explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1540: Hemingway

2015-06-19T16:39:34Z

FlyingPiggy: I added bits

{{comic
| number = 1540
| date = June 19, 2015
| title = Hemingway
| image = 1540.jpg
| titletext = Instead of bobcat, package contained chair.
}}

==Explanation==
{{Incomplete|Finished with Edit Conflict assimilation, but prior author(s) invited to rejig}}

This comic is a reference to the six-word short story {{w|For sale: baby shoes, never worn}}, which has been attributed to famous author {{w|Ernest Hemingway}}, however, [[Randall|Randall Munroe]] explicitly states that this might not be the case at all. The comic plays on the fact that the original story takes the form of a short advertisement that might have been seen in a newspaper, and for these examples uses various modern 'standards' that did not exist in Hemingway's time.

Each example remains six 'words' long!

(Title-text obeys this meme, also.)


Most exhibit common 'click bait' wording, such as "This Weird Trick...", whilst others make use of annotating tokens from a online site. One line references Roguelike conventions for item descriptions, obviously also unfamiliar to Hemmingway's generation and there's also a direct example of HTML formatting tags from the early 1990s; the <BLINK> tag was infamously introduced to the early Netscape browsers. 
Others poke fun at the tradgedy that the original story suggests. The six words (For Sale: Baby shoes, never worn) are written like an advertisment, and the reader is supposed to infer that the baby who would have worn the shoes must have died. Randall tries to make the reader infer other things.
'For Sale: This gullible baby's shoes' suggests that the seller somehow tricked the baby out of its shoes. 'Baby shoes for sale by owner' suggests that a very intelligent baby is somehow selling its own shoes.

In the case of the HTML, the normally invisble-and-rendered tag elements can be seen and are part of the six words count. This could have been due to 'sanitising' of uploaded text where HTML tags (other than any that are specifically allowed, like it appears Strikethrough formatting might be) are deliberately deactivated by the server, or because the incorrectly closed final tag breaks any intended rendering support.

The title text (and the penultimate line in the comic itself) makes a reference to the third pane of [[A-Minus-Minus|325: A-Minus-Minus]] in which [[Cueball]] says: 'Instead of office chair, package contained bobcat'

==Transcript==
[Caption above comic:] 
Hemingway's Rough Drafts 
[A list of rough draft titles] 
For sale: This Gullible Baby's Shoes 
Baby Shoes For Sale By Owner 
<strike>Actually, There's no evidence Hemingway wrote</strike> 
Free Shoes, Provided You Overpower Baby 
For Sale: Weird Baby's Toe Shoes 
For Sale: Baby Shoes [an "Amazon Prime eligible" logo] 
<strike>Though popularly attributed to Hemingway, the</strike> 
This Weird Trick Covers Baby Feet! 
For Sale: Baby Shoes, Just Hatched 
Sale: Seven-League Boots (Expedited Shipping) 
Complete this survey for free shoes! 
''Shoes'', by Ernest Hemingway (citation needed) 
This is my greatest short story. 
For sale: Baby shoes (-1) [cursed] 
<blink><marquee>Baby Shoes!</marquee><blink> 
For Sale: Baby-sized Saddle, Bobcat 
Hemingway Busted for Craigslist Shoe Scam 
{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1516: Win by Induction

2015-04-27T20:24:36Z

FlyingPiggy: I added a comment

Why don't those Pikachu have tails? Have they been sliced off? Is this some kind of mutation?-🐼🐯😺🐱

Is the alt text a reference to double-yolkers (eggs with two yolks)? [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16118149 They're only about 1 in every 1000] but it seems like an obvious reference. --[[User:Fenn|Fenn]] ([[User talk:Fenn|talk]]) 08:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:Makes sense to me. I didn't even think of double yolks until you mentioned it here. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.89|173.245.50.89]] 09:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)BK201
::Seconded. --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.110.52|188.114.110.52]] 14:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:::I'd think it's a reference to the rate of twins, which is currently almost exactly 1/30 (and on the rise) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin#Statistics] [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.186|173.245.56.186]] 17:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Merkky[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.186|173.245.56.186]] 17:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The explanation currently says that doubling makes it uncountably infinite. I'm pretty sure that doubling at each step (or every few steps) is still a countable infinite set. Proof here: http://practicaltypography.com/the-infinite-pixel-screen.html (see section "The internet demands a recount", because the first attempt is wrong). We can also prove it using the same argument as when proving that N x N is countable infinite (making zig-zag), but in this case making a breadth-first search of the tree of Pikachus: map 1 to the first Pikachu, map 2 and 3 to the two Pikachus at the second level, map 4, 5, 6, 7 to the four Pikachus at the third level, map (2^(n-1))…((2^n) - 1) to the 2^(n-1) Pikachus at level n. {{unsigned ip|108.162.229.177}}
:Saw this too late. Yes, I agree, and I have fixed it accordingly. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 09:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:The problem being that we don't have an exact number for how many steps include double Pikachus. Granted, this is just a problem of practice, not theory. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.88|173.245.50.88]] 12:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"infinite, but countable" {Cough.} Someone doesn't understand infinity. Perhaps they meant "enumerable". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 09:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)ū
:Someone doesn't understand countability. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.217|141.101.89.217]] 09:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::enumeration is counting, in the simplest sense. "To name one by one; specify, as if in a list". That said, the whole of infinite whole numbers CAN be counted, just not by a human and not within a reasonable amount of time. --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.110.52|188.114.110.52]] 14:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"The front most Pikachu speaks." Hey, look, it has those little lines to show it's speaking, not the blank white space behind it. Duh. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 09:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Megan is looking at her watch as well. Mention in transcript/explanation? [[User:Fenn|Fenn]] ([[User talk:Fenn|talk]]) 09:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:Are Megan and Cueball supposed to fight each other? It seems like Cueball still has his closed Pokéball in his hands. Is it then Megan's Pokéball that has evolved into all these Pikachu? And is it because she waits for her Pokémon to be ready to fight Cueball, that she checks her watch? I do not know anything about the Pokémon game/world. But it seems to me that some part of this setup is unexplained by the above... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Friendly reminder: Grammatically speaking, Pokémon are like sheep or deer. Singular and plural are both written the same. One Pikachu, many Pikachu, all the Pikachu. You'd be surprised at how much rage forgetting this causes in certain corners of the Internet. {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.42}}

What doesn't make sense to me is how this could continue indefinitely – after all, each of those Pikachu must have caught its own Pikachu beforehand. I don't see any infinite loop here, just a bunch of Pikachu that already had one another caught itselves. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.217|141.101.96.217]] 10:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:Ah, the immortal quip from Jerry Bona: "The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the well-ordering principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's Lemma?" [[User:Aube|Aube]] ([[User talk:Aube|talk]]) 05:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The word "induction" could also be intended to have a double meaning, referring also to electromagnetic induction. Pikachu is, after all, and electric pokémon. {{unsigned ip|141.101.105.194}}
:Yes, I think this is right. Something about Maxwell's equations and induction. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.203}}
::From an engineering standpoint, in my opinion, Pikachu act more like biological capacitors (stored electric charge at potentially high voltage able to deliver large discharge currents) than inductors ("storing" magnetic energy via constant current, able to deliver high voltage when interrupted, like the ignition coil for an older automotive engine). I'm not too familiar with the Pokémon in-game/in-show universe, but I would imagine the Nurse Jenny corps could use electric Pokémon such as Pikachu (or Raichu) like defibrillators for cardiac events! --BigMal // [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.177|173.245.50.177]] 11:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:::There are certain moves, including some that Pikachu can learn, that appear to be based on induction (Thunder Wave and Shock Wave). Besides, they build up charge in their bodies from somewhere; I'd suspect induction from the surrounding environment is what charges them up. --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.110.52|188.114.110.52]] 14:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a point floating about how infinity doesn't imply completion. For instance, the number of all even integers is infinite, yet any given integer "only has a 50% chance of being even", so the series is quite obviously incomplete. This article seems to tend towards the idea (in diction) that an infinite number of pikachu would result in a win based on a 'logical' premise, without referring specificially to the terms of it's assumption. [[User:Xerxesbeat|Xerxesbeat]] ([[User talk:Xerxesbeat|talk]]) 11:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:The observation proceeds from the fact that the cardinality of all even integers is the same as the cardinality of all natural numbers (and the cardinality of all rational numbers). You can say that there are as many even integers are there are integers, conterintuitive as that seems. This, however, has nothing to do with the reasoning behind induction. Suppose that there is a finite number that doesn't correspond with a Pikachu, we can pick the least number for which this is the case (just check all the lower numbers until we find the least non-pikachu number N). But there is a pikachu corresponding to N-1, and it is holding a pokeball with a pikachu. So the pikachu in the pokeball of pikachu N-1 is pikachu N, and we have a contradiction to our supposition. Therefore there is no finite number that doesn't correspond with a Pikachu, QED.[[User:Aube|Aube]] ([[User talk:Aube|talk]]) 05:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What happens if the Pikachu in the ball is recursing - picking himself? That doesn't fit the 30-40 double yolk thing, but would explain an infinite series. Food for thought. Megan is bored, waiting for the fight to start. I thought the game was supposed to begin when the players choose, though, so I don't understand why the wait is happening at all. {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.151}}

I doubt this is an intentional part of the joke, but the strongest Ground-type moves (Earthquake, Precipice Blades, etc.) are multi-target, hitting all foes in a 1v5 situation such as Horde Battles. In theory, a strong enough super effective move from Cueball's lead would still end the battle in one turn. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.176|173.245.56.176]] 12:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:Not Land's Wrath, Dig, or Earth Power, which are strong ground-type moves.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.126|173.245.48.126]] 13:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::Actually, Land's Wrath is multi-target. (The ones you named are also weaker than Earthquake and Precipice Blades, so the original comment stands regardless. Although a lucky Magnitude is more powerful than any of those.) --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.98|108.162.221.98]]

I normally get a hearty chuckle out of Randall's graphical musings, but this one had me scratching my head. Fortunately, ExplainXKCD always comes to the rescue! After reading this page, my first thought was: Pokéception! 13:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This sentence is nonsensical: ''When Trainers do battle, the anime's dub has immersed the phrase "<Pokémon's name>, I choose you!" into popular culture memory, which is accompanied by throwing the ball containing the selected Pokémon to the ground, which releases the Pokémon at full size.'' [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.161|108.162.219.161]] 17:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Should it be noted that the Pikachu is drawn without its tail? It would normally a have lightning bolt shaped tail that appears to the side or from behind its head. (Trivia or other note?) [[User:Azule|Azule]] ([[User talk:Azule|talk]]) 15:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:I agree it looks weird, but can it be written off as it's being obscured by itself? {{unsigned ip|173.245.50.89}}
::I would say not. Look how the left arms are all a bit obscured by the body. This indicates that the Pikachu are turned slightly toward a side view. That would mean the back end would more visible, including the tail. [[User:Azule|Azule]] ([[User talk:Azule|talk]]) 09:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

In Pokemon games from Gold and up, pokemon are able to hold items, including pokeballs. While in the game, once a pokeball is filled it is no longer available to select as an item, this comic would seem to imply the possible 'inception' scenario of having a pokemon hold an active pokeball (as the games have already shown that a pokeball can go into a pokeball). --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.193|173.245.54.193]] 14:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
: ahem... "pokeception" short for "pocket inception" - I can't be the first one to coin this (?) - [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 16:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

With Megan looking at her watch and Cueball holding the ball, I think we're meant to understand that Megan IS the Pokémon Cueball intends to use against Pikachu.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.153|108.162.221.153]] 19:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:Since Cueball has a closed ball in hand he has yet to choose a Pokemon. Tjus Megan cannot be his. She must have thrown the first Pikachu ball. Should be changed in explanation.[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It is possible the "win by induction" is from the Pikachu's opponent inferring the series in infinite, and conceding. 19:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Am I missing something or does Randall not quite understand how Pokemon works? (Or is intentionally misrepresenting it for the sake of the joke) Pokemon don't come out with their own pokeball with them-- the pokemon aren't magically created. In theory, if someone were to give a pokemon its own pokemon, a chain could occur, but it would be limited to the number of pokemon previously caught. The pokemon are born in the wild and are captured inside pokeballs-- not created from them. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.91}}
:If a Pikachu can catch another Pikachu in a Pokéball, then there is no reason why the Pikachu it just caught, did not think about this before, and that it had done the same. So when it was caught and put into the Pokéball, it already had a Pokéball with another Pikachu. Of this has occurred enough times you get the result of this comic. No one said this would go on forever, that is something we have interpreted from the comic. It does not come directly from Randall! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 05:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Bother this. I send out Quagsire. Use Earthquake. '''Please''' do not wait.[[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 05:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

No mention of the exponential growth? If every 40th pikachu releases 2 and each of those also release their own pikachu then there is an average growth rate of the pikachu able to release another pikachu of 41/40 = 1.025. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.49.90|173.245.49.90]] 19:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

;Induction

Two other possibilities: one, in a bit of googling, it would appear that there is a type of Pokémon evolution called induced evolution, which involves stones of some kind? Alternately, we can use the term induction in the sense of soneone being ''inducted'' into a group. In this case, Megan has trained her Pikachu to be a Pokémaster. (Perhaps by arranging for it to be inducted into a rarified "gym"? I confess, I know nothing about the show.) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.196|173.245.56.196]] 13:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one mentioned that Pokémon is a game a long time before becoming a show. Although it was because of the animated series that Pikachu became "special" among the hundreds of other cute critters.

Also, no mention to the russian matryoshka dolls? Come on...
Closest other xkcd I recall is https://xkcd.com/878/ {{unsigned ip|198.41.230.68}}

;Axiom of choice

Could this be to do with the {{w|axiom of choice}} from set theory? From my understanding, it's a fundamental axiom of set theory that says 'given a set of sets, it's possible to choose one element from each of those sets'. "Choosing" is in this case a specific operation that can be performed on an element.

One specific detail about the axiom is that all sets under consideration must be nonempty; that is, they must contain at least one element. So I think this is analogous to the situation of a Pokemon trainer owning multiple (full) Pokeballs: his Pokeballs are a collection of non-empty sets from which he is now trying to choose a single element ("Pikachu, I choose you!").

Under ''normal'' circumstances, he can do this without invoking the axiom of choice because he knows the names of all his Pokemon and so can select one from each set. In this case, he could prove his ability to make the choice simply by releasing all of his Pokemon from their balls one at a time. (The Pokemon's name is actually irrelevant, because simply releasing the Pokemon counts as a choice).

However, the situation becomes more complex if it turns out that his Pokemon also possess Pokeballs, because now his ability to make the choice is uncertain. In this situation, there could be ''infinitely many'' Pikachus, and so he can't definitely select a Pikachu from all the Pokeballs under his control. In a situation like this, a mathematician would invoke the axiom of choice.

However, it seems that Cueball is actually having a go at it using an inductive method of choice: first by choosing a Pikachu, then having each Pikachu choose a Pikachu. If the number of Pikachus carrying Pokeballs is finite, then eventually, this will demonstrate that the choice can be made and so the axiom of choice is unnecessary. However, if it's ''infinite'', then this will generate a neverending stream of Pikachus. In the latter case, the game never begins, because you can't begin a Pokemon battle until all participants have chosen Pokemon. Most likely, the other players would simply abandon the game, which Cueball could claim as a victory. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 13:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:I think you are confused about the AoC. AoC states that given any collection of elements, you can choose an element from EACH set. If you are choosing a pokemon from a collection of pokeballs, it's equivalent to choosing one full pokeball from the collection and you are picking an element from a single set, which doesn't involve the AoC (this is something you can always do as long as the set is non-empty). In the example in the comic, AoC is not needed because there is already a natural ordering (ignoring the alt-text, which would make the set a partial ordering), so it's trivial to construct a choice function for any subset (choose the "least" pikachu in the sequence). On the other hand, if we have infinite pikachus running wild, we would need the Axiom of Choice (preferably its equivalent, the Well-Ordering Theorem) to assert that they can be ordered so that all of them except one is captured in a pokeball held by another pikachu.[[User:Aube|Aube]] ([[User talk:Aube|talk]]) 05:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
::I was hoping a real mathematician would get involved. ^^ Do you think that this mathematical definition of 'choice' is the one being referred to in the comic, though? [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 13:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:599: Apocalypse

2015-03-07T10:39:51Z

FlyingPiggy: I signed a comment

Without the title text it could be seen as a reference to Erdös' signature. Erdős used to sign things pgom (poor great old man) then ld (living dead) then ad (archaeological discovery) then ld again (legally dead) then cd (counts dead) so it could be them trying to see if he'd sign living dead. FlyingPiggy

Imagine the result if the ressurected Erdős also appears in that proposed short film with Bacon. They'd both immediately get Erdős–Bacon numbers of 1, for themselves, and then every traditionally Erdős-numbered person ''and'' every single Bacon-numbered person would be guaranteed to end up with an Erdős–Bacon number of no more than their existing (Erdős|Bacon) number plus one! It would make a mockery of the entire system!!! ...and ''that's'' why the end of the world is a Bad ThingTM [[Special:Contributions/178.105.100.250|178.105.100.250]] 18:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(Because there are pedants out there, I wish to immediately acknowledge the intrinsic error in such a statement... Anyone who hasn't acted XOR hasn't co-authored a paper can't get a finite Bacon||Erdős number to add to their finite Erdős||Bacon number, and someone who co-authored a paper with someone who acted with a second Baconised person cannot count that particular link as part of either chain, unless otherwise qualified, and therefore would count for both... Although the intermediary person might get a chance to connect to both if the original guy gets Erdős-connected by a different route. But way to ruin my own joke.)

((Oh, and my Bacon number is no more than 3, by way of an uncredited film appearance alongside Ian McKellan. I haven't checked to see if anyone else that's relevent has less than his presumed value of 2, but I'm not Erdőlised at all yet. Maybe that's my next goal in life. I know someone with an E-number of <=3, but obviously that's not enough to be ''worthy'' of geting an EB# of 7 or less for myself. [[Special:Contributions/178.105.100.250|178.105.100.250]] 19:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC) ))

Talk:1124: Law of Drama

2015-03-04T19:50:40Z

FlyingPiggy: I added a comment

Just once I want to see or hear this sentence: "God I just feel like I'm always surrounded by so much drama, y'know? Guess that's what I get for working in a theatre!" - FlyingPiggy

Regarding the transcript: I don't think you have enough data to characterize this short curve as exponential. What does "slightly exponential" mean, anyway? In any case, it looks like it becomes linear as the x values increase. --[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 11:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

::It could be a shallow power function curve . . .--[[User:Joehammer79|Joehammer79]] ([[User talk:Joehammer79|talk]]) 13:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

::Increasing, concave up. That's really the way to describe it. "Exponential" is a word used too widely by people who don't understand what it means. [[User:MGK|MGK]] ([[User talk:MGK|talk]]) 20:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

:I took 26 data points, assumed the axes defined a (0-1,0-1) window, and tried an extrapolation (using Microsoft Excel; someone with a different tool can surely do better). An exponential model fits fairly well: y = 0.0782 * e^(2.7035*x) with R^2 = 0.9928. However, I agree about the linear end section -- the exponential trendline clearly starts to pull high. --BigMal27 // [[Special:Contributions/192.136.15.149|192.136.15.149]] 13:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Randall thought about the shape of this curve. You see how it becomes linear as both drama and anti-drama declaration increase? At low values, there is a residual amount of drama even when there is little anti-drama declaration, but the marginal increase eventually becomes constant. --[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 11:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

:I think that may be it. Care to add it to the page? [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 11:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

:I think that the upper limit for drama statements does indeed have an end-point, beyond which those declarations can't increase. At that point, I suppose, the drama-ridden person experiences a split state-change, either dropping to the original non-drama state by disavowing all the causers-of-drama in their lives, or by becoming a causer-of-drama.--[[User:Noni Mausa|Noni Mausa]] ([[User talk:Noni Mausa|talk]]) 13:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

:: At this point in the discourse, I'm reminded of a real-scientist friend who admonished me once for reading too much into some data, and it seems applicable here, too. To wit: the axes are not labeled with units -- no tick marks to be seen anywhere -- nor is it clear what sort of axes are in use: log, {{w|logit}}, {{w|probit}}? Randall, not being the naïve sort, likely understands this, and merely shows us a graph that suggest a slightly accelerating direct relationship between the two axes. If the axes are linear, the curve has the characteristic upward swing of an exponential, but we don't ''know'' that, and any conjecture beyond observable facts is inappropriate. To leap to application of, say {{w|Levenberg-Marquardt}}, seems folly. (As an aside, I'm reminded of the old Benny Hill skit, where he's a movie director being interviewed on some talking-heads show; says the interviewer: "I particularly enjoyed the poignancy of suddenly switching to black and white film right as..." Benny Hill: "Rubbish, we just ran out of film, and black and white was all we had left.") -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 14:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out how the title text could make sense grammatically, but now I think it was just written in the form of a vague, 'dramatic', facebook post. Is it just me? [[User:Alanthecowboy|Alanthecowboy]] ([[User talk:Alanthecowboy|talk]]) 13:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As someone that has been through several drama classes, as well as a high school club, I've always found the phrases "causing drama" and "too much drama" to be really irritating. You can never have too much drama! (You can have too much comedy, though.) [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 19:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The title is probably influenced by the concept of dharma from Indian philosophy- the "natural law". [[Special:Contributions/87.57.147.173|87.57.147.173]] 11:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC) mb

If we can figure out who "They" are, we'll have this solved in a jiffy. [[User:David.windsor|David.windsor]] ([[User talk:David.windsor|talk]]) 21:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
:"They" are the independent, obviously and the "declaration" is of Independence, equally obviously. We, on the other hand, were quite alright without them and then some pricks with absolutely no hold on reality put Winston Churchill in power.

:Ho hum, 'twas ever thus![[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 15:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1492: Dress Color

2015-02-27T08:53:40Z

FlyingPiggy: I added a comment

To me, they both look blue/gold [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 06:29, 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)

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)

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?