explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1508: Operating Systems

2015-04-06T16:34:58Z

Ioldanach:

[something].js isn't that far off: https://github.com/runtimejs/runtime (Sometimes I feel like JavaScript is a cult...) :) [[User:Bb010g|Bb010g]] ([[User talk:Bb010g|talk]]) 06:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Typo in title text: ''singed'' should be ''signed''.[[User:Jezzaaaa|Jezzaaaa]] ([[User talk:Jezzaaaa|talk]]) 06:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

:That's not a typo. Singed means slightly burnt. It's implying a post-apocalyptic environment. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.126|108.162.219.126]] 07:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

"Blood Drone" Could be a play of words on "Bloodborne", the game. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.14|108.162.212.14]] 09:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

[something].js is probably referring to Node.js or one of the many frameworks built on Node.JS (such as Google's Angular.js). Node.js isn't written in Javascript, but in c/c++ using Google's V8 JS engine and is a replacement for Apache (a web platform). My interpretation is that it's only a matter of time before someone builds an entire OS using Node.js principles.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.99|108.162.221.99]] 10:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

"Blood Drone" makes me think of blood-borne nanites more than anything. -[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.179|108.162.250.179]] 11:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ditto here, "Blood Drone" implies, to me, an operating system for blood borne nanotech. [[User:Ioldanach|Ioldanach]] ([[User talk:Ioldanach|talk]]) 16:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What if the ASI will be running on GNU/Hurd and 8 years after the war will seize Randal's house? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I cannot find any reliable source stating that iOS stands for "internet Operating System." To the contrary, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_OS Internet Operating Systems] seems like something different entirely. If anyone can find evidence to the contrary, please provide a link. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.114|199.27.128.114]] 14:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that iOS came from the iPhone Operating System conjunction based on what I read on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS Wikipedia]. I'm also inclined to support the idea that "Blood Drone" would be more likely to refer to blood-borne devices than to personal warfare devices, although with the timeline proximity to the Apocalypse, it is easy to see the reason for the other assumption. --[[User:Ancientt|Ancientt]] ([[User talk:Ancientt|talk]]) 16:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:765: Dilution

2014-09-17T14:16:08Z

Ioldanach:

Technically, however, homeopathy states that diluted semen should act as a contraceptive. To get pregnant, they would have to dilute a birth-control pill or something.{{unsigned ip|134.94.171.148}}
:I remember someone complaining that homeopathic medicines are labeled similarly to the real thing on drug store shelves. Wouldn't this mean that, at least in some interpretations, it's the medicine which can be diluted into a cure?[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.135|173.245.52.135]] 17:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
::No, the previous user is correct. The "theory" of homeopathy is that to cure a symptom you provide something that would cause that symptom diluted into some ridiculously small dose. Any products that are marketed with the label "homeopathy" but are primarily an active ingredient that would have a detectable effect are using the label incorrectly. For example, there are two kinds of zinc in Zicam, both diluted at 2x, which means they're 1% of their original solution strength. The label doesn't indicate the original solution strength and doesn't indicate how much zinc is actually present in the medicine. Zinc is known to improve the immune system, so taking a diluted zinc supplement to stop a cold would, if homeopathy were true, would be the opposite of what you'd want to do. Contrast this with the homeopathic remedy Belladonna, prepared at 30X concentrations (preparation is 1x10^-30 of original concentration) supposedly cures the circulatory system, because in normal concentrations Belladonna causes tachycardia, among other things. [[User:Ioldanach|Ioldanach]] ([[User talk:Ioldanach|talk]]) 14:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we conclude that the woman is Megan? [[Special:Contributions/67.188.195.182|67.188.195.182]] 21:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
:The woman is in fact Megan, I did edit the transcript.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I found this explanation of the wording helped: "Traits that cause greater reproductive success of an organism are said to be selected for, whereas those that reduce success are selected against." (From http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection) --[[User:Insomniac|Insomniac]] ([[User talk:Insomniac|talk]]) 05:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1126: Epsilon and Zeta

2014-05-14T18:10:12Z

Ioldanach:

Official hurricane discussions for [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/EPSILON.shtml EPSILON] and [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/ZETA.shtml ZETA] are here. I did read these discussions back when Randall [http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/08/29/for-the-small-handful-of-hurricane-geeks-out-there made a blag post] poking at them [[User:Odysseus654|Odysseus654]] ([[User talk:Odysseus654|talk]]) 16:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with the Italians convicting a bunch of scientists for failing to predict an earthquake? [[Special:Contributions/156.110.38.82|156.110.38.82]] 16:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

:Link? [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 18:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
:: It was all over the news, but here's [http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/10/22/163400917/italy-finds-scientists-guilty-of-manslaughter-for-2009-earthquake-forecast one account]. I wonder if there are jurists in the Italian legal system aware of how much of a laughing stock this is making them. -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 04:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

xkcd 980 (Money) also mentioned the fact that forecast accuracy has improved significantly: "Cost of hurricane forecast improvement funding since 1989: $440 million. Economic savings -- during Hurricane Irene alone -- due to limiting evacuations made possible by recent forecast advances: $700 million." [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 00:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I smile and occasionally chuckle at online comics, but this one had me guffawing with delight.--[[User:Noni Mausa|Noni Mausa]] ([[User talk:Noni Mausa|talk]]) 13:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Good work to whoever linked the entire transcript! [[User:Trek7553|Trek7553]] ([[User talk:Trek7553|talk]]) 21:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added the rest of Zeta's saga, and added links in the transcript to each NHC message. Recommend the Quotes section be removed.
[[User:David.windsor|David.windsor]]

:The transcript section is just a transcript, but not the explain. I did a clean up. But that links like:
:*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.001.shtml http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.001.shtml]
:*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.007.shtml http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.007.shtml]
:*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.010.shtml http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.010.shtml]
:*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.012.shtml http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.012.shtml]
:...
:would be a great source for an proper explanation here. The explain itself is still a mess.
:--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If somebody could add the links on the Zeta quotes, that would be great. Thanks!
P.S. I'm not sure about transcript etiquitte, but if you do revert the links in it, please make them less bulky than the original. A list of "panel one: see here. Panel two..." might work. [[User:Kyt|Kyt]] ([[User talk:Kyt|talk]]) 19:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the links in the transcript are not working correctly. For me it gives all 404 errors... what is going on? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.202|173.245.53.202]] 18:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Lots of NOAA links were incorrect, missing prefix zeroes, and missing in the Transcript. A different set were missing in the link list. I fixed all of both. [[User:Ioldanach|Ioldanach]] ([[User talk:Ioldanach|talk]]) 18:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1126: Epsilon and Zeta

2014-05-14T18:07:54Z

Ioldanach:

Official hurricane discussions for [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/EPSILON.shtml EPSILON] and [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/ZETA.shtml ZETA] are here. I did read these discussions back when Randall [http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/08/29/for-the-small-handful-of-hurricane-geeks-out-there made a blag post] poking at them [[User:Odysseus654|Odysseus654]] ([[User talk:Odysseus654|talk]]) 16:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with the Italians convicting a bunch of scientists for failing to predict an earthquake? [[Special:Contributions/156.110.38.82|156.110.38.82]] 16:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

:Link? [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 18:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
:: It was all over the news, but here's [http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/10/22/163400917/italy-finds-scientists-guilty-of-manslaughter-for-2009-earthquake-forecast one account]. I wonder if there are jurists in the Italian legal system aware of how much of a laughing stock this is making them. -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 04:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

xkcd 980 (Money) also mentioned the fact that forecast accuracy has improved significantly: "Cost of hurricane forecast improvement funding since 1989: $440 million. Economic savings -- during Hurricane Irene alone -- due to limiting evacuations made possible by recent forecast advances: $700 million." [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 00:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I smile and occasionally chuckle at online comics, but this one had me guffawing with delight.--[[User:Noni Mausa|Noni Mausa]] ([[User talk:Noni Mausa|talk]]) 13:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Good work to whoever linked the entire transcript! [[User:Trek7553|Trek7553]] ([[User talk:Trek7553|talk]]) 21:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added the rest of Zeta's saga, and added links in the transcript to each NHC message. Recommend the Quotes section be removed.
[[User:David.windsor|David.windsor]]

:The transcript section is just a transcript, but not the explain. I did a clean up. But that links like:
:*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.001.shtml http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.001.shtml]
:*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.007.shtml http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.007.shtml]
:*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.010.shtml http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.010.shtml]
:*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.012.shtml http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.012.shtml]
:...
:would be a great source for an proper explanation here. The explain itself is still a mess.
:--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If somebody could add the links on the Zeta quotes, that would be great. Thanks!
P.S. I'm not sure about transcript etiquitte, but if you do revert the links in it, please make them less bulky than the original. A list of "panel one: see here. Panel two..." might work. [[User:Kyt|Kyt]] ([[User talk:Kyt|talk]]) 19:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the links in the transcript are not working correctly. For me it gives all 404 errors... what is going on? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.202|173.245.53.202]] 18:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Lots of ZETA links were incorrect, missing prefix zeroes, and missing in the Transcript. A different set were missing in the link list. I fixed all of both. [[User:Ioldanach|Ioldanach]] ([[User talk:Ioldanach|talk]]) 18:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

1126: Epsilon and Zeta

2014-05-14T17:49:28Z

Ioldanach: Links to all relevant NOAA reports, add date text and links in Transcript

{{comic
| number = 1126
| date = October 26, 2012
| title = Epsilon and Zeta
| image = epsilon and zeta.png
| titletext = The average error in the NHC forecasted position of a hurricane three days in the future has shrunk to a third of what it was in 1990--a staggering accomplishment. However, as you may have gathered, forecasts of future storm *strength* have proved more difficult to improve.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Incomplete because no proper explain is given. The links have to be removed from the transcript and should belong to the explain.}}
The {{w|Atlantic hurricane season}} ''normally'' runs from June to November. [[Randall]] is imagining the situation in the {{w|National Hurricane Center}} when the {{w|2005 Atlantic hurricane season|2005 season}} was extended more than a month by the appearance of {{w|Hurricane Epsilon}} and {{w|Tropical Storm Zeta}}. He imagines the situation as NOAA meterologists watch with amazement (and increasing annoyance as they were presumably unable to move off to other things such as post-season analysis) as Hurricane Epsilon and Zeta, far beyond the normal end-of-season (November 30th).

The monospaced text in most of the panels is material taken from actual NHC reports [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.026.shtml][http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.027.shtml][http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.028.shtml] from that season. The commentary has been edited to fit the comic's format, but it's otherwise faithful to the actual reports. While the only change to Forecaster 1 is when he's celebrating New Year's Eve, Forecaster 2 is visibly losing it after the appearance of Zeta in late December, with unkempt hair and an unshaven beard.

The [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.030.shtml last report of the 2005 season] was issued on January 6, 2006.

A full analysis of the 2005 hurricane season can be found [http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/2005.pdf here].

A list of links I did remove from the transcript, please help to improve this:
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.001.shtml 10 AM EST TUE NOV 29 2005 (Panel 1)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.007.shtml 10 PM EST WED NOV 30 2005 (Panel 2a)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.010.shtml 4 PM EST THU DEC 01 2005 (Panel 2b)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.012.shtml 4 AM EST FRI DEC 02 2005 (Panel 3a)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.013.shtml 10 AM EST FRI DEC 02 2005 (Panel 3b)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.018.shtml 4 PM EST SAT DEC 03 2005 (Panel 4)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.019.shtml 10 PM EST SAT DEC 03 2005 (Panel 5a)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.020.shtml 4 AM EST SUN DEC 04 2005 (Panel 5b)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.021.shtml 10 AM EST SUN DEC 04 2005 (Panel 6,7)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.026.shtml 4 PM EST MON DEC 05 2005 (Panel 8)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.027.shtml 10 PM EST MON DEC 05 2005 (Panel 9)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.028.shtml 4 AM EST TUE DEC 06 2005 (Panel 10)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.031.shtml 10 PM EST TUE DEC 06 2005 (Panel 11a)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.032.shtml 4 AM EST WED DEC 07 2005 (Panel 11b)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.037.shtml 10 AM EST THU DEC 08 2005 (Panel 12)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.001.shtml NOON EST FRI DEC 30 2005 (Panel 14)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.002.shtml 4 PM EST FRI DEC 30 2005 (Panel 15)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.007.shtml 10 PM EST SAT DEC 31 2005 (Panel 16)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.011.shtml 10 PM EST SUN JAN 01 2006 (Panel 17)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.012.shtml 4 AM EST MON JAN 02 2006 (Panel 18a)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.014.shtml 4 PM EST MON JAN 02 2006 (Panel 18b)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.015.shtml 10 PM EST MON JAN 02 2006 (Panel 19a)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.021.shtml 10 AM EST WED JAN 04 2006 (Panel 19b)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.024.shtml 4 AM EST THU JAN 05 2006 (Panel 20)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.025.shtml 10 AM EST THU JAN 05 2006 (Panel 21)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.027.shtml 10 PM EST THU JAN 05 2006 (Panel 22)]
*[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.030.shtml 4 PM EST FRI JAN 06 2006 (Panel 23)]

Randall [[453|has discussed]] the seemingly erratic nature of hurricanes before. This may, however, have been a response to the recent {{w|Hurricane Sandy}}.

The text also seems to be a parody of horror stories/movies, and their theme of writing.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|The links have to be removed from the transcript and should be explained at explain.}}
:The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season saw devastating storms like Katrina and Rita.

:But less well-remembered is just how ''strange'' the season got toward the end.

:The forecasters at the National Hurricane Center are the best of the best.

:Their predictions are masterpieces of professional analysis. But in November 2005, out in the center of the Atlantic — far from any land — the atmosphere stopped making sense.

:And the forecasters — who'd expected the season to be long over by now — started to get a little ...unhinged.

:This is their story, as seen through the actual 2005 NHC advisories:
::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.001.shtml Tuesday, November 29th, 2005:] Tropical storm Epsilon... The 26th named storm of apparently never ending 2005 Atlantic hurricane season.

::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.007.shtml 10 PM Wed:] The window of opportunity for strengthening should close in 12-24 hr.
::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.010.shtml 4 PM Thu:] Slow but steady weakening is expected to begin in 12-24 hours.

::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.012.shtml 4 AM Fri:] Epsilon does not appear weaker.
::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.013.shtml 10 AM Fri:] Epsilon has been upgraded to a 65-kt hurricane.

:[Forecaster 2:]
::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.018.shtml 4 PM Sat:] Epsilon has continued to strengthen against all odds... [but] can not maintain the current intensity much longer since the environment is becoming increasingly unfavorable.

::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.019.shtml 10 PM Sat:] Epsilon might or might not still be a hurricane... but in any case it likely will not be one on Sunday.
::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.020.shtml 4 AM Sun:] Epsilon is downgraded to a tropical storm.

::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.021.shtml 10 AM Sun:] Morning satellite images indicate that Epsilon has restrengthened.

::There are no clear reasons ... and I am not going to make one up ... to explain the recent strengthening of Epsilon and I am just describing the facts.
::However ... I still have to make an intensity forecast and the best bet at this time is to predict weakening... Epsilon will likely become a remnant low.
::I heard that before about Epsilon... haven't you?

::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.026.shtml 4 PM Mon:] The cloud pattern continues to be a remarkably well-organized for a hurricane at such high latitude in December.

::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.027.shtml 10 PM Mon:] We have said this before... but Epsilon really does not appear as strong this evening as it did this afternoon.

::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.028.shtml 4 AM Tue:] I have run out of things to say.

::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.031.shtml 10 PM Tue:] The end is in sight. It really really is. But in the meantime... Epsilon continues to maintain hurricane status.
::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.032.shtml 4 AM Wed:] The end is in sight... yes... but not quite yet. I thought I was going to find a weakening system and instead I found that Epsilon is still a hurricane.

::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.037.shtml 10 AM Thu:] Convection has vanished and Epsilon is now a tight swirl of low clouds.
::I hope this is the end of the long lasting 2005 hurricane season.

:Narrator: Nope.

:ENTER TROPICAL STORM ZETA
::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.001.shtml Friday, December 30th, 2005:] An elongated area of low pressure... which had its origins in an old frontal trough... began developing organized convection overnight. Advisories are initiated on the 27th tropical storm of 2005.

:Narrator: ANY NEW STORMS WOULD BE IN THE 2006 SEASON
::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.002.shtml 4 PM Fri:] Although the atmosphere seems to want to develop tropical storms ad nauseam ... the calendar will shortly put an end to the use of the Greek alphabet to name them.

:Narrator: BUT 2005's WOULDN'T END UNTIL ZETA DID.
::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.007.shtml 10 PM Sat:] Zeta appeared on the verge of losing all of its deep convection a few hours ago... but since about 21z the convection has been on somewhat of an increase again.

::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.011.shtml 10 PM Sun:] This is like Epsilon all over again. most of the conventional guidance suggested that Zeta should have been dissipated by now ... well it is not indeed ... and Zeta is pretty much alive at this time.
::I have no choice but to forecast weakening
::again and again.

::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.014.shtml 4 AM Mon:] By 24-36 hours... a significant increase in westerly winds... should act to shear away most of the associated convection... and finally bring the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season to a merciful ending.
::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.014.shtml 4 PM Mon:] It is hard to conceive that a tropical cyclone will be able to survive for very long in such a hostile environment. Therefore I have not backed off on the forecast of weakening. (of course...Zeta may have other ideas.)

::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.015.shtml 10 PM Mon:] Zeta is stronger than yesterday.
::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.021.shtml 10 AM Wed:] As you can see...I ran out of things to say.

::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.024.shtml 4 AM Thu:] Satellite intensity estimates have decreased. Zeta is downgraded to a 30 kt tropical depression.

::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.025.shtml 10 AM Thu:] Shortly after the previous advisory had been issued ... regretfully ... the intensity ... increased to 35 kt and Zeta is a tropical storm once again.

::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.027.shtml 10 PM Thu:] Although it seems as if Zeta will never die ... the forecast continues to show weakening.

::[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.030.shtml 4 PM, Friday, January 6, 2006:] Zeta no longer meets the criteria of a tropical cyclone ... which means that both it and the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season have ended.
::This is the National Hurricane Center signing off for 2005.

:[Forecaster 2 leaves.]

:Forecaster 1: Actually, Zeta's cloud pattern is...
:Forecaster 2 (offscreen): '''''NO.'''''
:Forecaster 1: Ok.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Hurricanes]]

Talk:1325: Rejection

2014-03-28T13:42:24Z

Ioldanach:

How do we know which one is Cueball and which one is “guy”?

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.119|108.162.254.119]] 08:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

:I was wondering the same thing. Is there some kind of assumption that Cueball is always the "smart" stick figure? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.65|108.162.254.65]] 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all we dont know that the first guy has been recently rejected, that is actually an assumption made by the second guy. Also, the "they choose jerks over nice guys" argument is wrong not because it lacks judgement and self awareness, it is wrong because it belittles the woman's judgement and self-awareness. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.105|108.162.254.105]] 08:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the first guy is a jerk and the girl rejected him because he's a jerk. The second guy is quite blatantly pointing out that the first guy's a jerk, but the first guy is so self-absorbed that he just doesn't get it - and probably never will. This is indicates a personality disorder/character flaw. The first guy is incapable of accepting that he is a jerk and therefore has to blame the girl by falling back on a cliche about girls only wanting nice guys. This is OK for the first guy because he thinks nice guys are losers.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.9|108.162.229.9]] 09:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

:Uhm... Some of the above may be correct - but not the last sentences. The first guy thinks he is a nice guy, and he is about to use this to explain why he has been rejected since girls only say they want nice guys but really want something else. She probably doesn't want a jerk! But may rather go for a sporty/strong/hansom type without considering how nice he is. So the guy she chooses may or may not be nice to her (and may even be a real jerk). All this is of course just part of the stereotyping of women. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble editing the article. I am trying to change the explanation to:

In popular culture women supposedly go for jerks instead of "nice guys". The guy on the left in this picture is frustrated and complaining as he has just been (presumably) rejected by a girl, and thinks it's because he's the "nice guy" type. However, there are many other reasons why a woman might reject a guy who isn't a jerk. (Though this guy just might be a jerk.) Cueball is trying to tell this guy that there are many, more complicated, reasons, and that saying "women don't like nice guys" and presuming to know what women "really want" is showing a rejection of that woman's agency, which might be the real that reason she rejected him.

The Alt Text continues the "conversation", with Cueball implying that he believes that the first guy is bad at taking hints, offering a sarcastic "crash course" in hint taking, with Cueball outright saying that he is trying to end the conversation while the first guys continues to follow him.

but it won't save. Can someone help me or copy/paste my changes themselves? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.77|173.245.50.77]] 10:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

:Nevermind. Found the captcha check while posting the above. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.77|173.245.50.77]] 10:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
::Dear 173.245.50.77, You could create a userid and login -- that way your explanation would also appear in the history nicely with your name against it [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 14:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's about "negging" by pick-up-artists. See http://xkcd.com/1027 The theory is that putting a woman down somehow makes her more attracted to you. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.216|108.162.222.216]] 11:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)DivePeak

:Exactly, "Nice guys" is a pick up artist phrase, especially in conjunction with the "what women really want" type of line. One of the techniques they use is "negging" which is exactly what Cueball describes. It isn't about being passive-aggressive. Very often they constitute the "[http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html missing stair]" in a group. --[[User:Ioldanach|Ioldanach]] ([[User talk:Ioldanach|talk]]) 13:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What is particularly interesting is the assumption by Randall that ALL woman are self aware enough to know what they really want in a man. The cartoon generalizes that self proclaimed "nice guys" are in error and whining needlessly and cluelessly about their situation. But it is this exact sort of generalization that has lead to the popular cultural conception of woman going for "jerks" over "nice guys."
In reality, there are men who are rejected by woman who have poor judgement in men, as well as men who perceive themselves to be "nice guys" but do not have the introspection and awareness to respect a woman's judgement, even if it could be poor. [[User:Tardyon|Tardyon]] ([[User talk:Tardyon|talk]]) 14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, if your judgment is poor your judgement shouldn't be respected regardless of gender. It should be pointed out to you, such as is happening here. That being said the primary issue the generalization."Guy" can speak about only one person, the woman he knows. And it'd still be estimation, but it'd probably be a deeper insight into the girl than all women everywhere. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.170|199.27.128.170]] 17:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Rheios

Consider a parallel comic: "Harvard says they want well-rounded students, but what they really want are - " "Applicants who respond to rejection letters by belittling Harvard's judgment?" Suddenly it's not so amusing.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.39|108.162.219.39]] 20:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:Suddenly? I actually find that equally amusing. Your parallel is a bit off thou, as guy talks about women generally rather than a specific one, so rather than Harvard it would be universities and then cueball's response would be more helpful, as in that guys current response won't help him and perhaps he need to self analyze to find out why he failed and change to do better with the next application (or woman).[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.96|199.27.128.96]] 16:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually don't see your point. Are you saying Harvard doesn't want well-rounded students? I'm sure they do; if you go there with a 5.0 GPA but nothing else to recommend you, you probably won't get in, and if you do get in you won't be successful.

When girls say they want "nice guys", they want someone who will treat them well. What would something like that look like to Harvard? Maybe - someone who respects the institution, the staff and the property, someone who won't plagiarize, who won't use the facilities for illegal or unethical activities. Someone who isn't going there just so they can say "I'm going to Harvard". Can you measure these things ahead of time? No, probably not. Even if you could measure them, by themselves, would they make you attractive to Harvard, or likely to succeed there? No, they would not. Harvard wants intelligent, well-rounded, hard-working individuals who can actually demonstrate that they are worthy of acceptance. So yes, of course they want "nice guys", but that doesn't mean shit unless you bring everything else too.

1. Yes, girls want guys who will treat them well, instead of badly. And they shouldn't really have to say it.

2. Being a "nice guy" has almost nothing to do with getting the girl. You have to bring more than that.

3. It is necessary, but not sufficient. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 19:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

How do we know that the girl did not go with someone who is more jerk than the character who thinks to be a nice guy? {{unsigned ip|141.101.70.103}}