's general blueishness is adjusted against by the visual system enough to make the dress look white and gold instead of blue and brown. I am not one of those people. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.28|173.245.55.28]] 07:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Description says left for both [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.219|141.101.98.219]] 08:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:Now changed. (Saw it myself before I saw your comment, and just lept straight in there. Hopefully I changed the right left so that it's right and not left the wrong left whilst producing the wrong right. Alright?) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 09:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC) (Also, "hello near-IP neighbour!"... The same digits, even. Creepy.)
::Y'all are both from London, and probably live on the same street. Congrats! You made a friend! :) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.192|108.162.216.192]] 16:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Are they really the same colour? 'Cause to me on the blue side it looks blue and black- while on the white side it looks white and gold. Is this normal? {{unsigned|FlyingPiggy}}

The figure on the right definitely has a beard. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.182|108.162.249.182]] 09:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I checked with ColorZilla and the RGB values are identical. From my perspective, in the one on the left the dress appears pale blue with darker brown/gold stripes, and the one on the right appears a darker blue with lighter brown/gold stripes. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.63|141.101.98.63]] 10:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This is just a polychromatic version of that checker shadow illusion, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.38|108.162.231.38]] 10:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:That's what I thought too. But it looks the same (doesn't it?) and is the same (that, thankfully is non-subjective and verifiable with as little as MSPaint), so I'm at loss as to why this deserves a comic. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.136|141.101.104.136]] 10:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
: This is a common optical illusion (at least I've seen this many times) - most peoples eyes perform a white balance adjustment automatically which affects the perceived colours. If your eyes don't do this then you will do well in the paint colour matching business. http://www.moillusions.com/hue-optical-illusion/ I apologise for the jarring colours in the link. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.220}}
:Here's a particularly good demonstration of the underlying "color perception" illusion (i.e. the Checker-Shadow illusion referred to above): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Sen1HTu5o [[User:Arcanechili|Arcanechili]] ([[User talk:Arcanechili|talk]]) 15:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:Confused guy again. It seems I can only 'accurately' see shades of red (or is it blue? anyway, the first illusion in the Hue article, but not the other two) fascinating as that is, I'm probably not getting the paint job.

[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.136|141.101.104.136]] 11:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The comic is a reference to the debate around the coloration of [http://amd.c.yimg.jp/amd/20150227-00000070-zdn_n-000-2-view.jpg this dress]. The band in the middle of the image shows some of the material of the dress. To some people, including me, the dress is obviously, unquestionably black and blue. But to others, including my wife, it's obviously, unquestionably, black and gold. {{unsigned ip|103.22.200.196}}
:And to others it's apparently a number of other combinations - I've seen claims of white/gold and blue/orange. However, surprisingly few people seem to have seen [http://www.romanoriginals.co.uk/invt/70931?colour=Royal-Blue this link] to the manufacturer's page for what appears to be the same dress; available in 4 colour combinations which according to the manufacturers' descriptions are ivory/black, scarlet/black, pink/black and royal-blue/black, with pictures available of all versions. As such I'm happy to accept the pictures doing the rounds are probably the blue/black variant (although most of the over-exposed versions I've seen appear light-blue/goldish-brown to me. {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.77}}

Our eyes are too efficient, which makes this illusion work. In dim light we dilate our eyes, so an enclosed room with one lamp seems bright, though it is a cave compared to the outdoors. If the bulb in our lamp is of a warm tone, our eyes adjust so we believe we see colours as though in daylight. I think that's what's happening in the dress illusion -- we are trying to allow for perceived lighting conditions in the photo -- so the actual illusion is in our guess as to what those light conditions actually are. And finally an artist quote: "I can paint you the skin of Venus with mud, provided you let me surround it as I will." - Eugene Delacroix [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.84|108.162.242.84]] 13:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Some Notes on camera color correction: it's worse than, and is not just an optical illusion. It's a camera screwup.

* [http://40.media.tumblr.com/a391a1b4b46dd6b498d379e50f96ecbc/tumblr_nkcjuq8Tdr1tnacy1o1_500.jpg Here is the original photo] as [http://swiked.tumblr.com/post/112159166305/katze-geht-meow-ijustloveyoutubers seen here]

* [http://media.tumblr.com/ec387ec0bb03230268a9e905d74097d9/tumblr_inline_nkeezsjAuH1svicb3.jpg Here is a second photo of the same dress in normal light] As [http://swiked.tumblr.com/post/112164479015/can-we-have-more-pictures-of-the-dress-please-we seen here]

* [http://www.romanoriginals.co.uk/invt/70931?colour=Royal-Blue Here is the online store where you can buy the dress]

* [http://www.romanoriginals.co.uk/content/ebiz/romanoriginals/invt/70931/70931rbl_zoom1.jpg Here is a high quality photo of the dress from the store]

* [http://imgur.com/RY2dTnW.jpg Here is an example of the color "correction" that happens when you calibrate things so that Dark Blue = White.] NOTE: This is a major readjustment of colors and there is no real color matching between the two images. White is not actually blue in this image, and up is not down, and you are not going crazy

Cheap cameras will try to adjust colors based on formulas that guess what the correct color scheme is.

If you take a photo while in the shade on a sunny day, you likely get most of your light from the bright *BLUE* sky. This can make you look awful. The camera is set up to guess the correct exposure. In this case the camera follows the rules, and guesses, wrongly, that the the overall majority color in the center of the photo is white, and transforms the rest of the colors to match

It's a camera screwup. It also depends on how bad your viewing device is behaving, because, based on how dark the screen is, you then get the optical illusion effect that Randall posted.

This is a secondary effect, and not the real reason why behind what is going on in the first place. The correct rendering of the camera screwup is going to be, on most devices with normal color rendition, white with gold. Because some monitors are lighter or darker depending on viewing angle, this also impacts color perception.

We can then get the actual optical illusion after all that. But as we have seen with good photos of the actual dress in normal light, the camera got it wrong.

TL;DR: It's a cell phone camera screwup. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.170|173.245.52.170]] 14:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

: Thank you so much! That is the only good explanation I've read. The colour correction introduced by the cellphone is massive. But I still don't know how anyone can see the gold as being black unless their computer monitor is completely maladjusted. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.182|108.162.249.182]] 04:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

:The first time I saw the alleged image of the same dress by the manufacturer (which is clearly to me black and blue), I couldn't believe they where the same dresses, because, by looking at the viral image, I can't imagine a lightning scenario and brain correction that would cause black to look gold. The camera adjustment screw up makes sense to make them the same dress. Therefore, I hereby challenge someone to buy the black and blue dress and take a photo of it, doing whatever necessary to make the black look gold. [[Special:Contributions/188.114.99.189|188.114.99.189]] 22:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible that there's a connection between this comic and [[690: Semicontrolled Demolition]]? Some discussions I've seen about this topic involve the choice between white/gold and blue/black, so Randall coloured his dress gold/blue. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.122|108.162.216.122]] 16:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
: It's more likely due to the fact that the colors of the actual picture - that is, if you use a color picker - are roughly the same as those in the comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.111|108.162.216.111]] 17:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm reminded of [[356: Nerd Sniping]], only the perpetrator has managed to snipe the entire interwebs {{unsigned ip|141.101.106.107}}

No one has yet mentioned that ignoring color, the two images are also mirror images of each other. On the left, the figure is looking slightly toward her own right shoulder; while on the right she is looking slightly to her own left. Most likely not at all relevant to this discussion, but usually folks on this forum are very quick to point out even insignificant details (like I'm doing right now) :)
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.42|108.162.216.42]] 19:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

;Similar Illusions and explanation

I feel like this line seems out o place, or at least badly worded (using half the URL as the text...):

''"Similar types of illusions can be seen at Optical illusion#Color_and_brightness_constancies and at echalk. (requires Flash®player)."''

Also, this seems similar to the [http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html checker shadow illusion] (link to page on website with explanation of said illusion).

On another note, this page seems rather disorganized and uniformative about the phenomenon behind this illusion.

[[User:Zweisteine|Zweisteine]] ([[User talk:Zweisteine|talk]]) 19:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This explanation is lacking in a particular detail: in Randall's drawing, what colors do the dresses look. I'm color blind, so they don't look different to me, but I couldn't name them. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.173|173.245.52.173]] 00:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
:I guess it depends. For ME it is blue and gold. --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 01:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

LOOK, Randall. Schrödinger was a crossdresser. This was Schrödinger's dress. My Schrödinger fanfics say so and you can't take away my dreams! [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.107|173.245.50.107]] 02:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. This is amazing. Starting out, I see only blue and gold in both sides of the comic, the photo strip down the center, and the photo it's based on. I see only slight differences in color among all these images. Just variations in brightness. Has anyone else noticed that the colors Randall has chosen are almost precisely complementary? Adding the R, G, and B values from each color cited in the explanation gets you 248 R, 248 G, and 247 B. The values in the center strip vary alot but I have found examples of each color that match within 2 bits in an 8 bit RGB system. I wonder how and why Randall chose these values. NewScientist has an article on this too. Trivia, re Monty Hall discussion: In the 60's muscle car era the Pontiac GTO was nicknamed "The Goat" so maybe the car IS the goat! [[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 02:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

So, does this have anything to do with Christopher Columbus? [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 03:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1492:_Dress_Color&oldid=85394 current version of the transcript] says that on the right Megan is "yellow against a buttercup background." I think I'm going to change that to "brown" and "white." (If we want to get super nerdy about it, then name-of-color.com says the actual colors are [http://name-of-color.com/color#A47933 luxor gold,] [http://name-of-color.com/color#D7B75B equator] and [http://name-of-color.com/color#F9F6E9 old lace.)] [[User:Pesthouse|Pesthouse]] ([[User talk:Pesthouse|talk]]) 02:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The weird part is that I see no difference between the dresses. The same blue brown, but if I stare long enough, right side looks darker. Despite that, you cannot convince me that checker B is the same colour as A in the checker colour illusion.

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.93|108.162.216.93]] 06:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Okok.... in the image, the dress is technically light blue and dark gold. HOWEVER, it is obvious that the real dress could not be this color, because the lighting is weird and you can tell that it is really white and gold. Also, that is a more reasonable color for a dress anyway... QED [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.180|173.245.56.180]] 22:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I actually saw it just as it was (blue and brown). I can't understand why anybody else saw it differently. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.150|108.162.221.150]] 09:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The regular 'dress' looks white and gold to me, but this looks blue and brown. Aargh! {{unsigned|Jadzia.dax}}

It may seem petty, but this site usually points out small errors Randall makes and I think there is one in the mouse over text. I'm not native in English, so it's likely I'm wrong. But »''only to find there was unexpectedly disagreement over whether the thing they'd revealed was a goat or a car''« doesn't look right to me. I'd want it to be either »»''only to find there was unexpected disagreement over whether the thing they'd revealed was a goat or a car''« or »''only to find there unexpectedly was disagreement over whether the thing they'd revealed was a goat or a car''«. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.178|162.158.134.178]] 17:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

:I'm not a native English speaker either, and I also take a little longer to understand that phrase because of the way it's worded. Your first suggestion looks better. The second one, though, not as much. [[User:GuiRitter|GuiRitter]] ([[User talk:GuiRitter|talk]]) 17:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The explanation mentions the color of the actual physical dress, and I question the relevance of this. The question is not the color of the dress itself but the color of the photograph. (Furthermore, the displayed color of the photograph will vary depending on the monitor its being displayed on, potentially making the whole issue of optical illusions a moot point)

I don't get it; there's no illusion. They're both white and gold.

== "Orange"? ==

I question the characterization of the accent color as "orange". Even the block of it sitting by itself in the explanation text is clearly brown or olive
: Fun fact: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh4aWZRtTwU Brown does not exist in RGB]. It's all about the context. That said, I agree, it certainly looks more brown than orange, when surrounded by the white of the screen. It's more orangey (i.e., it looks brighter) when surrounded by the dark blue in the comic. Anonymous04:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

{{File talk:dress.png}}

man it just looks like dull gold and dull blue to me [[User:Certified_nqh|Me]][[[285: Wikipedian Protester|''citation needed'']]][[Category:Pages using the "citation needed" template]] 15:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)