explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1579: Tech Loops

2015-09-19T01:08:52Z

NoniMausa:

RANDALL, WHY DID YOU GIVE ME AN EXISTENIAL CRISIS?! [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.113|173.245.54.113]] 10:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

There are only three loops; "Awful hack from 2009" and "IRC for some reason" forms one, "Tool" → "Updater" → "Library" → "Tool" is the second, and there's a long one from "Awful hack from 2009" → "Library" → "Library" → "Custom settings" → "Library" → "Hardware workaround" → "Awful hack from 2009". Any other path not from "DLL needed by something" ends at "Repository". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.193|108.162.237.193]] 04:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

: I think the fact that "Repository" ends to be a sink (only entering connections) is a mistake - all other have at least one entry and at least one exit --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 07:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

:: No, I think that makes sense. A repository is where something is stored. If it's in use by something, it's not a repository. Of course, I'm thinking that repository means something like "USB Hard Drive", so I might be wrong. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.187|108.162.249.187]] 09:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
::: I agree to this. A repository is a perfect location for "dumping" things where they never come back [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 09:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
:::: I interpreted it to mean that the repository hosts the things it is dependent on, using the things it is dependent on, making the loop conceptual. The code that is hosted in the repository is only ultimately required because of the need for the repository to host thing code that the repository runs on. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.187|141.101.98.187]] 11:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't Buddha sais "The Path is the Goal"? Just because what you are doing is on path which seems to go nowhere doesn't mean the path is not worth it. Did you saw any tourist complaining that the trek he's on is supposed to end on the same place it started? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Does it bother anyone else that he wrote "soley" or am I missing something?
:It also bothers John and Nancy, but it doesn't bother me because he was obviously talking about doing it by means of a fish.[[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]])

When I see this comic I think its less about "how tech people find complicated solutions to things" and more about how as time goes on they end up with increasingly complex workarounds to get old stuff to work. Like in https://xkcd.com/1305/ they wanted to use the chat group, but for that they needed the VM, but according to this comic they need hardware workaround for that, which needs a library to work, which needs custom settings, which needs a library, etc.... Thoughts?

I don't get the current "explanation" at all which goes off on a seemingly off-topic tangent on Android programming (not to mention that I don't agree that gps-based apps to find nearby gas stations are the typical introductory apps source code one might find.)
From the design of the xkcd panel, it's obviously targeted at a Windows desktop computer rather than Android, given the mention of DLLs. You could trivially substitute DLL by "shared library" (aka ".so") and make it a Linux or other Unix-compatible system, which combined with Windows would cover 99.99% of existing desktop systems. And of course a reference to [https://xkcd.com/349/ 349] shall be made when it comes to hardware workarounds.
Given this context, the comic is more about how much of the time one might spend on a computer as a geek tends to be in maintaining the system itself rather using it, up to the point where maintaining the system becomes the main goal. Most people consider computers as tools to achieve something else -- e.g. to write a book or balance their bank account; however here Randall is using his computer just for the sake of maintaining the OS or the hardware on said computer. It's tools for the sake of tooling, rather than tools as helpers to build something else. If somebody knows how to express that more fluently, please do so.
:A hardware equivalent would be reprap: get a 3d printer and end up spending all the time printing 3d parts for the printer instead of creating something else like toys or art.
:I've modified the explanation with a variation of this; I've left the original explanation in place since maybe there's some value in it. Please edit as you see fit. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 14:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A great deal of all that we do, as individuals, and as a society, directly or indirectly maintains our ability to do so.
Such a tiny sliver of our lives is "unproductive", but that's literally the only reason we do any of the "productive" parts of life.
The only things really worth doing are the things there is no real reason for doing.
Does that make sense?
[[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjaminikuta]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 18:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

In a broader sense, one might even say that the basic human desire to socialise is evolutionarily advantageous, serving the purpose of continuing the species. In that broad sense, everything that we do is merely "maintaining a huge chain of technology solely to support itself". Reminds me of https://xkcd.com/59/. It's easy to forget why we do things in life. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjaminikuta]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 18:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Forget about official "tech people," even godforsaken ordinary users spend way too much time wrestling with this stuff. I myself always quail when I see a .dll in the distance. It has never ended well for me.[[User:NoniMausa|NoniMausa]] ([[User talk:NoniMausa|talk]]) 01:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1576: I Could Care Less

2015-09-11T15:20:13Z

NoniMausa:

Another excellent comic by Randall. In case of interest to anyone a different perspective, David Mitchell did a wonder rant on this... "Dear America... | David Mitchell's SoapBox"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw {{unsigned ip|‎141.101.98.100}}

The only people who complain about this phrase are pedantic morons who have never heard such things as "head over heels".

Here, I've composed a list of common vernacular/slang idioms which are valid, clear, and diametrically opposed to their original meaning:
* "Head over heels"
* "Break a leg"
* "It's the shit"
* "That's bad"
* "She's phat"
* "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"
* "Irregardless"{{unsigned|Cwallenpoole}}
:The reason I dislike "I could care less" is because it just grates me. It disrupts the flow of parsing language in my brain, throwing up a "wait, what?" exception that I have to expend far more mental energy than usual to correctly interpret the meaning of something in my head. I'm not being pedantic for the sake of uptight rule adherence and feeling superior (I play around with language and use it in non-standard forms all the time), I'm pedantic because it causes my brain real difficulties in processing the meaning of what a person's said. I mean I'm a woman with Asperger's (and a British one at that) so maybe things are a little different for me, but that's just why I personally strongly dislike this usage. The things on your list though are all different in some way to "I could care less", at least for me, for example:
:* "Head over heels" - How is this an opposite meaning, exactly? Doesn't it give a rather nice metaphor for being giddy about something? Being hyperbolic and metaphorical doesn't make it an opposite meaning.
:* "Break a leg" - This is closer to being an opposite, but the exact opposite to wishing an actor good luck would be to wish them bad luck. The mutation to a slightly absurdist statement marks it out as having a different meaning, especially as "break a leg" isn't really used in any other context than to wish a person good luck. While it may be the case that "I could care less" is rarely (if at all) used in its literal form, there's still nothing to mutate it and obviously mark it out as a linguistic special usage case. It's also still how I'd expect someone to phrase it if they were actually telling me they could care less about something.
::: The "Vaudeville theory" on this page is where I got my understanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break_a_leg --EE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.135|108.162.216.135]] 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
:* "It's the shit" - Again, this is mutated. People aren't saying "it's shit", the word "the" handily tags it for my brain parser to handle differently.
:* "That's bad" - Well, you've got me here actually. I mean, context (and tone) makes the meaning obvious but I can't objectively understand why this phrase doesn't cause me the same sort of difficulties at all. Perhaps because I grew up in the 80s, and a big part of my musical upbringing was Michael Jackson. ''♬ A-hee-hee! Hoo! ♬''
:* "She's phat" - This is completely literal, "phat" is a slang term meaning excellent or attractive. It may be a mutation of the word "fat" or not, its etymology is uncertain, but it is indisputably a very different word now (much like how "orchids" means a species of flower rather than testicles, and "sinister" hasn't meant left in centuries).
::: I understand it's an acronym: Pretty Hot And Tempting. --EE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.135|108.162.216.135]] 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
:* "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" - This is also completely literal, Freud meant that while he believed many things ''could'' have hidden, psychosexual meanings... that while sometimes a person might be puffing on a cigar due to some suppressed phallic desires... they could also just be puffing on a cigar because they're enjoying a nice cigar. That is to say, not everything has a hidden subconscious meaning, and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, not a substitute object to fellate.
:* "Irregardless" - Well yes, the suffix added to "regardless" here would usually invert its meaning, but "irregardless" isn't actually a word that existed before it came into use with its current meaning so it's not like saying a previously established and defined word (or phrase).
: Anyway, while I do believe language is flexible and mutable, this particular phrase fails the easily interpretable test for my brain. I try not to be too uptight about it, but it really does irritate me in a way I can't help. Obviously my opinion is not the only one, so that's just my 1.29587 British pence on the matter :D [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.195|141.101.98.195]] 12:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
::(In response to Cwallenpoole, not 141.101.98.195, who makes good points that I didn't actually read first!) "Head over heels" is of course "head over (and down), heels (upwards) (...and continue this rotation to its logical conclusion)"; "Break a leg" has {{w|Break_a_leg|a number of possible origins}} (I always assumed wishing luck was unlucky, thus the inverse, but several "the leg not being yours" versions also ring true); "It's the shit" is using a somewhat unfortunate object (certainly if you miss out the "the") that is a short-cut off-colour superlative like "the dog's bollocks"; "bad==good" I always assumed was "what's bad to the establishment is good for our own clique"; "phat" is far too modern for me, but probably arises a similar positive superlative with some counter-culture anti-standard spelling; Cigars being cigars don't sound diametrically opposed, to me, although who knows ''what'' went on in Freud's head!; "Irregardless" is an obvious portmanteau/malapropism blend that is so easy to create. - Or so I would personally explain these.
:: Here's an additional one, though, if you care for it: "Cheap at half the price". It sounds wrong if you dig deep and work out that it must mean "It is not more than or equal to twice the actually fair price you should have been asking" (i.e. it's less than double the price). But I've always internally rationalised it as really saying "If this figure you mention actually were only half of the full price you are ''truly'' asking for, the real price would still be considered cheap" (i.e. it's less than half price). Or it could just be obfuscated salesman patter, i.e. telling the truth (still making a profit, but less than a 100% mark-up) but using weasel-words and terminology that create misleading imagery in the listener's mind. i.e. No crime, no foul, should Trading Standards happen to come-a-visiting, one day... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.32|141.101.98.32]] 13:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
:::''Actually'', to follow-up on myself: "It's cheap(, it being in this instance) at half the price (I would normally charge)" works best. Why has that only just occured to me? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.32|141.101.98.32]] 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

'I couldn't care less' is the standard formulation in the UK, for one. I always assumed that the US version was originally a variant on this which was later contracted, eg 'I could care less, but not much'.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.106|141.101.99.106]] 07:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that xkcd is so pro-science, I don't think the analysis here should endorse the peeve that there's anything wrong with "I could care less" (or use of "literally" as an intensifier), since most actual linguists, experts on how language works, think it's fine. See for example the list of posts dealing with the question here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=21170#more-21170 And of course, the comic itself points out how petty an besides the point this kind of "correction" is. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.19|162.158.92.19]] 07:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

: As a linguist, regarding the claim that most actual linguists think it's fine, I'd have to respectfully say HELL NO! There is a difference between acknowledging the pragmatic implementation of the phrase, that is, its use in common parlance and the general acceptance and understanding of it, and the question wether or not it is "fine". The comic exemplifies a rather extreme version of the idea "Whatever people use is proper language" - in other words, as long as everybody involved in a conversation gets what is meant, there is no point in arguing semantics, grammer, etc. This is, however, neither the only, nor the dominant approach to language and linguistics. For exapmle, it doesn't answer the question how such an ostensibly paradox use of this phrase came to happen, where (geographically, socially, etc.) the phrase might have originated, and other puzzless regarding the origin of the phrase; this attitude also dismisses any inquiry into how humans process (or ignore) such discrepancies between literal meaning and actual use, and in general, how humans organise, structure, and conecptualise language. Additionally, this comic adds a radical deconstructional (and maybe existential) twist to this perspective by basically saying, "We're all alone, and can never really know or understand anybody else".
: Such an attitude of total relativism ("Every experience ist entirely subjective and unique") makes my skin crawl. It is by far more presumptious than being a little pedantic about grammar and the use of expressions.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.176|162.158.114.176]] 11:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As it's currently written, the explanation seems to suggest that "I could care less" is the American form and "I couldn't care less" British. In fact, both forms are in use in the US, and it wouldn't surprise me if "I could care less" occurs occasionally in British English as well. There are also other English-speaking countries in the world. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.19|162.158.92.19]] 07:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
:As a Brit, I can't think of any time I've heard a fellow Briton say "I could care less", it's always seemed very much an American phenomenon. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.195|141.101.98.195]] 12:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As for the title text, I'd disagree with "The sentence is also ambiguous, as it may mean that literally or figuratively, the speaker could or couldn't care less." I think that Randall is pretty clear here: he ''should'' ('could' as in polite request) care less about irrational idioms instead of wasting time drawing comics about it. But he just can't resist. And without him doing so, we wouldn't be here. So in fact, it is nonsense for Randall to care less, and this contradiction is the point of the title text joke. But then again, I'm not native English speaker, and even less of a thought reader to understand what was on his mind. -- kavol, [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.224|141.101.96.224]] 08:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think "I could care less" is completely unheard of in Britain - I had to come here to find out what this was all about! In the UK the correction wouldn't be seen as pedantic, but rather that you had said something really rather odd, possibly for effect. I'm guessing in the US this doesn't stand out, and the phrase is "familiar" so the brain will run with it, but it just sounds really weird and jarring to me. That's not being pedantic, we toss double negatives around all over the place. Randall's point is that it how you interpret the words, rather than exact rules. So if ponytail is British then she is genuinely just trying to check that it wasn't a slip of the tongue and not meant for effect. To experience how odd it sounds its like a similar phrase "I don't give a s**t", but someone saying "I do give a s**t" (unless you guy's say that as well?!). {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.205}}

: You're right, the British National Corpus has essentially no hits for "could care less" [http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/]. However, Ponytail's "correction" doesn't sound like she's unfamiliar with the expression, but more like the common pedantic objection to it, so I doubt that she's intended to be British, or that it's anything other than "showing off how well she knows some mental checklist." The Lawler link above ([http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/giveadamn.html]) discusses the example "They could give a damn about Whitewater" (as in they '''don't''' actually give a damn about it). I think you could get away with "I give a shit?" or "[Like] I give a shit!" (with the "like" elided) as implicitly negative, but no, you can't put in an affirmative "do." [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.19|162.158.92.19]] 10:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm fighting a long lost battle, I know, but can I mention my fight against the (long-standing) misuse of Decimation when the speaker/writer probably means Devastation? These days it's often assumed to be its own mathematical complement (around ~10% survival, rather than the intended ~10% depletion). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.32|141.101.98.32]] 13:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I am right with you on this one. Although I don't think the users are mistaking the Dev- for the Dec-, they have just forgotten or never learned that "decimate" had anything to with percentages. Heck, many English speakers don't grasp that percent has anything to do with percentages. [[User:NoniMausa|NoniMausa]] ([[User talk:NoniMausa|talk]]) 15:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Either one works, depending on how the sentence is finished:
* I could care less...about this than other things.
* I couldn't care less...about this than I already do.
--EE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.135|108.162.216.135]] 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1558: Vet

2015-08-01T01:38:35Z

NoniMausa:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct4Rl4VrMp8 [[Special:Contributions/198.41.239.32|198.41.239.32]] 11:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"There is something wrong with my dog" and "The Migratory Bird Treaty act" is really messed up. Roomba might be produced in US, but a dog is not a bird so Megan must be really confused. Except for just a few species, birds can fly and the last Roomba that flown got help from its owner into a wall for being a walking hazard. Or could Megan mean that among the dirt is feathers (from pillows maybe) that got stuck in the wheels and therefor ascends directly from birds and dinosaurs. [[User:Aquaplanet|Aquaplanet]] ([[User talk:Aquaplanet|talk]]) 13:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
:That whoosh sound was the joke going way over your head. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.141|173.245.54.141]] 14:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like this is a vet at a big-box pet supply store; that would explain the lack of a separate waiting room. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.167|173.245.56.167]] 15:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:I was going to say that maybe it's just a returns counter or complaint department. Are there actually vets at Petsmart-or-others that operate like this? Vet being a desk that you just queue up for? [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 19:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The pet of the second customer fits into the carrier, because it apparently is HALF-dog (head and a pair of legs). {{unsigned ip|173.245.55.99}}

"...Perhaps he has another small dog in there..." Actually, he may have arrived by bus or car, with the dog inside the carrier during the ride (for safety and convenience) but walking into the clinic with the dog on a leash because, hey! carrying even a smallish dog inside its carrier is a lot more work than getting the dog to carry himself, while carrying the much lighter carrier in the other hand. [[User:NoniMausa|NoniMausa]] ([[User talk:NoniMausa|talk]]) 01:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1534: Beer

2015-06-05T22:46:20Z

NoniMausa: Drunken Robins.

I hate the taste and smell and associations (such as urine and vomit where they shouldn't be). A friend used to freely admit he didn't like the taste and only drank to get drunk. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.161|108.162.249.161]] 06:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This is why there are so many different styles of beers, or wines, or other alcoholic beverages. I personally don't care for IPAs, but will rarely pass up a good Pilsner.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.189|108.162.238.189]] 07:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

:LOL, that's exactly what Cueball is talking about. Beer is a canonical example of {{w|acquired taste}}. But even after having done so, all hoppy beers (including most IPAs and Pilsners) still taste pretty similar to me. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 11:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

:: Like of beer is actually a really bad example of acquired taste. I was stealing sips of beer from my dad at age 3-4, if he had an unattended open beer. Liking of beer is primarily generics, and secondary acquired taste. Now talk about {{w|Marmite}} and discuss acquired taste. [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 16:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible that the characters, being American, have only ever tasted American beer? So when Cueball says that "all beer tastes kind of bad" hat he really means is "all <em>American</em> beer tastes kind of bad"? That would make a lot more sense (especially if you assume that they only buy from the major brands, and haven't yet tried beer from microbreweries.) --[[User:PeR|PeR]] ([[User talk:PeR|talk]]) 09:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
:entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. I think too many people forget Occam's Razor here, and are too eager to engage in deeper analysis than the content can really support without help from, say, an interview with Randall. No offense intended; this is a trend on this wiki in general. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.201|108.162.221.201]] 13:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

::I'm kind of tired of people automatically assuming is someone doesn't like beer, it's because the person saying so has only been exposed to bad ones due to their locality. I don't like beer at all because it tastes like a mouthful of yeast and medicine. Alcohol in general is an acquired taste for most people, who usually only start drinking it due to social pressure or as a recreational drug. Yeasty foods are as well, especially yeasty breads, and beer is basically fermented bread juice when you get down to it. There's also a genetic link behind whether or not someone will like alcohol, and it's usually he effect rather than the taste that makes it appealing. --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.111.209|188.114.111.209]] 14:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

::: You need to read the research -- it is actually linked to genetic differences in taste-buds. You may not like it, which is not unlikely, but that does not say that is the same for others who may be genetically disposed otherwise [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 18:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Speaking from personal experience, I've never tried any form of alcohol that I've liked. And if you must know my experience is mainly centered around beer that's highly recommended by friends and family. The last case was at a tour of a local microbrewery that seems to be doing extremely well. I'm sure if I pulled a large scale taste test I'd aquire enough of a taste to delude myself into thinking that something or other is actually worth drinking but I don't see why I should go through the effort just to conform to a social norm. --not the mama[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.180|108.162.238.180]] 14:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

: You should NOT conform to social norm but drink what YOU feel taste good -- 10.000 years ago, humanity needed portable water -- west of the Urals, humans stared to use fermentation as a method to keep bacteria out of the drinking water, where east they started to brew tea -- their descendant responded genetically over the next 10.000 years with European developing genetic traits to be tolerant and liking the fermented brew. Beer is predominantly limited to north Europe as it has lower alcohol levels compared to wine -- the higher alcohol volume is needed to keep bacteria out in the warmer southern Europe -- HENCE unless you are of northen european decent you may not genetically be programmed to like (or tolerate) the taste of beer -- just don't drink beer if you don't like it !!! [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 19:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

::I'm 1/16th northern European (Dutch), 1/4th southern European, Native American too. Guess I didn't get the North Europe beer gene. Why'd the even northerner Europeans like the Russians and Scottish become distilled spirit drinkers? Did their beer freeze too easily so they made vodka and whiskey? If this is why the north developed a beer culture then why'd Egyptians and Mesopotamians drink beer? It's very hot there. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.59|108.162.215.59]] 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Major brands suck, but probably in most countries, even Germany, where people usually have very high opinion about German beer. There are thousands of small breweries, though, some with a very old tradition (like in monasteries), and many just popping up recently. At some microbreweries you have to order weeks in advance, but the brew you get is really exceptional, and you'll drink it at room temperature from wine glasses. Absolutely not meant for getting drunk. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.107|108.162.254.107]] 10:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am disliking to indifferent to most of brands of beer, but I like a few specific ones, like Ginger's Beer, or gingerbread beer from local brewery. --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 11:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I know that beer is generally considered to be an acquired taste, but some people acquire that taste really quickly. The first beer I ever drank was a Miller that I stole from a case that my dad had left sitting in the kitchen for months. I was 12, and it is still probably the worst thing I've ever tasted. I decided I didn't like beer, and from ages 12 to 17 the only alcohol I drank was wine. At 17, I tried keg beer and was utterly indifferent to it. By the time I turned 19 I was into good local beers, but if I've been in the heat for a long time, I'll drink watery mediocre beer and it will be divine. And then there's shower beer...oh, shower beer!12:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC) {{unsigned ip|108.162.225.36}}

The only thing worse than a pilsner is an IPA... which is just a stronger version of a pilsner. Most beer just has way too high of an IBU rating. At least malts aren't entirely awful and oatmeal malts are somewhat palatable. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.83|162.158.255.83]] 14:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Culturally, for me, the common booze is 'a pint of bitter' (or 'best'). I apparently had my first sip when a toddler. I 'sneakily' took a sip from the top of a glass sat in front of my father, before screwing my face up most amusingly, I am told. I then went straight back in for another... it's not obvious to me if I was being influenced to 'want to like it'. Perhaps it was just the novelty. Anyway, I will admit I don't ''love'' the taste of bitter, but at least it's got an significant taste that all the seemingly anonymous mass-produced lagers can't match. (OTOH, cider's quite stimulating, but I take against the overly fizzy ones.) When it comes to non-alcoholic beverages, I will actively ''refuse'' a cup of tea (the social norm for adults, especially someone like me in their fifth decade), however socially awkward and unexpected, and politely turn down the offer of a coffee, if possible, on the basis that I might not be staying long. (I don't like teas at all, even fruit ones, but I can stand coffee if sweetened.) But it's ''amazing'' what we tend to eat and drink, just because it's expected. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.59|141.101.99.59]] 14:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Great comic. This is just for me. I do not like beer. Any kind. And I do rarely drink them. Same with cofee ans tee which I never drink. It is not always easy - so nice to see this comic. :) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a stout man (will drink stout alone, if it is dark enough and if the hop content is small enough), but will admit that any beer is better after the fifth glass of it.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

;"Acquired Taste"

Part of the explanation refers to acquired tastes as being a response to social pressures and to avoid cognitive dissonance. This doesn't match the description of what the '''linked to''' wikipedia page for acquired tastes, as that page distinguishes authentic acquired tastes from those meeting the author's description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_taste#Intentional_acquisition_of_tastes

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.190|108.162.238.190]] 15:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Aaron E

Budweiser tastes like urine. It's the most popular beer in the US. Immediately after trying it I tasted a drop of my urine to see if the urine was still worse and that wasn't enough urine to decide. Anyone care to put a larger amount of urine in their mouth for science? This is the crap they make Bud..Weis..Er and Wassuuuuuuup! commercials about? They actually make a Lite version of this so people can enjoy it while getting less drunk or fat? Extroverts are weird. Also, out of the legion of OKcupid questions the best predictor of the promiscuity question is "I like the taste of beer, true or false". So if you want to have sex quick, you want to hear "Beer tastes awesome! Woo! [Burp] [Vomit] Ooh!Ooh!" [drinks vodka from bottle] [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.59|108.162.215.59]] 16:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Strangely, many animals acquire a taste for alcohol, and they must do it quickly because they don't live long enough to do it slowly. Case in point-- robins and other birds, gobbling up fermented fallen fruit, and then stumbling around like human novice drinkers do. They only live 2-3 years, and they only have access to the stuff for a couple of weeks in the autumn, and yet, there they go, staggering down the sidewalk and tripping over imaginary twigs. And then there's my puppy, who was begging droplets of strong beer and black coffee off my fingertips from eight weeks old. (Good Canadian beer, by the way.) I wonder if a taste for bitterness might be adaptive, as many bitter plants are also medicinal? [[User:NoniMausa|NoniMausa]] ([[User talk:NoniMausa|talk]]) 22:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1503: Squirrel Plan

2015-03-28T12:12:29Z

NoniMausa: Flipping cats! And astronauts!

Reminds me of the Ice Age squirrel [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 06:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:Also reminiscent of the star wars scene in Kingmen [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.162|108.162.249.162]] 06:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
::Um ya, like why didn't those balloons have a pressure release valve instead of blowing up? A relatively cheap device could have aided that character immensely.[[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 12:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Clunky prototype? (And/or they want the maximum amount of elevation. Any presseure release valve would give a safe(r) ceiling of operation lower than the "just before the pop" one they theoretically have, as is. It's still a design-flaw, though, if there's no effective warning of balloon failure, and you're now left swinging on the other, on-the-edge-of-failing, one. And now with only half the lift. Yeah, clunky. Yeah, I've thought about this a little, already.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 13:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Though as soon as the first balloon popped you'd start loosing altitude - due to half of your lift disappearing. So the question comes up - '''how did the second balloon pop'''? ;) And as a side note - if you catch the pan around the control room right after our hero dispatches the nerd villain, you'll see a corpse with a head. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::'''Obviously there was a squirrel...''' ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 21:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the squirrels are just a vehicle for the joke, which is poking fun at "obvious" conclusions based on personal beliefs. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.162|108.162.249.162]] 06:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:Absolutely - the current first line of explanation fails, as squirrels being stupid is not a joke. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.49|141.101.99.49]] 07:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
"...due to the expansion of the acorns inside." I love you guys. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.89|141.101.104.89]] 07:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
: We know [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.39|108.162.216.39]] 08:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)BK201

This comic puts me in mind of the simplistic plot points and devices of a lot of modern scifi movies ... poking fun at them the same way as "Scorcher" from Tropic Thunder does ...--[[Special:Contributions/198.41.239.38|198.41.239.38]] 09:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the squirrels are a stand-in for ancient humans. Their understanding of the world and what is obvious reflects their pre-scientific state of knowledge. Their interests as squirrels have affected their conclusions, just as humans have projected their interests on what they interpret the sun to be (source of acorns instead of a sun god). I'm pretty sure the "halfway to the sun" part refers to a point where they think they're halfway but probably aren't even close to leaving the atmosphere, drawing parallels again to ancient human assumptions (the sun and moon are small orbs that are just high in the sky). {{unsigned ip|108.162.225.80}}
: Alternatively, it might be referring to people assuming the sun is golden in some literal fashion. What else could the sun be made of, if it's so gloriously radiant and stuff? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.109|108.162.216.109]] 13:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Or possibly replace "ancient" with "superstitious" - or even nothing at all for that matter to apply to humans in general - and I'll agree with you even more. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.70|141.101.80.70]] 09:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's also worth mentioning that the real sun is "full of" hydrogen and helium. The same is true for real squirrel lifting balloons.{{unsigned ip|108.162.230.161}}

It's possible that the comic is a commentary on the human condition, constantly reaching out for some grand goal, that is both unreachable, and even if reached is shown to be far less grand then previously thought. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.237|108.162.210.237]] 15:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the squirrel in the picture is actually halfway to the sun. I think the title text is a hypothetical future event, and that the description is overthinking things. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.106|108.162.216.106]] 16:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it a possibility that the squirrels represent the government or similar entity? {{unsigned|Mikemk}}

Not quite sure i like the explanation about acorns obviously not being able to contribute to flying. Not because i think they can, but because the exact same argument could be used for a jet engine on a plane as those are also heavy. {{unsigned ip|141.101.75.53}}
: maybe the acorns are pushing on the quantum vacuum virtual plasma? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.18|108.162.241.18]] 23:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I seriously suspect this has something to do with [[1356: Orbital Mechanics]] [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.185|173.245.56.185]] 10:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the balloon of the title text is a reference to earth herself : the analogy must be natural to a squirrel believing the sun is an accorn field... {{unsigned ip|108.162.229.250}}

I am fairly sure this comic is to mock humanity's tendency to assume what they first think of to be fact. This could also be about religion but I probably shouldn't mention that. Too many fights. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|The Goyim speaks]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 14:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Randall's squirrels are cute. A Montrealer [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.191|173.245.52.191]] 00:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Dropping squirrel research I haven't found. Dropping cats I found here: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RtWbpyjJqrU And freefalling astronauts, too! http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VJcno_XL4RU [[User:NoniMausa|NoniMausa]] ([[User talk:NoniMausa|talk]]) 12:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)