explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3068: Rock Identification

2025-03-29T01:50:17Z

NoriMori:

I made a transcript [[User:New editor|New editor]] ([[User talk:New editor|talk]]) 21:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

It might also imply that the geologist doesn’t know but just wants the $5 so comes up with an answer [[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.163|198.41.236.163]] 00:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I doubt they're lying about what rock it is since both mica schists and garnets are visually obvious and even more obvious if a scratch test is performed.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.186.157|172.69.186.157]] 04:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The funny part is it works the other way round: you first identify minerals by sight (also Mohs scale and polarizing microscope), then conclude what the geologic context is. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.232.25|172.71.232.25]] 11:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I think this random "it was wrapped in the bill, no idea where the money came from" also implies corruption and destroying the traces of the money, instead of just payment or tip. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 11:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunate missed chance to call this comic a “Geologist Tip” [[Special:Contributions/172.70.176.56|172.70.176.56]] 13:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Surely the joke is that it only takes $5 to bribe a Geologist.
:Hey, if you want to pay me $5 to pay attention to you for a minute, I would take the deal. That's a great hourly rate! Though I guess my perspective might be skewed, since I'm not a professional scientist but just a (somewhat broke) grad student[[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 17:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

wonder if the comic is referring to the (somewhat popular) whatisthisrock subreddit --172.68.210.176 19:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Whoever entered "If you're good at something, never do it for free" should be congratulated for doing quality voluntary work [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 22:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC).

"the $5 bill would be covered with dirt and no longer be usable." - technically, as long as 50% or more of the bill is left, it's still legal tender. if it's less than 50% you can [https://www.bep.gov/services/mutilated-currency-redemption ask the US government to exchange it] for intact money. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.79|172.71.146.79]] 21:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

"Furthermore, if a rock was wrapped in paper and put in a hole in the ground, the $5 bill would be covered with dirt and no longer be usable." Citation needed. In addition to what the previous commenter said, dirt typically can be brushed off of things. [[User:NoriMori|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori|talk]]) 01:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:97: A Simple Plan

2023-03-24T11:02:13Z

NoriMori:

My interpretation is that it is physically impossible to feel another person's body and thoughts, hence the line "You don't know what it's like to be me" is true. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.53|162.158.166.53]] 21:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that this is the correct interpretation. Simple Plan's stereotypical bubblegum punk whiny teenager lyrics at first listen could pass for a parody, mocking the ridiculousness of 30 year olds complaining about homework and chores. But they aren't being ironic. They're being serious. Am I wrong here? Tell me I'm wrong. {{unsigned ip|70.67.175.61}}

:No, I think you're absolutely right with your interpretation! {{unsigned ip|213.69.26.162}}

::The title text seems to prove your interpretation is right. And I must say your comment is one of the most accurate statements I've ever seen. [[Special:Contributions/18.215.1.197|18.215.1.197]] 12:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The interpretation is absolutely correct. Check this video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt0WP9ZBNiY], you will find this text "You don't know what it's like to be like me" in the lyrics.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

:Yes, that lyric is indeed in the song. But Randall is reflecting on the hilariously ironic "stereotypical bubblegum punk whiny teenager lyrics" as described above, not the bizarre explanation you have above. I understand if you're a Simple Plan fan, but judging by this comic Randall isn't. [[Special:Contributions/18.215.1.197|18.215.1.197]] 22:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
::Sorry I am late, but it seems we are just living at different time zones. I am not native English because I am from Germany, but I thought that "teenage angst" also mentioned at the Wiki page should stay at this explanation. I was also hoping someone else would participate here at this discussion. So I am sure we will find the REAL explain. I am with you. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It says the title text stated that the text wasn't written by teenagers. As it appears now, it just says "This is true. The lyrics are ridiculous". Nothing about the age of the people who wrote them (although knowing how such singers work, I seriously doubt that any of the group actually wrote anything themselves. Which not to say that the person who wrote it for them was a teenager either. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.118|108.162.218.118]] 02:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's also important to note that the band members were in their mid-20's when they released this song (23-25, according to Wikipedia). Still a tad bit too old to be singing about teen angst, but not quite as "ridiculous" as if they were in their 30's. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.138.214|162.158.138.214]] 00:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks it's incredibly weird to assume that we're supposed to interpret the song as being from ''their own perspective?'' And not only that, but from their perspective at the exact point in time they released the song? Sure, many songs ''are'' about the singer. But plenty aren't. The All-American Rejects have written songs about "drama and turmoil" that they've never experienced. The songs aren't parody, but that doesn't mean the songs are ''about them''. And even when a song ''is'' about the singer, it isn't always about them at ''that exact moment''; it might be about something that happened years ago. The judgemental attitude in the comic is based on a fallacy that's even more ridiculous than "experiencing angst as an adult" (which I would argue isn't actually ridiculous in the first place, but, one fallacy at a time). I wonder if Randall (or the viewpoint character, if it's not Randall; I must practise what I preach!) would have an aneurysm if he ever heard "I'm Just a Kid", which not only is even more angsty, but also could not possibly make it more clear that it's not from the singers' perspective at that exact moment in time. [[User:NoriMori|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori|talk]]) 11:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2568: Spinthariscope

2022-01-17T08:03:32Z

NoriMori:

Someone has already updated the Wikipedia page to mention this comic reference, before anyone here has gotten around to writing the explanation [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
:But that was not welcome so it has been removed again. But here is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spinthariscope&oldid=1065688770 version with the update] which has sparked no less than 26 other edits of the page in less than two days, after no one had made a change to the page since October last year... But at this moment there is no reference to the comic. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I added an initial explanation, but I don't recognize the references to gallium and tritium (although I know what glowsticks are), so someone else should fill in about that. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems like there's something off with how the "ratio" is worded. It is a safe and legal toy, so the "actual safety and legality" is actually high-ish, right? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.25|172.70.178.25]] 20:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

- If "actual safety" is a large number and "apparent safety" is a small number, then their ratio (actual divided by apparent) is a large number. If "sctual safety" is a small number and "apparent safety" is a large number, then their ratio is a small number. So the comic's wording is perfectly fine and logical, and the paragraph about products in the explanation is not needed. (It's also kind of, um, **untrue**, but I'm trying to be kind to whoever wrote it.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.99|172.70.114.99]] 21:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

:If you take the amount of screaming in terror (high for the spin-thingie) and DIVIDE by the actual danger (low for the spin-thingie), then you get a ratio that in a rational world would always be close to 1 - the worse something is, the more (rational) people would want it banned. I think his point is that the ho-hum factor, the LACK of protests, for throwing a sharp heavy object high in the air toward a group of other children, divided by the actual danger from said sharp heavy object thrown high toward other children, results in a value on the opposite end of the spectrum. I was one of the kids who threw these things around without thinking, and nobody ever objected. Fortunately, I never saw any kid get killed by them, but that was pure luck. Point being, I don’t think the wording in the comic is wrong; the ‘correction’ is.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.103|108.162.245.103]] 22:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

::On second thought, there is something confusing about the wording of the comic: it conflates safety and legality as if they were the same thing, but the fact that they are NOT the same is the problem.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.223|108.162.245.223]] 22:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
:::They're not the same, but they're correlated. While the government hasn't always been very dilligent about it, these days dangerous toys usually get banned. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

::But the comic don’t divide the large/low amount of screaming by the low/large amount of danger, but by the large/low amount of safety for spinthariscope/darts. Hence the formula of the comic results in a number close to 1 for both toys, and a regular toy (low amount of screaming divided by large amount of safety) results in a number closer to zero.
::[[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 22:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

:::You’re right. The comic is misworded, but not by saying “ratio” instead of “product” - it’s misworded by saying “actual safety” when it means “actual danger” thus giving the ratio a backward meaning.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.77|108.162.245.77]] 23:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

::::Just so!
::::[[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 23:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

:I believe the ratio is apparent danger vs actual danger. So spinthariscope would be 10 apparent danger / 1 actual danger. And the lawn darts would be the opposite end of the spectrum: 1 apparent danger / 10 actual danger. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.185|172.70.214.185]] 22:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

:To me it appears that you are describing the “perceived danger to actual danger” ratio, while the comic mentions the “perceived danger to actual safety” ratio, which would be of no extreme value (high number divided by high number) for a spinthariscope. So I think that the current explanation, while cumbersome and against the convention of use of ratios, is mathematically true.
:[[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 22:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
::I think it is perfectly clear what Randall intended to say. And even if it can be misunderstood I think there is no need to make a very big fuss out of that. I have tried to reword the explanation so it begins with stating the obvious intention, and then mentions at the end that it could be misunderstood. Feel free to improve my wording. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Make your own Spinthariscope kiddies https://www.instructables.com/Pocket-Size-Spinthariscope/. [[User:Steve|Steve]] ([[User talk:Steve|talk]]) 21:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The {{w|Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Laboratory}}, which was marketed in the early 1950s & contains more energetic radioactive sources (i.e. uranium ores), might possibly be more dangerous. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.143.22|172.70.143.22]] 21:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

{{w|Talk:Spinthariscope|The talk page for the Wikipedia article}} has an interesting exposition by an IP in 2010 of why these aren't dangerous and the various isotopes used. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 21:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

And with that simple strip, all existing spinthariscopes sold out. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.237|172.68.50.237]] 01:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I remember the (pre-'80s) lawn-darts in the 'leisure equipment box' that our Cub/Scout unit took to every annual camp and other suitable weekend activities (here in the UK). High-density plastic (possibly with a metal slug enclosed within the 'point', to add to the flights' directional stablisation, but maybe ''just'' plastic) and all points and edges rounded. Probably still dangerous if inadvertently thrown straight-enough upwards with enough force that gravity eventually brings it straight back down upon the unwary head of the thrower (or that of a fellow participant awaiting their turn), but we seemed to avoid that predicament. Things like the hefty hockey-sticks (field-hockey), cricket bats and even threadbare boxing gloves probably caused more injuries that needed treatment. But probably more by good luck than any legitimate physical reason. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77|172.70.162.77]] 03:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I've just added info about decay chains, that there is beta and gamma radiation as well but at negligible doses. I wanted to give more information, but although I know some spinthariscopes use americium-241, I don't know the isotope of thorium used in others. Does anybody else know? [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 10:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Even though I know what he's trying to say, it's seriously bothering me how he worded it. [[User:NoriMori|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori|talk]]) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

== US logic ==
Since 1963, 186,239 children and teens have been killed with guns on American soil—four times the number of U.S. soldiers killed in action in the Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq wars combined (https://www.childrensdefense.org/policy/resources/soac-2020-gun-violence/). Children killed by lawn darts in the same period: 3. Guns: still legal, even marketed for children (https://www.alloutdoor.com/2017/11/13/first-rifle-crickett/). Lawn darts: prohibited. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.85|162.158.159.85]] 15:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
:Just to note, I restored this comment because someone just edited it out and because both of the author and remover are anon-IPs (as am I, but different to both) I couldn't be sure it wasn't an attempt to censor a point. If it was the OP-IP who retracted it, sorry.
:If anyone wants an actual argument why it isn't equivalent (though I think it's something to ponder, y'all are seriously ''way'' too gun-happy over there) maybe you could look at the number of guns sold (20 million, last year?) compared to the number of lawn-darts that were bought and work out the proportional danger per item in existence. (And, hey, people buy/make actual ammo for their gun, but a single lawn dart is ''reusably'' fatal... right?)
:But still, the response to dart-deaths seems overblown compared to... well, most other things. Guns, vehicles, drugs, peanuts... So, yes. I think it's a valid comment to mention the 'logic'. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.121|172.70.90.121]] 22:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:1368: One Of The

2021-07-13T19:03:41Z

NoriMori:

There's a set of golden arches at Jefferson and Russell, Arguably more identifiable. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.36}}

:If you are talking about the McDonald's arches, then well played, sir, well played. Definitely more identifiable. --[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 14:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

::On the other hand, any ''specific set'' of McDonald's arches isn't very identifiable. One tends to look like any other. --[[User:Aaron of Mpls|Aaron of Mpls]] ([[User talk:Aaron of Mpls|talk]]) 11:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"''Reporters on television and in other media try to only make statements they can verify in fact''"
Seriously??? Maybe once, but not now. The point of this cartoon is largely that reporters are hedging their bets on what's a fact.
When you have prominent reporters like Chuck Todd (one of the most prominent reporters on TV) saying [http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/18/inform-the-public-not-my-job-says-chuck-todd/|it's "not his job" to report factual information] but merely to repeat what politicians have said, or everyone on Fox "News" basically ignoring facts in favor of ideology, claiming reporters try to speak only facts is not supported by demonstrable facts.
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.84|199.27.128.84]] 16:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

: Or maybe it's because of the liability reporters face for reporting even errors made by the police. [http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/12/mistaken-identity-tv-show/8989189/ | Keith Todd or Todd Keith]. [[User:Pallas|Pallas]] ([[User talk:Pallas|talk]]) 19:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

:: "''In the complaint, Todd alleges that Eastpointe Police "incorrectly researched" databases and sent the wrong photo, name and information to the network.''" Sounds like the blame is really with the police, not the network. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.84|199.27.128.84]] 16:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

::: [http://birmingham.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/msnbcs-caught-on-camera-reality-show-snafu-creates-unreal-problems-for-michigan-man In a lawsuit filed last week in Wayne County Circuit Court, Todd said a snafu incorrectly naming him as the suspect in the “Caught on Camera” program has caused him humiliation, loss of employment and other misery. He’s asking NBC Universal, the Eastpointe Police Department and A One Limousine, to pay an unspecified amount of damages.] [[User:Pallas|Pallas]] ([[User talk:Pallas|talk]]) 20:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

: That's generalising. How about: "Seriously??? Maybe once, but not now. The point of this cartoon is largely that US reporters are hedging their bets on what's a fact. When you have prominent US reporters like Chuck Todd (one of the most prominent reporters on US TV) saying [http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/18/inform-the-public-not-my-job-says-chuck-todd/|it's "not his job" to report factual information] but merely to repeat what US politicians have said, or everyone on US branch of Fox "News" basically ignoring facts in favor of ideology, claiming US reporters try to speak only facts is not supported by demonstrable facts.{{unsigned ip|108.162.250.211}}

:: Right. Because it's only in the US that reporters fail to do their jobs well. Why, just look at the UK and Australia, for example. Nope, no reporters covering their asses there. Oh, wait. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.84|199.27.128.84]] 16:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I know it's not really part of the joke, but should the explanation say who the reporter is talking about? Who designed the Gateway arch? I'm curious now.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.7|108.162.219.7]] 02:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

:The Gateway Arch was designed by Finnish-American architect Eero Saarinen and German-American structural engineer Hannskarl Bandel in 1947. As stated on the {{w|Gateway Arch|wikipedia page already linked from explanation}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that the UK celebrates {{w|Mothering Sunday}} on the fourth Sunday in Lent as if it was Mother's Day. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.217|141.101.89.217]] 10:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The explanation text misses the fact that stating "one of the world's greatest moms" is hardly perceived as an actual compliment by the recipient. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 14:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
:Done - also added an explain and a wiki link to pet peeve - something not explained so far. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

: I don't think Randall misunderstands the practice - he's just pretending that to make a joke. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
::That is for sure true. I did not write it like that and have now corrected it acordingly [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
:::Interesting. Do you really think "Randall does not misunderstand anything" (from the history-edit explanation) and so any inaccuracy must be understood as a deliberate part of the joke? Even if the inaccuracy is about a matter outside of his field of expertise and is unnecessary to the joke? Maybe you're right in this case, but I doubt Randall himself would claim to be infallible. [[User:Cs7|Cs7]] ([[User talk:Cs7|talk]]) 20:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

::My mom wasn't insulted by a card that said "One of the two greatest Moms in the world*" (and, below, "* Sorry, Mom, but I don't want to get killed in my sleep"). She found it funny, and so did my wife, and the fact that you can buy this card in shops implies they aren't the only mothers in the world that can take a joke. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52|162.158.255.52]] 11:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No so much a real discussion item, but this is "One of the most useful Explain XKCDs out there"... {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.121}}

The arch is so large that there are rotating pill-elevators inside the rising legs and a large observation lounge at the top. You can look down at the busy barge traffic on the Mississippi far below. {{unsigned ip|108.162.245.117}}

The title text bothers me here...the comic says: '''"The world's greatest [whatever]' is subjective, but 'One of the world's greatest [whatever]s' is clearly objective."''' - but is that really true?

If I say '''"Mount Everest is the world's tallest mountain"''' - then this is a fact that can be looked up and examined and is clearly either true or false. It happens to be true. So it's clearly an objective fact. But if I say: '''"Mount Annapurna is one of the world's tallest mountains"''' then that's a completely subjective statement because Annapurna is only the 10th tallest mountain and whether it's to be considered "one of the tallest" depends entirely on whether you cut off the list of "the tallest mountains" at 9th place or 11th place - which is surely a subjective decision.

It's a tougher call for concepts like "greatest Mom" because "greatest" is a fuzzy term in the case of Mom's - is she "greatest" because she did a better job of teaching you right from wrong - or is she greatest because she bought you more Lego's? In that case, both "greatest" and "one of the greatest" are subjective because there is no universally agreed standard by which we measure greatness in mothers. The reason "world's greatest Mom" mugs work is because they express the sentiment that "My personal definition of the term ''greatest'' is what you are to me." - which is more profound than some unrealistic statement about whether there are or are not better mothers. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

:Everest being the tallest mountain on earth is actually (slightly) controversial: The peak of the {{w|Chimborazo|Chimborazo}} is further from earth's center. {{w|Mauna Kea|Mauna Kea}} is taller when measured from base to peak. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.34|172.68.110.34]] 06:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

In this Onion article: https://www.theonion.com/most-notorious-criminals-in-u-s-history-1831099154 it states that John Wilkes Booth was one of the most famous Americans to ever kill Abraham Lincoln.--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.59|172.68.58.59]] 09:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

This one has always struck me as unfair. Maybe they simply ''don't know'' whether it's the most recognizable arch in St. Louis. So what else are they supposed to say that wouldn't be dishonest (claiming to know something they don't) and possibly inaccurate? Besides, even if they ''did'' know whether it's the most recognizable arch — what if it's not? In that case, in order to avoid saying "one of the", they now have to determine its exact ranking, which would probably be even harder. [[User:NoriMori|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori|talk]]) 19:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:1368: One Of The

2021-07-13T19:01:23Z

NoriMori:

There's a set of golden arches at Jefferson and Russell, Arguably more identifiable. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.36}}

:If you are talking about the McDonald's arches, then well played, sir, well played. Definitely more identifiable. --[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 14:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

::On the other hand, any ''specific set'' of McDonald's arches isn't very identifiable. One tends to look like any other. --[[User:Aaron of Mpls|Aaron of Mpls]] ([[User talk:Aaron of Mpls|talk]]) 11:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"''Reporters on television and in other media try to only make statements they can verify in fact''"
Seriously??? Maybe once, but not now. The point of this cartoon is largely that reporters are hedging their bets on what's a fact.
When you have prominent reporters like Chuck Todd (one of the most prominent reporters on TV) saying [http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/18/inform-the-public-not-my-job-says-chuck-todd/|it's "not his job" to report factual information] but merely to repeat what politicians have said, or everyone on Fox "News" basically ignoring facts in favor of ideology, claiming reporters try to speak only facts is not supported by demonstrable facts.
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.84|199.27.128.84]] 16:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

: Or maybe it's because of the liability reporters face for reporting even errors made by the police. [http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/12/mistaken-identity-tv-show/8989189/ | Keith Todd or Todd Keith]. [[User:Pallas|Pallas]] ([[User talk:Pallas|talk]]) 19:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

:: "''In the complaint, Todd alleges that Eastpointe Police "incorrectly researched" databases and sent the wrong photo, name and information to the network.''" Sounds like the blame is really with the police, not the network. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.84|199.27.128.84]] 16:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

::: [http://birmingham.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/msnbcs-caught-on-camera-reality-show-snafu-creates-unreal-problems-for-michigan-man In a lawsuit filed last week in Wayne County Circuit Court, Todd said a snafu incorrectly naming him as the suspect in the “Caught on Camera” program has caused him humiliation, loss of employment and other misery. He’s asking NBC Universal, the Eastpointe Police Department and A One Limousine, to pay an unspecified amount of damages.] [[User:Pallas|Pallas]] ([[User talk:Pallas|talk]]) 20:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

: That's generalising. How about: "Seriously??? Maybe once, but not now. The point of this cartoon is largely that US reporters are hedging their bets on what's a fact. When you have prominent US reporters like Chuck Todd (one of the most prominent reporters on US TV) saying [http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/18/inform-the-public-not-my-job-says-chuck-todd/|it's "not his job" to report factual information] but merely to repeat what US politicians have said, or everyone on US branch of Fox "News" basically ignoring facts in favor of ideology, claiming US reporters try to speak only facts is not supported by demonstrable facts.{{unsigned ip|108.162.250.211}}

:: Right. Because it's only in the US that reporters fail to do their jobs well. Why, just look at the UK and Australia, for example. Nope, no reporters covering their asses there. Oh, wait. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.84|199.27.128.84]] 16:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I know it's not really part of the joke, but should the explanation say who the reporter is talking about? Who designed the Gateway arch? I'm curious now.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.7|108.162.219.7]] 02:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

:The Gateway Arch was designed by Finnish-American architect Eero Saarinen and German-American structural engineer Hannskarl Bandel in 1947. As stated on the {{w|Gateway Arch|wikipedia page already linked from explanation}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that the UK celebrates {{w|Mothering Sunday}} on the fourth Sunday in Lent as if it was Mother's Day. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.217|141.101.89.217]] 10:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The explanation text misses the fact that stating "one of the world's greatest moms" is hardly perceived as an actual compliment by the recipient. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 14:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
:Done - also added an explain and a wiki link to pet peeve - something not explained so far. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

: I don't think Randall misunderstands the practice - he's just pretending that to make a joke. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
::That is for sure true. I did not write it like that and have now corrected it acordingly [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
:::Interesting. Do you really think "Randall does not misunderstand anything" (from the history-edit explanation) and so any inaccuracy must be understood as a deliberate part of the joke? Even if the inaccuracy is about a matter outside of his field of expertise and is unnecessary to the joke? Maybe you're right in this case, but I doubt Randall himself would claim to be infallible. [[User:Cs7|Cs7]] ([[User talk:Cs7|talk]]) 20:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

::My mom wasn't insulted by a card that said "One of the two greatest Moms in the world*" (and, below, "* Sorry, Mom, but I don't want to get killed in my sleep"). She found it funny, and so did my wife, and the fact that you can buy this card in shops implies they aren't the only mothers in the world that can take a joke. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.52|162.158.255.52]] 11:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No so much a real discussion item, but this is "One of the most useful Explain XKCDs out there"... {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.121}}

The arch is so large that there are rotating pill-elevators inside the rising legs and a large observation lounge at the top. You can look down at the busy barge traffic on the Mississippi far below. {{unsigned ip|108.162.245.117}}

The title text bothers me here...the comic says: '''"The world's greatest [whatever]' is subjective, but 'One of the world's greatest [whatever]s' is clearly objective."''' - but is that really true?

If I say '''"Mount Everest is the world's tallest mountain"''' - then this is a fact that can be looked up and examined and is clearly either true or false. It happens to be true. So it's clearly an objective fact. But if I say: '''"Mount Annapurna is one of the world's tallest mountains"''' then that's a completely subjective statement because Annapurna is only the 10th tallest mountain and whether it's to be considered "one of the tallest" depends entirely on whether you cut off the list of "the tallest mountains" at 9th place or 11th place - which is surely a subjective decision.

It's a tougher call for concepts like "greatest Mom" because "greatest" is a fuzzy term in the case of Mom's - is she "greatest" because she did a better job of teaching you right from wrong - or is she greatest because she bought you more Lego's? In that case, both "greatest" and "one of the greatest" are subjective because there is no universally agreed standard by which we measure greatness in mothers. The reason "world's greatest Mom" mugs work is because they express the sentiment that "My personal definition of the term ''greatest'' is what you are to me." - which is more profound than some unrealistic statement about whether there are or are not better mothers. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 16:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

:Everest being the tallest mountain on earth is actually (slightly) controversial: The peak of the {{w|Chimborazo|Chimborazo}} is further from earth's center. {{w|Mauna Kea|Mauna Kea}} is taller when measured from base to peak. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.34|172.68.110.34]] 06:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

In this Onion article: https://www.theonion.com/most-notorious-criminals-in-u-s-history-1831099154 it states that John Wilkes Booth was one of the most famous Americans to ever kill Abraham Lincoln.--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.59|172.68.58.59]] 09:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

This one has always struck me as unfair. Maybe they simply ''don't know'' whether it's the most recognizable arch in St. Louis. So what else are they supposed to say that wouldn't be dishonest (claiming to know something they don't) and possibly inaccurate? [[User:NoriMori|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori|talk]]) 19:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:1592: Overthinking

2021-07-13T18:16:43Z

NoriMori:

First Panel:
DOI: 10.1097/JSM.0000000000000221
Title:
Statement of the Third International Exercise-Associated Hyponatremia Consensus Development Conference, Carlsbad, California, 2015. Tamara HB, Mitchell HR, Sandra FG et al.
Link:
journals.lww.com/cjsportsmed/Fulltext/2015/07000/Statement_of_the_Third_International.2.aspx

Second Panel:
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyv191
Title:
Associations of sitting behaviours with all-cause mortality over a 16-year follow-up: the Whitehall II study. Richard MP, Emmanuel S., Annie RB et al.
Link:
ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/10/09/ije.dyv191

Third Panel:
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.046
Natural Sleep and Its Seasonal Variations in Three Pre-industrial Societies. G. Yetish, H. Kaplan, B. Wood et al.
Link:
cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2901157-4

Full Text links: goo.gl/kc8cSs
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.206|162.158.34.206]] 13:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

;DOI's

Doh, after I added the links and noticed they were off by a panel I went to add a blurb in the comic description likely at the same time someone else did so in the references section I had just created. :P lol [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Linking "Digital Object Identifier" to www.doi.org is not helpful. Even their FAQ doesn't tell you what a DOI is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier will be more informative to most people, assuming wikipedia is correct. {{unsigned ip|198.41.235.101}}

;Shifted DOI

The Image provided here does not match with the one given at [http://xkcd.com/1592/]. At xkcd.com the DOIs are shifted to match the corresponding text. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.167|162.158.92.167]] 14:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
:Indeed you are correct. It would appear that Randall didn't intend to confuse us this way. ;) Problem is the comic panel on this page is auto-grabbed by a bot. Someone with more experience than me is going to have to look into this. Once the panel is updated, we can update the DOI link references. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

;0000000000000221 ???

The Journal of Sports Medicine seems to think that someday they might have over a '''quadrillion''' articles indexed by DOI. I dunno, maybe that's a tiny bit overly optimistic? - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 16:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

;"Figuring out which ideas are true is hard."
Verification is hard? Maybe as hard as finding a solution?
OMG it's a hidden message: Randall found a proof for P=NP! {{unsigned ip|162.158.91.213}}

I'm not convinced that's hard. It seems to me more likely that accepting the consequences is hard. For example, telling people they can no longer smoke because they are harming themselves and others would likely impinge on their personal freedom or hurt their poor little feelings. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.33|198.41.238.33]] 22:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Figuring out which ideas are true is just science. {{unsigned|Ima420r}}

Am I going to offend someone if I point out that religion is a great example of "figuring out which ideas are true is hard" ??? {{unsigned ip|108.162.249.163}}

The text says "being the character with an odd "surreal" way of thinking" about [[White Hat]], but isn't that [[Beret Guy]]? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.211|141.101.105.211]]

;"Plumbing"
Can someone explain why White Hat suggests plumbing could cause overthinking? Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.66.23|141.101.66.23]] 11:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
:My guess when I read it was: you should understand "overthinking" as "over sink-ing", hence the plumbing suggestion. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.6.222|162.158.6.222]] 16:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
::I take it as a reference to lead piping, which can be blamed for all manner of physical and metal "epidemics" with no obvious vector--[[User:Laverock|Laverock]] ([[User talk:Laverock|talk]]) 10:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
:I took it as water being easily available (how much should you drink?). As for e-mail, I think because it made ideas (wrong or right) really easy to spread. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.205|108.162.210.205]] 15:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
: LOL! I think (ironically) you guys are overthinking this. It seems that "plumbing" and "email" are just examples of ubiquitous modern technology. [[User:Atreides|Atreides]] ([[User talk:Atreides|talk]]) 05:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought it is a reference to the fact/claim that Romans had plumbing system with lead, which might have caused them much health problems, (pushing it) make people dumb, and hence also "the Fall" of the Empire.

It seems to me that the current explanation is overthinking the significance of the studies. They're not things that challenge commonly held (mis)perceptions, but things that would usually be seen as self-evident yet people are doing research to formally verify them. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.57|141.101.80.57]] 16:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

:Er, no. Every single panel makes a statement that is surprising not because it's so self-evident that we shouldn't need a study about it, but for the exact opposite reason: Because while these issues might ''seem'' to have common sense solutions, the research suggests that they're actually quite complex and difficult to solve. There's a lot of debate and conflicting research about [[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1708:_Dehydration how much water you should drink]], whether prolonged sitting on a regular basis is bad for you (and what we should do about it if it is), and which sleep patterns are the most natural or healthy. The studies cited challenge the prevailing idea that these issues are complex, by claiming that the real answer is either common sense after all ("get enough exercise"), or is just what we naturally do already when we aren't thinking about it too hard (drinking when you're thirsty, staying up late and sleeping 6-7 hours). [[User:NoriMori|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori|talk]]) 18:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:1215: Insight

2021-07-13T17:05:14Z

NoriMori:

Indeed, somebody speaking circa 1895 could have made the same remark but instead of Google Glass the subject could have been something then new such as the Horseless Carriage, a technology now known as the Automobile in which I will soon drive to work.
[[Special:Contributions/24.91.233.200|24.91.233.200]] 09:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

:The same could be said for electrification (utility-provided mains, especially when extended to rural areas), steam locomotives, and industrialization as a whole. '''--BigMal27''' // [[Special:Contributions/192.136.15.177|192.136.15.177]] 11:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's make a list! --[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 13:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
:added <fire>, sorted by date--~~ ~~

*Maybe before we rush to adopt <Google Cornea Implants> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(2020)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <the internet> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(1986)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <TV> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(1954)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <automobiles> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(1914)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <electrification> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(1880's)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <growing food> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(10,000 BCE)''
*Maybe before we rush to adopt <fire> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(400,000 BCE)''

*Maybe before we rush to adopt <walking upright> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. ''(7 million BCE)''


I think that most people initially view a new idea or technology with skepticism and/or suspicion, but eventually accept it and learn to incorporate into their everyday life. This generally works out fine, and often for the better. Historical examples of this abound: the telephone, electricity, and the automobile, for example, probably all caused controversy when they were first rolled out to the general public, but today we couldn't imagine our lives without them. Another great example is civil rights. At first, the public attacks civil rights activists as radicals, then tolerates them as equals, and eventually hails them as heroes who fought for good and justice.

However, I would caution against thinking that every new idea is equally beneficial, and that those who express initial concern about the latest gizmo are merely backward Luddites. Humans are generally a lot better at figuring out how to make/do/use something before we figure out if it's good for us. Just look at drug companies like Bayer at the turn of the 20th century, who marketed aspirin (good) right alongside heroin (not so good) as great new drugs for modern medicine. Or think about eugenics, which developed out of evolutionary theory. While evolution was, is, and probably will always be the foundation of modern biology, eugenics provided justification for some truly horrible actions in the 20th century before people decided that it was all bull**** science.

Or, take Google Streetview. Sure, it's a great new technology, and I use it almost daily. But think about the unprecedented amount of information Google has been able to collect on (literally) the entire world. I don't think anyone can claim that we fully understand the repercussions that these new Google technologies will have on our lives, and I'd argue that it's premature to ignore or ridicule people who advocate caution with Google Glasses. After all, we're talking about strapping a camera to your face! Just my $0.02.

TL;DR: New technology isn't always good technology.
[[User:Chris j|Chris j]] ([[User talk:Chris j|talk]]) 22:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi '''Chris j''', please sign your posts by using the sign button on top of the editor. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

:Maybe before we rush to adopt <signing our posts by using the sign button on top of the editor> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. -- [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.135|173.245.52.135]] 20:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

<blockquote>unprecedented amount of information Google has been able to collect on (literally) the entire world</blockquote>
Nothing like the entire world. Vast areas have no streets. Even where there are streets, there are large areas either nowhere near a street or not visible from the street. I await Google JungleView, SteppeView and (ahem) BedroomView. Or maybe not. [[Special:Contributions/203.206.118.14|203.206.118.14]] 02:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe before we rush to adopt <language> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in... oh, wait. Shit.
--[[User:Jesse|Jesse]] ([[User talk:Jesse|talk]]) 19:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I find this discussion joyously entertaining. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.137|173.245.48.137]] 15:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is related to xkcd 1289. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.177|173.245.52.177]] 23:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess one of the core issues is that it is almost completely impossible to predict the consequences of introducing technology into any part of our lives, central or not. It not even really possible to determine whether or not a specific technology will take up a role in people's lives.- Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.205|108.162.249.205]] 02:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe before we rush to adopt <electronic payment> we should stop to consider the consequences of blithely giving this technology such a central position in our lives. /David A [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.33|141.101.80.33]] 23:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference to the precautionary principle. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.36|162.158.186.36]] 17:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And yet, it's not wrong. [[User:NoriMori|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori|talk]]) 17:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:945: I'm Sorry

2021-07-13T16:40:50Z

NoriMori:

That's kinda hard though, he can't be the cause of ''everything'' that ever goes wrong, can he? '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|purple|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

:Well, not directly (at least not intentionally) however chaos theory suggests that he had some contribution even if he did not realize it (or at the vary least he could have taken some actions that would have 'randomly' stopped the event.) [[User:Yuriy206|Yuriy206]] ([[User talk:Yuriy206|talk]]) 18:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

:And the point is that he is annoyed by people deliberately mis-interpreting his condolences as an apology. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 19:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks it is that first "I'm sorry" that is weird and not the "Why? It wasn't your fault." part? I know a lot of people do it but that doesn't make it less weird. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 01:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

:In regards to contexts such as the one portrayed in the comic, I always thought the phrase "I'm sorry" to be more accurately interpreted along the lines of "I'm sorry that X happened to you". It is a fairly commonplace expression, so I usually get a little irritated when someone responds in a fashion similar to how the person on the left in the comic responded. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.124|108.162.237.124]] 03:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC) scht

:I think it's weird that you think it's weird, considering that this usage is well-established in English. It's neither new nor rare nor arbitrary, so I don't understand why you find it weird. [[User:NoriMori|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori|talk]]) 16:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Added title text by splitting a line in the explanation. Let's close this.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.152|173.245.56.152]] 21:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I always felt this confusion was a non-native speaker thing: in several other languages, the word "sorry" is exclusively used for excuses, and you'll need other phrases if you want to express you pity the other person. I have a habit of responding like Megan just because in my native language, that use of sorry really doesn't make shit sense and people still do it, and that habit clings on in English.
Apparently native speakers also do this? 18:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

:Yes, this is a perfectly normal expression in English. [[User:NoriMori|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori|talk]]) 16:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2461: 90's Kid Space Program

2021-05-11T03:00:09Z

NoriMori:

While searching for popper toys in action, I found a figure in a scientific paper. Not sure if it would belong on this page. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326439672_Dynamics_of_viscoelastic_snap-through#pf2 [[User:Pgn674|Pgn674]] ([[User talk:Pgn674|talk]]) 20:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it also allusion to Kerbal Space Program game? The ship in picture looks similar to game's stock crafts. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.249|162.158.91.249]] 21:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Possibly? The girders and the capsule look similar, but the green bit looks a little like a Project Orion pusher plate to me. (Or maybe I just like Project Orion too much). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 21:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree on the Kerbal. Note the KSP in "Kid Space Program". I also thought it had a nod towards Project Orion pusher plate. On an unrelated but fun note: Oxford science blog discusses the mathematics that describe jumping popper snap-through: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/how-do-jumping-popper-toys-work.
[[User:Tomb|Tomb]] ([[User talk:Tomb|talk]]) 21:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The title text may refer to the way that NASA seems stuck in their ways and not willing to innovate, i.e. living in the past. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.249|162.158.91.249]] 21:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above suggestion that Kerbal Space Program is part of the joke, KSP is to iconic a acronym for Munroe to ignore, plus, he has mentioned it in other strips.
:Or even "too iconic an acronym". [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.106|198.41.238.106]] 21:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Is today some sort of special "90's day"? SMBC has a 90s-themed comic as well.[[User:Account|Account]] ([[User talk:Account|talk]]) 21:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
: Per http://www.holidays-and-observances.com/may-10.html, it is not. [[User:Piano|Piano]] ([[User talk:Piano|talk]]) 22:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I was squinting hard at the original, trying to understand the connection between a diaphragm (a barrier contraception method), kids, and launching into space. Smth about spermatozoids? Resorted to explainxkcd, and learned that it's some kind of "popper"... Oh, well :)

Interesting… I'm a 90s kid, and I've never even heard of these. I had to come here to figure out what I was looking at. [[User:NoriMori|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori|talk]]) 03:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2288: Collector's Edition

2020-04-03T06:42:26Z

NoriMori:

... is this going to be like [[1190: Time]]? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.63|162.158.74.63]] 04:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
: I hope so, otherwise I don't get the joke [[User:Forresthopkinsa|Forresthopkinsa]] ([[User talk:Forresthopkinsa|talk]]) 04:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
: The page just went down for me so maybe what we've seen isn't what it's supposed to be? [[User:Avi m|avis_magpie]] ([[User talk:Avi m|talk]]) 04:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks like the whole comic was just taken down. [[User:Parzivail|Parzivail]] ([[User talk:Parzivail|talk]]) 04:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
: Can confirm - the most recent comic is Pathogen again [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.207|162.158.187.207]] 04:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
It is still up on the mobile website, but only if you directly go to comic page https://m.xkcd.com/2288 [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.146|172.69.22.146]] 05:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
: Perhaps this is a collector's edition because it was only up for a limited amount of time? {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.60|05:12, 3 April 2020}}
:: That was my immediate assumption. The title text says, "I'm sure you can find some suitable worldbuilding material if you scavenge through the archives." And I was viewing the comic by using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine — which, wouldn't you know it, captured the page exactly once before it went down. Between that and the title "Collector's Edition", I can't help thinking that the comic was actually intended to be viewed this way. Though for what reason, and what intended meaning, I couldn't tell you. …And jeez, in the time it took me to type this, the comic is back, but changed! Oy vey. [[User:NoriMori|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori|talk]]) 06:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's called collectors edition, because it was only available quite limited and to an unusual time? But that logic doesn't fit with the title text. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 05:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
:I doubt that could be caused by "technical difficulties". [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.186|172.69.34.186]] 06:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it went back up about 5 minutes age. I can't figure out if it's possible to do more than pan right now though. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.120|108.162.215.120]] 06:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:1454: Done

2019-08-10T21:06:39Z

NoriMori:

To be honest, I have never really heard anyone say a phrase like that or other phrases with similar implications, it would be nice if someone could show real-world examples where the phrases are used [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.168|103.22.201.168]] 10:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:I have never seen this either. I can see it being a meme, but a rhetorical device?! I think that's a stretch. [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 15:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
::Maybe they knew the video was ridiculous and shut it down because of inappropriate media or something? [[User:Jacky720|Jacky720]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]]) 23:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
:: I may have used the wrong term, what Ieant was like when someone gives up on something, others may say that "they said they were done" when they actually didn't say anything... I could be wildly off base though. [[User:Official.xian|Official.xian]] ([[User talk:Official.xian|talk]]) 05:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

How do we know the girl is in the United States?? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.177|141.101.104.177]] 08:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it a girl? I was thinking the hair is a bit like mick Jaggers... - Palitu {{unsigned ip|108.162.249.223}}

: The country is not spoken to in the comic and therefore should be left out, regardless of where people think it is placed. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.209|108.162.216.209]] 22:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

: I think it's a girl, and I think she's in the United States, as xkcd is a US-based comic, and pony-tail is a recurring figure also presumably in the United States. And I think it's all rather sad. Note that she's kneeling on her chair, not sitting - this is more common for girls than guys. My take is that she's the kind of person who can enter into a fantasy relationship with a person she doesn't really know, and then if/when they do ever meet in real life it will all break down because her fantasy is only that, and the real person will not match her expectations at all. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 09:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:: I look at that she was incredibly lucky - it's a classic internet relationship scam. Maybe I'm just a cynic. There's also the phrase [http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/do-over "Done Over"], although I think it's a British idiom, so I highly doubt it was meant as a double entendre. [[User:Oobayly|Oobayly]] ([[User talk:Oobayly|talk]])

::: Yeah, note that she's going to be saving up money for six months, thus that'll likely be a sizeable sum. And the person that she "connected" with is a half a world away, always a bad sign as no real evidence of identity is truly possible at that distance, and as an internet user, likely in the us, half a world away may well be a country where the reimbursed cost of a plane ticket is worth the work of fabricating & upkeeping a fake idealized relationship in order to get the eventual reward of that money. The cynic in me gives this a 50% chance that this is a classic scam. - Kzqai {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.27}}
: So, do you extend that logic to assume that every "cueball" character must be "a girl" because you were "thinking the hair is a bit like [Sinéad O'Connor]s"? I'm curious... -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 10:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

:: Why is the sex relevant, although I believe it is a girl by hair and posture (comics use stereotypes to convey information with a few details. I do not think it changes the meaning of the comic. If it the gender is debated remove it. Although I do think that it is clear that the character is female. The emphases here on gender seems quite reveling. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.209|108.162.216.209]] 22:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Consider this as a possible reference to Kim Kardashian's photo.. An effect of her trying to "break the internet" -KLee {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.212}}

'''Identity of the writer?'''
:If the writer is based on a reoccurring character than it has to be either Megan or Danish. Is there a consensus as to who it is?[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.163|173.245.56.163]]

:: Isn't she Caroline, or 'curly buns'. Similar curly haired girl has appeared in similar roles on several pages but it seems her age isn't entirely set and instead fluctuates according to the call of a particular strip. {{unsigned ip|108.162.230.155}}

I don't think that anyone literally said "shut it down", I believe it was a rhetoric, at least that's how I read it. [[User:Official.xian|Official.xian]] ([[User talk:Official.xian|talk]]) 11:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes. Forget that the economy would go to hell without Internet. Forget how much science is done using Internet. The real reason for Internet to exist is so you can get in love with someone on different continent. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:I'm not so sure... it would seem it was primarily funny cat videos, the funniest possible of which was obviously posted, viewed, and judged as the final necessary use of the internet. It was thus agreed to shut it down, as there is really no need to continue with this charade variously coined as "commerce", "science", or other superfluous forms of so-called "communication" (that is the garbled blathering that is not funny cat pictures or videos), all depending of course on your preferred (but nonetheless obviously deluded) persuasion. This comic only serves to prove it. I am left wondering, though... how did Ponytail come to learn this? SMS? Phone Tree? -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 13:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::Is there perhaps a meme going around where instead of "lol" you write "internetover" to say "this is so good/funny, i can now die happy" and the comic author was annoyed with that and made this where the start situation is silly and the end is even sillier? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.163|108.162.254.163]] 14:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:::that seems to be an almost angrily rhetorical question, supposing that I'm making a serious statement rather than a very very sarcastic one, so... you must be... new... here? Perhaps I didn't lay it on thick enough? -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 10:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
This could be far more than a romantic involvement. She says she thought she was asking too much. But then she found... a like-minded individual, someone who can... notice the 'glitches in the matrix', as it were. Much more might have been lost here than a believed love. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.169|173.245.54.169]] 14:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It could mean the girl is in love or wants to adopt a child from a country like Iran, but before she can tell, the internet THERE is shut down by the government
(which happens all the time because of some youtube video or something). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.114|108.162.237.114]] 14:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:She is speaking with a romantic interest. One doesn't "settle" to adopt a child. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.125|173.245.52.125]] 18:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

: Or the writer may be in a country like Russia, China, or Turkey, where the internet is widely used but under constant threat of political censorship.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.129|108.162.216.129]] 14:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

So I am the only one who thought the girl was either the author of spam, or had a feasible contact whom she could fool into travelling to her country with promises of money, only to put them in the trap of being stuck there reliant on her? You hear the story all the time, someone is given hope, but as they arrive the passport is taken and to receive food+lodging (or in some cases they are locked inside a room) they are forced to perform dubious services with questionable morality 108.162.216.27and legality. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.145|108.162.254.145]] 15:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Feha {{unsigned ip|127.0.0.1|12:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)}}

Yeah, I still don't get the title comment either. The author of this Facebook comment was responding to a video, and I see no evidence that this girl has been posting videos. So is it just coincidence that [Megan is saying that] the author also believes the girl is done? [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 16:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
: No one is saying that the writer broke the internet or made the video, just that the video is the best thing the internet could ever produce, so everone is done with the internet. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.209}}

You guys are all missing the point (except for the "die happy" commenter). Sometimes, when watching such an impressive video, people say something along the lines of "the internet is over" to mean "that video was so impressive that no one will ever top it. We might as well shut down the internet." This comic takes that expression literally, and shuts down the internet in the middle of someone's important conversation. [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 18:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:Seconded... -- [[User:Notso|Notso]] ([[User talk:Notso|talk]]) 11:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Does anybody else think this might be the same girl from 508: Drapes? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.18|108.162.242.18]] 18:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

At first I thought it was a romance kinda thing, but it would also be an appropriate/situation in case of adoption. Maybe she found her reason to live in an orphan across the globe (I presume in a poor country). That she will be able to fly him/her here in six months she will be able to support the kid. This is also supposing that all paperwork will be finished in 6 months (which I think it's quite fast for adoption, but then again, we don't know how long they have been communicating for). {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.102}}

:Absolutely not. It would be HIGHLY inappropriate in the case of a child. "I had started to think I was asking too much, that I needed to settle. And then I found you." When you have a relationship, if you think it is not good enough you can break up and look for someone else. When you cannot find anyone better, you have to settle for what you can get. But you can NOT take that attitude -- "if it doesn't work out we can send it back to the factory" -- towards having (or adopting) a child! That would be literally inhuman, like the mother's attitude at the end of "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.40|162.158.38.40]] 21:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

As the argument over the sex of the subject of this comic rages on (hyperbole), I remembered that when I checked xkcd.com on Lynx, there were transcripts of every comic. I looked again and it seems that it does not do this for new comics. Does anyone know who writes those transcripts? If, for example, next week the transcript on the official website refers to the character as a girl, could that be used as a source? [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 11:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that the Internet shutdown was spontaneous, and alternate communication/news sources probably hadn't been set up yet to the degree needed, how does the second character know what happened? [[User:Z|Z]] ([[User talk:Z|talk]]) 16:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
: Everyone agreed to shut down ith internet. There would be a time delay from the time the comment was posted and people agreed to shut it down, during this time the majority of internet users would find out. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.209|108.162.216.209]] 22:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the idiom isn't well known everywhere, but there's the phrase "[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stick+a+fork+in+it Stick a fork in it, it's done!]" that usually applies to something that is finished (positive) or broken beyond hope (negative). [[User:Mr. I|Mr. I]] ([[User talk:Mr. I|talk]]) 13:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the comments about "we're done" are off the mark. I took the situation to be an exasperated developer and maintainer of network resources saying "we created the internet to be an amazing tool for communication and development of high human endeavors, but it has degenerated into a trivial exercise in watching hokey clips about cute animals. That's it! We've had it! No more! Shut 'er down!" This ties in with #676 http://xkcd.com/676/ [[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 12:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

:I agree completely. I have never heard the expression used to describe shut it down because the job is done but I have heard this wording used repeatedly in conversation when referring to something they were exasperated with. Also, this interpretation of the above seems more likely since it is a fairly common comment/joke, where as this would be the first time I would have heard someone joke that the purpose of the internet was to get ridiculous videos. If she had said a cat video, my perspective would, of course, be different.--[[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.41|199.27.133.41]] 02:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This comic made me sad :( [[Special:Contributions/108.162.223.35|108.162.223.35]] 07:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the description completely misses the point. The key phrase in the dialogue is "Why can't I connect?". She is referring to her Internet connection, but what she should be asking herself is why she can't connect with people. Apparently, there is no one close to her she can connect with so she needs to look halfway around the world. The comic is mocking curly hair and painting her in a pathetic light. I'm still struggling to figure out what "Done" means. Maybe it means we should turn off the Internet so we connect with the people around us instead of chatting with strangers we've never met half way around the world. The Facebook comment in the title text might be supporting this. Stop commenting on random things on the Internet and talk to the people around you. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.125|173.245.52.125]] 18:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

:And the irony is that I am making this comment to people half way around the world right now. :) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.125|173.245.52.125]] 18:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

:The facebook comment -- you may think you can still use the internet for something, but we know it's a crock so we know that you, like everyone else, have nothing useful to do with it any more. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.40|162.158.38.40]] 21:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

:But she ''can'' connect with other people. The whole comic demonstrated this. If you specifically mean people around her, there's no evidence that she can't do that, either. We don't know her social life. We just know that this particular relationship is currently over the internet (though she doesn't plan to keep it that way). And there's nothing unusual, pathetic, or mockable about that, nor any particular reason to think that the comic is deriding her for it. Lots of people go through several relationships before finding "the one". And sometimes people meet "the one" in another country. Not finding your true love among the people in your immediate area is not some kind of personal failing, nor a sign that one "can't connect". [[User:NoriMori|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori|talk]]) 21:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I, personally, have often seen the "The internet is done, shut it down." comments on humorous or clever posts on tumblr; that interpretation is what I got out of the comic, as the description says. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.77|108.162.216.77]] 22:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

:Same. It's a bit baffling to me how much confusion and over-thinking that part is causing. [[User:NoriMori|NoriMori]] ([[User talk:NoriMori|talk]]) 21:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)