explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2184: Unpopular Opinions

2019-08-14T18:48:08Z

Observer of the Absurd:

I wonder if it has to be below 50% with critic score, audience score, or both? [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Genisys has an Audience Score of 53%, so I think it has to be critic score (Tomatometer). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.124|108.162.241.124]] 21:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
::Critics and audiences are really two distinct groups. So to be "apples to apples", I'd think it would have to be a movie with an Audience score below 50. Disagreeing with something critics hated isn't that rare among the general audience. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.18|162.158.106.18]] 04:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::The whole idea of the challenge doesn't make sense if the movie is "only" hated by a handful of random critics. As Randall points out, it is easier to hate a movie that everyone loves, so that is also true for critics. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::I have to agree that basing it on the critic reviews only doesn't make much sense. I can find dozens of movies I like that are rated rotten by the critics, but nearly all of them got good audience reviews (Bright, Constentine, Super Troopers, K-Pax, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, etc). I can only find one that I like that that scores under 50% with both groups, Southland Tales, and even I'll admit it has many flaws. I suspect Randal Monroe was looking at movies that were rated "Rotten" by both groups (green icon and <60%), vs "fresh" (red icon > 60%). But the rules were already a bit too lengthy to spell it out explicitly. [[user]][[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

[https://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/dvd-streaming-all?minTomato=0&maxTomato=49&services=amazon;hbo_go;itunes;netflix_iw;vudu;amazon_prime;fandango_now&genres=1;2;4;5;6;8;9;10;11;13;18;14&sortBy=tomato Movies] on DVD or streaming, tomatometer 49% down to 0%.

Plenty of Twilight fans will raise their hands - it is rated 49% --[[User:Thomcat|Thomcat]] ([[User talk:Thomcat|talk]]) 18:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Well, I'm around the typical age of (original) Twilight fans, and none of the movies in the saga came in my adult life. (But they're all below 50%)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.103.147|162.158.103.147]] 18:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, Shaft got a 30% on the Tomatometer and a 94 on the audience score, and I loved it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.22|108.162.241.22]] 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Do Waterworld, in spite of the fact that it only ticks two of the boxes, count? I really liked that one.
:I also liked Waterworld (44%, 1997) and The Postman (9%, 1995) (both with Kevin Kostner, and sort of the same story). Assuming the definition of adult is 18, they both qualify for the adult part, but not the after 2000 part. I also loved Star Wars Episode I, but sure enough, it's above 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. [[User:WhiteDragon|WhiteDragon]] ([[User talk:WhiteDragon|talk]]) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

:If it didn't come out while you were an adult, then it doesn't count. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:My immediate search was also for Water World. Would it also not count when you didn't watch it until after 2000? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't watch enough movies (or know Rotten Tomatoes well enough) to participate in this particular challenge, but it seems like every time I enjoy a video game, it turns out to have a sizeable and vocal hatedom. I seriously can't relate to the caption here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.165|162.158.107.165]] 20:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Batman v. Superman is probably a good answer for a fair number of people-it has a reasonable number of fans (including myself) who liked it, despite its very poor rating (28%) [[User:SirEpp|SirEpp]] ([[User talk:SirEpp|talk]]) 21:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
: I went to that movie for finding the plausible reason why Batman who only fights criminal and Superman being too unreal for ever being angry for no reason might have a fight which each other. Got less than I expected, in this aspect. But Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, Thor: Ragnarok and Iron Sky are objectively superb films the critics hated. Perhaps with the exception of the relationship between Valerian and Laureline, perhaps, though.[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a movie, per se, but I thought season 8 of Game of Thrones was fantastic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.88|162.158.214.88]] 22:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Critically panned films that I like include: Crimes of Grindelwald, Passengers, and Warcraft. Critically acclaimed films that I do not like: Avatar and Life of Pi. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.213|173.245.48.213]] 22:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Oooh, ''Passengers'' is a good one, I'm stealing that. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I second Crimes of Grindelwald (37 RT), and add Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (48 RT), which I also enjoyed and actually recommend to people. Now these movies aren't "classics" or "great movies", they aren't perfect, but they are effective entertainment, and ''not'' because they "are so bad their good". Grindelwald has many effective scenes and acting, and Valerian is a very effective effort at making a movie out of a comic book that ''feels like a comic book''-- a fact I appreciated. Of course 48 RT is also just under the 50 RT threshold.[[User:Careysub|Careysub]] ([[User talk:Careysub|talk]])
:It's almost like you totally misunderstood the point of the comic. [[User:A74xhx|A74xhx]] ([[User talk:A74xhx|talk]]) 09:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
::How so? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.16|172.69.69.16]] 21:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Not under 50%, but I'm shocked that "The Secret Life of Walter Smitty" has only 51%... National Treasure has only 46%... I like this game, it is a test in optimism.
:"The Secret Life of Walter '''Mitty'''" deserves a low rating, particularly when compared to the original with Danny Kaye. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 05:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Frankly it would be easier to list the movies I like that aren't below 50% on rotten tomatoes. [[User:CJB42|CJB42]] ([[User talk:CJB42|talk]]) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)s

My experience with rotten tomatoes ratings in particular is that they have no clue and I find their ratings useless. The challenge from Randall in this comic is a case in point: the first movie I though to check, “Another Gay Movie” gets a 40% on the tomatometer yet is one of my favorites. Same thing with all the “Eating Out” movies: good comedies that I enjoy, yet Tomatometer scores of 16%, 44%, and 17% for the first three. (And why is “Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds” so much higher ranked than 1 or 3? It’s not that different...)
I think the criteria that Randal assumes (but doesn’t mention) is that the movie has to be a box office hit that appeals to mainstream audiences.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 03:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why Suicide Squad got trashed. It was light, colourful, had an engaging story, and well made. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.209|172.68.253.209]] 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sucker Punch. There, I said it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.77|141.101.99.77]] 07:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I definitely came to this discussion thinking of this movie. It's properly interesting, but it's also easy to see why critics and half the audience hate it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.64|162.158.34.64]] 10:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a certain type of movie that 'h8ers' will auto-trash before they even come out (especially "Gender-switched version of a classic", like that ''Ghostbusters'', and "Strong female type", like ''Wonder Woman'' - as easy examples of those that some people love to hate, regardless of actual merit). So I recon there'd be good mileage in keeping an eye on (for example) the double-whammy that is the upcoming Female Thor movie. If it doesn't ''actually'' turn out to be so bad that you personally don't like it, I predict that it'll be pre-release troll-sniped down below 50% in "popular" opinion and even if they're not at all right about their guess there'll be a window of opportunity before any counter-viewpoint from actual viewers ups the score again. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:No one hated Wonder Woman. It has 93%, and is arguably the best live action superhero movie that DC has released so far. Ghostbusters was a money grabbing remake that brought nothing new. It COULD have been great with almost no effort, by getting someone to write an original script that built on the things that came before that everyone loves, instead of trying to replace it with an inferior version. The only one to blame is the Hollywood studios that would rather throw money at something that already exists instead of taking a risk on an unknown. Then they add insult to injury and tell everyone that the reason they failed isn't because they made bad decisions, but because ''people don't like seeing women in leading roles'', which is not true in any form. No real people care if the lead is male or female. They care about a good story, good acting, and having a good time watching a movie they paid their money for. [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

What the heck are all these Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller movies doing at sub-50%? I didn't know people supposedly hated Night at the Museum that much. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.67|172.68.189.67]] 17:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found two: Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. I don't consider them like super-good, but I like them. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found four: Hancock, Knowing, The Lovely Bones, The Book of Eli.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.28|162.158.150.28]] 11:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Immediately: Venom (29%) I like to pretend I like it for the "so bad it's good", but here in anonymous interwebzland, I can admit I just enjoyed it (despite expecting to hate it for the retcon). Does it matter that the RT audience score is 81%? I often find that my enjoyment of a movie is inversely proportional to how much critics didn't, and it seems I'm not alone.[[User:Daemonik|Daemonik]] ([[User talk:Daemonik|talk]]) 09:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the point here is that people feel more comfortable disliking something than liking it. It isn't that we don't all have movies that we like that other people hated, it's that many of us are afraid to say it. Also, t's not a movie, but I honestly enjoyed that one episode of ''Stranger Things''. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 04:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I admit a weakness for the Roland Emmerich movies ("The Day After Tomorrow" and "2012"). OK the science behind the events is pretty rubbish, but they are decent action movies nonetheless with a few enjoyable twists (like the USA having to beg Mexico to let them emigrate south in TDAT).

I'm shocked no one else has mentioned Jupiter Ascending yet; there was a decent amount of silliness in that movie, but I genuinely found it super compelling, and it deserves better than a 27%. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.90|172.68.65.90]] 16:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

300 got very mediocre reviews (52% on Metacritic), but I'ts absolutely one of my all-time favourite action movies. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 16:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Geostorm. Didn't even need the link for that. [[User:Conster|Conster]] ([[User talk:Conster|talk]]) 21:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Like another user said, Roland Emmerich movies like TDAT and 2012 are ones I'll always be a sucker for. Also, The Book of Eli (2010) is actually a great movie IMO despite having a 48% on RT. I always put that as a classic. Meet the Fockers (2004) is funny, too.

Side note: Armageddon is a pre-2000 movie (1998), but I think most would agree that it's a classic apocalyptic movie.

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 14:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, a reminder that the original Purge movie has a 39% on RT. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 15:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

How, by all that is holy, does The Human Centipede get a 49% Tomatometer rating? Give me a win for Mr Popper's Penguins, though. [[User:Observer of the Absurd|Observer of the Absurd]] ([[User talk:Observer of the Absurd|talk]]) 18:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
== Post-2000? ==

Anyone have an idea why "post-2000" is a criteria? [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 23:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Maybe because Rotten Tomatoes was launched close to the end of the 1990s, so post-2000 movies are the only ones that have been reviewed as they came out? Or perhaps it's to limit the scope of "movies that came out in your adult life", since adult life could go back a long way for some people. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I don't know for certain, but I feel incredibly confident that it's the timing of Rotten Tomatoes, that older movies that came out before the site existed won't be thoroughly / properly covered. Like if you look closely you'll see the 40% rating on this movie comes from only 1 vote. I suspect Randall feels that as of 2000, there was enough activity on the site to provide sufficient coverage. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:Pre-2000 films, being prior to RT, have the 'benefit'  of studied hindsight. Anybody who bothers to review [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1003722_casino_royale the ''original'' Casino Royale], which would be my choice for this if I were allowed, just has far too much baggage to be thinking the same as with something just being appreciated in the context as a new-release. Including me, probably, across the many years since I first saw that film and fell in love with it, despite the obvious and total car-crash of its Development Hell! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:And there's a lot of selection bias in who reviews movies from pre-2000 as anyone who reviews a movie probably only went to that movies page and wrote a review, because they either really like the movie, or really really really hate it.[[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
:It's stated in the explanation: it is so that most respondents would choose a movie that they have seen in their adult life and avoid the "childhood nostalgia" bias where you have fond memories of a movie watched as a kid but that you wouldn't enjoy watching as an adult.

I KNOW that there are many, many movies I can apply to this challenge - I often find myself enjoying unpopular movies. Plus, critics suck, they seem to always forget that this is ENTERTAINMENT. A clever movie that is dull as dirt and makes you fall asleep should NOT receive high praise, it fails at the primary function - but I can't think of them in the moment. About a week ago on Facebook I had a memory, a list of facts about Eurotrip, where the article called it a flop, while I loved it, so probably that one. This comic triggered my first ever visit to Rotten Tomatoes, who lists Eurotrip as I think 46%, but much higher for Audience score, so I THINK it counts? What bumps me is that it seems like "Audience Score" would be popular opinion, making Eurotrip actually a Popular movie, which seems like then it wouldn't apply here. ???? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hypothesis: People generally give more positive then negative reviews, and positive reviews also cause more people to watch. The number of watching for something bad is therefor lower, while a good movie is watched so often there is always a critic.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.190|172.69.55.190]] 10:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with people who don't like Ghost Rider or Daredevil? — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 19:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

My favorite bad movies Wild Wild West, The One, Returner, Equilibrium, The Warrior's Way [[User:Houligan|Houligan]] ([[User talk:Houligan|talk]]) 15:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I liked 50 First Dates. But for my really controversial opinion, I'm gonna say not only was Armageddon a terrific movie, but it got enough of the science right to earn our suspension of disbelief :D
--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.245|172.68.142.245]] 21:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Is [[653: So Bad It's Worse]] related enough to be mentioned in the explaination or trivia? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I just came here to say, "Pandorum".

How to talk to girls at parties (2018) - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.113|172.68.46.113]] 20:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Guilty Pleasure: ''The Sorcerer's Apprentice'' - [[User:Acrisius|Acrisius]] ([[User talk:Acrisius|talk]]) 06:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2184: Unpopular Opinions

2019-08-14T18:46:02Z

Observer of the Absurd:

I wonder if it has to be below 50% with critic score, audience score, or both? [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Genisys has an Audience Score of 53%, so I think it has to be critic score (Tomatometer). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.124|108.162.241.124]] 21:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
::Critics and audiences are really two distinct groups. So to be "apples to apples", I'd think it would have to be a movie with an Audience score below 50. Disagreeing with something critics hated isn't that rare among the general audience. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.18|162.158.106.18]] 04:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::The whole idea of the challenge doesn't make sense if the movie is "only" hated by a handful of random critics. As Randall points out, it is easier to hate a movie that everyone loves, so that is also true for critics. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::I have to agree that basing it on the critic reviews only doesn't make much sense. I can find dozens of movies I like that are rated rotten by the critics, but nearly all of them got good audience reviews (Bright, Constentine, Super Troopers, K-Pax, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, etc). I can only find one that I like that that scores under 50% with both groups, Southland Tales, and even I'll admit it has many flaws. I suspect Randal Monroe was looking at movies that were rated "Rotten" by both groups (green icon and <60%), vs "fresh" (red icon > 60%). But the rules were already a bit too lengthy to spell it out explicitly. [[user]][[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

[https://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/dvd-streaming-all?minTomato=0&maxTomato=49&services=amazon;hbo_go;itunes;netflix_iw;vudu;amazon_prime;fandango_now&genres=1;2;4;5;6;8;9;10;11;13;18;14&sortBy=tomato Movies] on DVD or streaming, tomatometer 49% down to 0%.

Plenty of Twilight fans will raise their hands - it is rated 49% --[[User:Thomcat|Thomcat]] ([[User talk:Thomcat|talk]]) 18:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Well, I'm around the typical age of (original) Twilight fans, and none of the movies in the saga came in my adult life. (But they're all below 50%)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.103.147|162.158.103.147]] 18:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, Shaft got a 30% on the Tomatometer and a 94 on the audience score, and I loved it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.22|108.162.241.22]] 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Do Waterworld, in spite of the fact that it only ticks two of the boxes, count? I really liked that one.
:I also liked Waterworld (44%, 1997) and The Postman (9%, 1995) (both with Kevin Kostner, and sort of the same story). Assuming the definition of adult is 18, they both qualify for the adult part, but not the after 2000 part. I also loved Star Wars Episode I, but sure enough, it's above 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. [[User:WhiteDragon|WhiteDragon]] ([[User talk:WhiteDragon|talk]]) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

:If it didn't come out while you were an adult, then it doesn't count. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:My immediate search was also for Water World. Would it also not count when you didn't watch it until after 2000? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't watch enough movies (or know Rotten Tomatoes well enough) to participate in this particular challenge, but it seems like every time I enjoy a video game, it turns out to have a sizeable and vocal hatedom. I seriously can't relate to the caption here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.165|162.158.107.165]] 20:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Batman v. Superman is probably a good answer for a fair number of people-it has a reasonable number of fans (including myself) who liked it, despite its very poor rating (28%) [[User:SirEpp|SirEpp]] ([[User talk:SirEpp|talk]]) 21:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
: I went to that movie for finding the plausible reason why Batman who only fights criminal and Superman being too unreal for ever being angry for no reason might have a fight which each other. Got less than I expected, in this aspect. But Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, Thor: Ragnarok and Iron Sky are objectively superb films the critics hated. Perhaps with the exception of the relationship between Valerian and Laureline, perhaps, though.[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a movie, per se, but I thought season 8 of Game of Thrones was fantastic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.88|162.158.214.88]] 22:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Critically panned films that I like include: Crimes of Grindelwald, Passengers, and Warcraft. Critically acclaimed films that I do not like: Avatar and Life of Pi. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.213|173.245.48.213]] 22:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Oooh, ''Passengers'' is a good one, I'm stealing that. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I second Crimes of Grindelwald (37 RT), and add Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (48 RT), which I also enjoyed and actually recommend to people. Now these movies aren't "classics" or "great movies", they aren't perfect, but they are effective entertainment, and ''not'' because they "are so bad their good". Grindelwald has many effective scenes and acting, and Valerian is a very effective effort at making a movie out of a comic book that ''feels like a comic book''-- a fact I appreciated. Of course 48 RT is also just under the 50 RT threshold.[[User:Careysub|Careysub]] ([[User talk:Careysub|talk]])
:It's almost like you totally misunderstood the point of the comic. [[User:A74xhx|A74xhx]] ([[User talk:A74xhx|talk]]) 09:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
::How so? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.16|172.69.69.16]] 21:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Not under 50%, but I'm shocked that "The Secret Life of Walter Smitty" has only 51%... National Treasure has only 46%... I like this game, it is a test in optimism.
:"The Secret Life of Walter '''Mitty'''" deserves a low rating, particularly when compared to the original with Danny Kaye. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 05:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Frankly it would be easier to list the movies I like that aren't below 50% on rotten tomatoes. [[User:CJB42|CJB42]] ([[User talk:CJB42|talk]]) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)s

My experience with rotten tomatoes ratings in particular is that they have no clue and I find their ratings useless. The challenge from Randall in this comic is a case in point: the first movie I though to check, “Another Gay Movie” gets a 40% on the tomatometer yet is one of my favorites. Same thing with all the “Eating Out” movies: good comedies that I enjoy, yet Tomatometer scores of 16%, 44%, and 17% for the first three. (And why is “Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds” so much higher ranked than 1 or 3? It’s not that different...)
I think the criteria that Randal assumes (but doesn’t mention) is that the movie has to be a box office hit that appeals to mainstream audiences.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 03:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why Suicide Squad got trashed. It was light, colourful, had an engaging story, and well made. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.209|172.68.253.209]] 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sucker Punch. There, I said it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.77|141.101.99.77]] 07:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I definitely came to this discussion thinking of this movie. It's properly interesting, but it's also easy to see why critics and half the audience hate it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.64|162.158.34.64]] 10:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a certain type of movie that 'h8ers' will auto-trash before they even come out (especially "Gender-switched version of a classic", like that ''Ghostbusters'', and "Strong female type", like ''Wonder Woman'' - as easy examples of those that some people love to hate, regardless of actual merit). So I recon there'd be good mileage in keeping an eye on (for example) the double-whammy that is the upcoming Female Thor movie. If it doesn't ''actually'' turn out to be so bad that you personally don't like it, I predict that it'll be pre-release troll-sniped down below 50% in "popular" opinion and even if they're not at all right about their guess there'll be a window of opportunity before any counter-viewpoint from actual viewers ups the score again. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:No one hated Wonder Woman. It has 93%, and is arguably the best live action superhero movie that DC has released so far. Ghostbusters was a money grabbing remake that brought nothing new. It COULD have been great with almost no effort, by getting someone to write an original script that built on the things that came before that everyone loves, instead of trying to replace it with an inferior version. The only one to blame is the Hollywood studios that would rather throw money at something that already exists instead of taking a risk on an unknown. Then they add insult to injury and tell everyone that the reason they failed isn't because they made bad decisions, but because ''people don't like seeing women in leading roles'', which is not true in any form. No real people care if the lead is male or female. They care about a good story, good acting, and having a good time watching a movie they paid their money for. [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

What the heck are all these Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller movies doing at sub-50%? I didn't know people supposedly hated Night at the Museum that much. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.67|172.68.189.67]] 17:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found two: Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. I don't consider them like super-good, but I like them. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found four: Hancock, Knowing, The Lovely Bones, The Book of Eli.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.28|162.158.150.28]] 11:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Immediately: Venom (29%) I like to pretend I like it for the "so bad it's good", but here in anonymous interwebzland, I can admit I just enjoyed it (despite expecting to hate it for the retcon). Does it matter that the RT audience score is 81%? I often find that my enjoyment of a movie is inversely proportional to how much critics didn't, and it seems I'm not alone.[[User:Daemonik|Daemonik]] ([[User talk:Daemonik|talk]]) 09:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the point here is that people feel more comfortable disliking something than liking it. It isn't that we don't all have movies that we like that other people hated, it's that many of us are afraid to say it. Also, t's not a movie, but I honestly enjoyed that one episode of ''Stranger Things''. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 04:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I admit a weakness for the Roland Emmerich movies ("The Day After Tomorrow" and "2012"). OK the science behind the events is pretty rubbish, but they are decent action movies nonetheless with a few enjoyable twists (like the USA having to beg Mexico to let them emigrate south in TDAT).

I'm shocked no one else has mentioned Jupiter Ascending yet; there was a decent amount of silliness in that movie, but I genuinely found it super compelling, and it deserves better than a 27%. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.90|172.68.65.90]] 16:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

300 got very mediocre reviews (52% on Metacritic), but I'ts absolutely one of my all-time favourite action movies. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 16:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Geostorm. Didn't even need the link for that. [[User:Conster|Conster]] ([[User talk:Conster|talk]]) 21:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Like another user said, Roland Emmerich movies like TDAT and 2012 are ones I'll always be a sucker for. Also, The Book of Eli (2010) is actually a great movie IMO despite having a 48% on RT. I always put that as a classic. Meet the Fockers (2004) is funny, too.

Side note: Armageddon is a pre-2000 movie (1998), but I think most would agree that it's a classic apocalyptic movie.

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 14:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, a reminder that the original Purge movie has a 39% on RT. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 15:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

How, by all that is holy, does The Human Centipede get a 49% Tomatometer rating? [[User:Observer of the Absurd|Observer of the Absurd]] ([[User talk:Observer of the Absurd|talk]]) 18:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
== Post-2000? ==

Anyone have an idea why "post-2000" is a criteria? [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 23:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Maybe because Rotten Tomatoes was launched close to the end of the 1990s, so post-2000 movies are the only ones that have been reviewed as they came out? Or perhaps it's to limit the scope of "movies that came out in your adult life", since adult life could go back a long way for some people. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I don't know for certain, but I feel incredibly confident that it's the timing of Rotten Tomatoes, that older movies that came out before the site existed won't be thoroughly / properly covered. Like if you look closely you'll see the 40% rating on this movie comes from only 1 vote. I suspect Randall feels that as of 2000, there was enough activity on the site to provide sufficient coverage. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:Pre-2000 films, being prior to RT, have the 'benefit'  of studied hindsight. Anybody who bothers to review [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1003722_casino_royale the ''original'' Casino Royale], which would be my choice for this if I were allowed, just has far too much baggage to be thinking the same as with something just being appreciated in the context as a new-release. Including me, probably, across the many years since I first saw that film and fell in love with it, despite the obvious and total car-crash of its Development Hell! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:And there's a lot of selection bias in who reviews movies from pre-2000 as anyone who reviews a movie probably only went to that movies page and wrote a review, because they either really like the movie, or really really really hate it.[[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
:It's stated in the explanation: it is so that most respondents would choose a movie that they have seen in their adult life and avoid the "childhood nostalgia" bias where you have fond memories of a movie watched as a kid but that you wouldn't enjoy watching as an adult.

I KNOW that there are many, many movies I can apply to this challenge - I often find myself enjoying unpopular movies. Plus, critics suck, they seem to always forget that this is ENTERTAINMENT. A clever movie that is dull as dirt and makes you fall asleep should NOT receive high praise, it fails at the primary function - but I can't think of them in the moment. About a week ago on Facebook I had a memory, a list of facts about Eurotrip, where the article called it a flop, while I loved it, so probably that one. This comic triggered my first ever visit to Rotten Tomatoes, who lists Eurotrip as I think 46%, but much higher for Audience score, so I THINK it counts? What bumps me is that it seems like "Audience Score" would be popular opinion, making Eurotrip actually a Popular movie, which seems like then it wouldn't apply here. ???? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hypothesis: People generally give more positive then negative reviews, and positive reviews also cause more people to watch. The number of watching for something bad is therefor lower, while a good movie is watched so often there is always a critic.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.190|172.69.55.190]] 10:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with people who don't like Ghost Rider or Daredevil? — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 19:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

My favorite bad movies Wild Wild West, The One, Returner, Equilibrium, The Warrior's Way [[User:Houligan|Houligan]] ([[User talk:Houligan|talk]]) 15:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I liked 50 First Dates. But for my really controversial opinion, I'm gonna say not only was Armageddon a terrific movie, but it got enough of the science right to earn our suspension of disbelief :D
--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.245|172.68.142.245]] 21:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Is [[653: So Bad It's Worse]] related enough to be mentioned in the explaination or trivia? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I just came here to say, "Pandorum".

How to talk to girls at parties (2018) - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.113|172.68.46.113]] 20:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Guilty Pleasure: ''The Sorcerer's Apprentice'' - [[User:Acrisius|Acrisius]] ([[User talk:Acrisius|talk]]) 06:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2174: First News Memory

2019-07-11T16:20:30Z

Observer of the Absurd:

AAAAA, black hat is an alien confirmed in XKCD cinematic universe canon!!!1! [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 23:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Should it be linked to [[:category:Comics to make one feel old|Comics to make one feel old]]? it is kind of a similar theme. especially [[1686: Feel Old]]. Also (not of the feel old series): [[1093: Forget]]. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 05:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

== First News Memory ==

The challenger disaster was my first news memory too. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.124|108.162.241.124]] 19:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
: The Challenger disaster was for me, too -- except I distinctly remember it being during my 8th grade year (two years after it had occurred). Earlier still would be Mt. St. Helens' blowing it's top (well, side) -- except it wasn't a news event, it was a life event (we lived in Idaho at the time, and had a lot of the first ash that came down...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.52|162.158.75.52]] 05:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
:: Wait... is the Challenger disaster my first news memory if I watched it happen live? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.124|108.162.241.124]] 12:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders not being admitted into debates was mine...
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 19:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
:The debate was with Moses -- Bernie is ''old''. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
::And yet distinctly more lucid than Biden & more active than Trump. Bernie's age doesn't concern me much. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure I must have watched the moon landing, but I don't actually remember it (I was 8 at the time). I remember Nixon being elected, but I'm not sure if it was 1968 or 1972.[[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]])

I was five and was allowed to stay up very late - i think I remember being allowed to stay up more than the moon landing. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.67|162.158.154.67]] 22:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I vaguely remember the last moon landing (family didn’t have TV for the first three) but I very clearly remember the first picture of Mars sent back by the Viking lander. They actually interrupted the regular programming to show it live.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.234.132|172.69.234.132]] 04:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

If it's supposed it's first news memory you remember clearly, mine would be the {{w|September 11 attacks}} ... however, i'm sure it was nowhere near first news I was watching. It's just that the ones before were either hard to date (like some road accidents) or not visual enough (talking heads), so I don't remember if I watched that one in TV or read it in newspaper. Also, I suspect it was first news I saw outside of regular news show: they interrupted what was supposed to be in TV at that time, so I though it's some catastrophic movie first. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

For me it was the German election results 1998, where Schröder became the new Kanzler. 3 Years later, 9/11 is much clearer on my mind however --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 11:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It's very hazy, I don't have many memories from when I was young but I recall McCain being defeated. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.234.136|172.69.234.136]] 12:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

What comes to my mind was the Great Alaska Earthquake which I read about in the "Weekly Reader" distributed in elementary school. My memory is that I was about 8 years old, but in fact the Alaska earthquake was in March 1964 and I was 10 years old. Which makes the Kennedy assassination in November 1963 my first strong news memory. So this demonstrates the malleability of (at least my) memory. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 13:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

My first news memory was watching the Apollo–Soyuz link-up from the Apollo side. NASA televised the opening of the hatch on the Apollo and shaking hands with the Soviet cosmonaut and I remember my mom explaining that that was happening up in space way above us. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 13:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Mine was the 1976 election of Carter over Ford. Mom was Democrat and her stepfather was Republican. His derision of Carter was...exuberant. [[User:Observer of the Absurd|Observer of the Absurd]] ([[User talk:Observer of the Absurd|talk]]) 16:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

== Explain the comic ==

(Flashblub memories \ Mandela effect)
I think we need an explanation of Flashbulb memories, for sure. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

== Details hazy ==

"Challenger crashed into and destroyed the Berlin Wall" ... 'That's right, isn't it?' - ''Dexter Walker'' (played by Daryl Mitchell) on ''The John Laroquette Show''
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

== Links to character pages ==

This comic especially felt like it needed links to character pages, so I added them. If we have a policy not to do that, please feel free to unlink. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 02:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

== Deny/refute ==
In comment on title text, I changed refutes to denies. Refute means to actually prove something is untrue, not the same as just denying it is true. One deals with proven fact, the other is unsupported opinion.

Talk:2155: Swimming

2019-06-02T21:53:45Z

Observer of the Absurd: Lemmings

The title text reminds me of https://xkcd.com/1115/
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.13|108.162.242.13]] 17:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I never fully enjoyed swimming in lakes & oceans for this same reason. Getting nipped by a snapping turtle, pinched by crawfish & crabs, & nudge-tested by snakes probably pushed my experiences in a negative direction as well. Chlorine & urine content don't make swimming pools nearly unpleasant enough to feel ickier than most open water I've been in. As someone who grew up in a hot climate, I ''love'' swimming, but I like to be able to see what's in the water around me. The deeper & murkier the water is, the more uneasy I feel venturing into it.
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
:In most open water, there is no chlorine, but there is definitely some urine and blood and probably also fish sperm. It SHOULD be more diluted, though ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
::I find it ridiculous that some people are grossed by the supposedly urine (or, God forbid, sperm) contaminated swimming pools yet fine to drink water coming from open reservoirs containing (highly diluted!) duck poop, fish stuff, slimes and molds etc. Some even have spilled millions of gallons of perfectly fine water after some guy peed in it, even if it was wide open to any flying source of poo ([http://time.com/66459/portland-reservoir-pee/]) -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 08:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
: haha. I live in Australia. I love swimming at the beach. But my rule is, as much as possible, always swim with someone bigger, slower and further out. The first two are not as easy as they used to be!![[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 13:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
: also " nudge-tested by snakes" W.T.A.F!!![[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 13:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I am confused. The explanation says there is a person as you scroll down, but I don't see any people below the surface. Is it talking about the jellyfish?--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.42.28|172.69.42.28]] 19:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
: not any more [[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 13:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This panel is approximately 4.047 times as tall as it is wide. [[User:Moosenonny10|Moosenonny10]] ([[User talk:Moosenonny10|talk]]) 00:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree it's an '''entirely''' irrational fear -- it's much easier to rescue a drowned person from the lake/ocean bottom if the water is shallow. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.182.16|172.68.182.16]] 07:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
:It is still irrational – if someone's drowned at the bottom it isn't rescue anymore, just potentially recovering a dead body. Completely irrelevant for the unfortunate swimmer, unless she is worried about her family's emotions and the amount of (not entirely rational) public expense – all these expert divers, rescue units time, police work etc. cost a lot. -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 08:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
: disagree. My sister rescued an unconscious kid from the bottom of a 3m deep pool. Rescuscitated him. Full recovery. Not common but it happens.[[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 13:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
:I believe that very deep waters are occasionally (and more frequently than shallow ones) dangerous due to cold undercurrents, so I support "not entirely irrational fear".[[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 08:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
:Furthermore, on the topic of the specific fear in the comic, it's perfectly rational to be afraid of the ground you are relying on for support to suddenly and precipitously drop orders of magnitude deeper. Presumably the issue is not the irrationality of the fear but the language used - that is, "swimming" should be "wading" since their "feet touch bottom". Someone wading who was incapable of swimming would be rightfully afraid of suddenly being dropped into open sea, as they'd have limited ability to make it back to safety. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.142.22|172.69.142.22]] 18:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Back when I was teaching beginning swimming for adults, I would tell them that the deep end of the pool was better for swimming because there was more water under them to support them. Some of them found that the idea inspired confidence . . . others, not so much. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.100|162.158.214.100]] 17:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
: My wife is learning to swim at the moment (she's 50, never too old to learn!) and has this specific issue about being able to touch the bottom. She was told by her instructor about the deep end being "better for swimming" and definitely falls into the "not so much" category you mention![[User:Daemonik|Daemonik]] ([[User talk:Daemonik|talk]]) 14:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
: there is a way in which this is correct, and not trivially. Deeper pools cause less reflected turbulence to impede the swimmer so are marginally faster. Most international competition is now held in pools of uniform depth of, i think, at least 3 metres [[User:Boatster|Boatster]] ([[User talk:Boatster|talk]]) 05:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

What is the Lemmings reference mentioned in the explanation? [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 12:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
:Thank you, herobrine. My question exactly! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 16:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
::I would guess it is to the {{w|Lemmings (video game)}}, I put in wikilink assuming that that is what is meant. Not sure though. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.102|162.158.106.102]] 18:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)I thought this was a global warming reference at first glance. it works pretty well as one. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.28|162.158.214.28]] 03:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
:::Quite right. As someone old enough to remember {{w|Lemmings (video game)}}, one of the tools to keep your lemmings from dying from a fall was an umbrella. [[User:Observer of the Absurd|Observer of the Absurd]] ([[User talk:Observer of the Absurd|talk]]) 21:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

When I saw this, one element of it immediately reminded of a 26th/May [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48360832 BBC article] that just barely preceded the comic's appearance. So maybe part of the fear is actually that of pellebaphobia. (Pelle''batho''phobia, even?) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.86|162.158.155.86]] 20:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2146: Waiting for the But

2019-05-16T04:51:32Z

Observer of the Absurd:

Added a basic backbone for explanation, but needs to be worked on more, definitely.
Suggest all comments to use a but somewhere in them - [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.240|141.101.107.240]] 11:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Done the transcript - please check as this is my first edit(s!) - [[Special:Contributions/162.158.231.25|162.158.231.25]] 11:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:It was basically fine. I added a bit more description (no need for no wiki around a single [ ] brackets of those types... And some formatting details. Great work. I now completed it. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
::"It was basically fine [''but''] I added a bit more description." [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.172|108.162.216.172]] 15:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Expanded the explanation a bit. I'm new here and not trying to complain, but how many edits (or other criteria) do I have to meet before I can edit without solving the captcha each time? Or does that never go away?[[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 11:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:It will go away, but I have no idea when. I think it was not here when I began, and having made top 3 with most edits its been a while... ;-) We had some problems with bots posting I think... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:I think I never needed to fill the captcha since I created an account, so it must've changed since. Hmmmm ... did you tried confirming your email address? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Everything after "but" is horseshit. (Someone in GoT). {{unsigned|Jkrstrt}}
:It's "everything '''before''' ''but'' is horseshit" and Eddard Stark said it according to John Snow. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 14:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Look, whenever a comment starts with "Listen," I know that no matter how long the disclaimer, what follows the "but" is going to be bad. (the same applies to comments starting with "Look," ;^) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.34|162.158.214.34]] 13:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Ponytail:"... but using Phoenix as flying cars could be cool."
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.54.69|172.69.54.69]] 15:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
:"...but movie companies that add anything to the credits aside from actual credits should be tied to the middle of a highway and have their houses burned down." --[[User:Youforgotthisthing|Youforgotthisthing]] ([[User talk:Youforgotthisthing|talk]]) 00:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Finally got around to making an edit for something here on the wiki for once! lol --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|'''JayRules''XKCD''' ]]<sup>[[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|what's up?]]</sup> 10:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(cartoon) but....Wouldn't it be cool to see a horde of elephants roasted to death in a horrific freeway accident where their truck is lit on fire by an arsonist that saves a town from starvation? [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 15:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(tagline) but...we really need Amway salesmen to start pushing and enforcing scriptures against witchcraft.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 15:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it really smart to use a current sensitive political topic as example for "I don't wanna be racist, buuuut....." ? How about something along the lines of "I'm not saying you're stupid, but that was really dumb" or something more innocent like that ? There actually are some valid arguments against this migration wave, like overpopulation in europe or clashing cultures, and there are no easy answers here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.61|162.158.111.61]] 06:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
:That's actually why I chose it. The "I'm not XXX" part can and is being used both by people trying to hide their bad ideas (like racism) as well as people actually making sure they're not mistaken as racists. Which of these scenarios applies to the scenario I chose depends on the reasoning behind not providing help. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear enough. Obviously I don't intend to use this platform for political discussions.[[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 07:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

To "No one expects..." in the current explanation: I get where the "No one expects the Spanish inquistion"-part comes from, BUT ( ;) ) can someoney explain the predatory multi-level part? I think I vaguely remember a connection to The Crimson Permanent Assurance. Might be mistaken, though... [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 12:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
::You might want to watch this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M29l0hkQa5I], if I did that link right. If I didn't, just go to youtube and search "Dragnet Pyramid Scheme". I personally think it should be REQUIRED for all high school students in America. But I think that rain is wet, so what do I know?[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 16:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
:::Thanks! So it wasn't a pop culture reference? (I know what pyramid schemes are, I just wondered if there was a reference I missed) :) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
::::Since the reference has been removed, someone has to say it, so... "But I didn't expect a pyramid scheme." "NOBODY expects a pyramid scheme." [[User:Observer of the Absurd|Observer of the Absurd]] ([[User talk:Observer of the Absurd|talk]]) 04:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

2142: Dangerous Fields

2019-05-16T04:18:57Z

Observer of the Absurd: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2142
| date = April 26, 2019
| title = Dangerous Fields
| image = dangerous_fields.png
| titletext = Eventually, every epidemiologist becomes another statistic, a dedication to record-keeping which their colleagues sincerely appreciate.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an INEXORABLE PROCESS. Percentages needed to be added (like [[1895: Worrying Scientist Interviews]]). Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This is a graph of fields of study, ordered by how likely one is to die because of something that that field studies, with mathematics being the least dangerous and gerontology being the most. Gerontology, the scientific study of old age, is shown as much more dangerous than the other fields, so it is far on the right side of the graph. The joke is in the distinction between the danger of studying the thing, and the overall death rate from the thing. Studying ageing doesn't put you at much more risk of ageing than the general population. However, studying volcanoes is likely to put you in dangerous environments.

===Fields===
*{{W|Mathematics}} is such a pure non-physical field that the probability of it being the direct cause of death is extremely low. The study of it might cause death through workplace disputes or absent-mindedly wandering in front of traffic while pondering (as in [[356: Nerd Sniping]]). Famously (though likely apocryphal) {{w|Hippasus}} was thrown overboard a ship by {{w|Pythagoras}} for demonstrating irrational numbers. {{w|Archimedes}} was killed for not following an invading soldier's command because he was wrapped up in his own thoughts trying to solve a geometry problem.

*{{W|Astronomy}}, the study of stars and space. Astronomy is slightly more dangerous than mathematics though, since it studies physical objects instead of abstract concepts. In addition to meteor or asteroid impacts, astronomical phenomena that might cause death include solar flares, nearby supernovae, distant magnetar quakes, a solar nova (the likelihood of which will increase over the next billion-odd years), perturbations in earth's orbit, increased or decreased solar radiation, and alien invasion. Given that the density of magnetars and potentially hostile alien civilizations in the stellar neighborhood is completely unknown, and not all past mass extinctions are explained, this one might be misplaced a bit. Although these are all rare events, just one could kill all living and potential future astronomers. That non-astronomers would also be affected seems poor consolation. While astronomers do not study aliens, as such—that would be exobiology—some have sought evidence of alien activity.

*{{W|Economics}} is the study of markets. Markets can kill you by depriving you of goods and services you need to survive. Goods can become unavailable (e.g., cartels, embargos) or unaffordable (through job loss, inflation), in depressions or recessions. The study of such markets usually does not involve great risk, unless the markets are illegal (e.g., illicit drug markets), the economy being studied has put people under great stress, or one's findings are really unpopular.

*{{W|Law}} in this context refers to the rules people have to follow in society, and given the nature of laws (civil and criminal), the odds that your death is related to law is usually low. Possible causes of death more-or-less directly related would include prosecution for a capital crime, persecution under legal authority (such as being killed by an officer of the law), attack by a guard, or for lack of medical treatment, while incarcerated, or death by exposure after expulsion from one's repossessed or otherwise legally confiscated home. However, when large groups of people are dispossessed, or have the protection of law removed, casualties can be quite high. For instance, the {{w|Partition of India}} in 1947 resulted in 200,000 to 2 million deaths. The laws of the {{w|Great Leap Forward}} contributed to the starvation of tens of millions of Chinese, disproportionally many of them lawyers and law professors. Perhaps most ironically, a lawyer who committed a capital crime in a country which practices capital punishment (such as the United States, China or Iran), and was executed for it would be directly killed by the thing s/he studies. In 2000, approximately 300,000 died from war and collective violence.("[https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/abstract_en.pdf WHO:World report on violence and health]")

*{{W|Criminology}} is very similar to law, but is the study of crime, meaning it's more dangerous than just "law." Criminologists may be directly involved with criminals in the course of their studies, increasing their exposure to potentially life-threatening behavior. There were 520,000 deaths from violence (excluding war, suicide, and accidental/incidental deaths resulting from criminal activity) in 2000.("[https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/abstract_en.pdf WHO:World report on violence and health]")

*{{W|Meteorology}} is the study of weather. Encountering powerful weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, floods, and thunderstorms brings distinct possibility of injury and death. Curiosity to see a storm in person, or (if working for television news) exposing yourself to the weather event in order to file a report, may expose you to lightning, wind-blown projectiles, cold, water, etc., any of which can negatively affect your survival. Less dramatic weather also kills - hot weather can lead to heat stroke and dehydration. Adverse weather events kill about 100,000 to 200,000 annually.("[http://www.supportoursharks.com/en/Education/Shark_Attacks/Biggest_Killers.htm Support our Sharks:How many sharks have been killed]")

*{{W|Chemistry}} is the study of chemicals and reactions of those chemicals. Since, under terrestrial conditions, everything is made up of chemicals (and chemists often use especially reactive or dangerous chemicals), the likelihood of a chemist's death being caused by chemistry (e.g., explosions, poisoning, chemical burns, suffocation) is not insignificant. Unintentional poisoning is identified as cause of death for about 200,000 people a year, chemical assisted suicide kills over 300,000 yearly.("[https://www.who.int/ipcs/poisons/en/ WHO:International Programme on Chemical Safety:Poisoning Prevention and Management]") Many other causes of death, such as snake bite (100,000), drug and alcohol disorders, some respiratory disorders and cancers are more or less directly caused by chemicals.("[https://ourworldindata.org/causes-of-death Our World In Data:Causes of Death]")

*{{W|Marine biology}} is the study of ocean life. Many marine creatures are venomous, many are very large. Death could result from storms, boat accidents, drowning, diving accidents, exposure to pathogenic bacteria, toxins (such as those produced by cone snails, and "red tide" dinoflagellates), allergies to shellfish, or water pollution, in addition to such perhaps more obvious (but overwhelmingly rarer) risks as shark attacks. About 360,000 people die of drowning annually.("[https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/drowning WHO Fact sheet:Drowning]") Unprovoked shark attacks kill an average of 6 people annually.("[https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/yearly-worldwide-summary/ International Shark Attack File:Yearly Worldwide Shark Attack Summary]")

*{{w|Volcanology}} involves the study of {{w|volcanoes}}, {{w|lava}}, and {{w|magma}}, with obvious risks to the scientists studying them in the field. Volcanoes have killed an estimated average of 500 people per year; most deaths resulting from remote effects, such as tsunamis and climate disruption.("[https://www.foxnews.com/science/volcanoes-kill-about-540-people-a-year-scientists-say Volcanoes kill about 540 people a year, scientists say]", "[https://appliedvolc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13617-017-0067-4 Volcanic fatalities database: analysis of volcanic threat with distance and victim classification]") At least 67 scientists have been killed in volcanic eruptions, as of 2017 ("[https://cosmosmagazine.com/geoscience/volcanologists-lose-their-lives-in-pursuit-of-knowledge Volcanologists lose their lives in pursuit of knowledge]").

*{{w|Gerontology}} involves the study of aging, and of growing old in general. As everyone ages and eventually dies{{Citation needed}}, those who study gerontology are not immune to dying in old age even if they evade all the other possible causes of death - thus making it the most likely among all shown fields. A gerontologist still can die from something else first, but without the inherent risk factors of other professions such as active volcanoes or underwater diving they're more likely to survive to retirement and thus meet their death of old age.

*The title text is about {{w|Epidemiology}}: the study of health and disease conditions in populations. In the event of an epidemic, there is a strong chance that epidemiologists in the search for the causation, transmission and treatment will be exposed and become victims of the disease in their own right. However, the title text refers more broadly to the role of epidemiology in maintaining detailed statistical records of diseases and other causes of death, such that eventually any epidemiologist (whatever the cause of death) will become one of his/her own statistics.

==Transcript==

:[A line chart is shown going from left to right with two arrows on either side. On the line are ten dots spread out unevenly from close to each end. The first four dots are clustered together on the left side. Then follows 5 more dots unevenly spaced, all to the left of center. On the far right of the line, near the end, there is one dot. Beneath each dot there goes a line down to a label written beneath each line. Above the chart there is a big title and below that an explanation. Below that again, there is a small arrow pointing to the right with a label above it.]
:<big>Probability that you'll be killed by the thing you study</big>
:By field

:[Arrow pointing right, labeled:]
:More likely

:[Labels for the ten dots from left to right:]
:Mathematics (0 pixels from first field, 0.00% of overall range of fields)
:Astronomy (9px, 1.35%)
:Economics (16px, 2.40%)
:Law (22px, 3.30%)
:Criminology (77px, 11.56%)
:Meteorology (96px, 14.41%)
:Chemistry (156px, 23.42%)
:Marine Biology (166px, 24.92%)
:Volcanology (206px, 30.93%)
:Gerontology (666px, 100.00%)

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Rankings]]

2142: Dangerous Fields

2019-05-16T04:18:07Z

Observer of the Absurd: /* Explanation */ Archimedes

{{comic
| number = 2142
| date = April 26, 2019
| title = Dangerous Fields
| image = dangerous_fields.png
| titletext = Eventually, every epidemiologist becomes another statistic, a dedication to record-keeping which their colleagues sincerely appreciate.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an INEXORABLE PROCESS. Percentages needed to be added (like [[1895: Worrying Scientist Interviews]]). Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This is a graph of fields of study, ordered by how likely one is to die because of something that that field studies, with mathematics being the least dangerous and gerontology being the most. Gerontology, the scientific study of old age, is shown as much more dangerous than the other fields, so it is far on the right side of the graph. The joke is in the distinction between the danger of studying the thing, and the overall death rate from the thing. Studying ageing doesn't put you at much more risk of ageing than the general population. However, studying volcanoes is likely to put you in dangerous environments.

===Fields===
*{{W|Mathematics}} is such a pure non-physical field that the probability of it being the direct cause of death is extremely low. The study of it might cause death through workplace disputes or absent-mindedly wandering in front of traffic while pondering (as in [[356: Nerd Sniping]]). Famously (though likely apocryphal) {{w|Hippasus}} was thrown overboard a ship by {{w|Pythagoras}} for demonstrating irrational numbers. Archimedes was killed for not following an invading soldier's command because he was wrapped up in his own thoughts trying to solve a geometry problem.

*{{W|Astronomy}}, the study of stars and space. Astronomy is slightly more dangerous than mathematics though, since it studies physical objects instead of abstract concepts. In addition to meteor or asteroid impacts, astronomical phenomena that might cause death include solar flares, nearby supernovae, distant magnetar quakes, a solar nova (the likelihood of which will increase over the next billion-odd years), perturbations in earth's orbit, increased or decreased solar radiation, and alien invasion. Given that the density of magnetars and potentially hostile alien civilizations in the stellar neighborhood is completely unknown, and not all past mass extinctions are explained, this one might be misplaced a bit. Although these are all rare events, just one could kill all living and potential future astronomers. That non-astronomers would also be affected seems poor consolation. While astronomers do not study aliens, as such—that would be exobiology—some have sought evidence of alien activity.

*{{W|Economics}} is the study of markets. Markets can kill you by depriving you of goods and services you need to survive. Goods can become unavailable (e.g., cartels, embargos) or unaffordable (through job loss, inflation), in depressions or recessions. The study of such markets usually does not involve great risk, unless the markets are illegal (e.g., illicit drug markets), the economy being studied has put people under great stress, or one's findings are really unpopular.

*{{W|Law}} in this context refers to the rules people have to follow in society, and given the nature of laws (civil and criminal), the odds that your death is related to law is usually low. Possible causes of death more-or-less directly related would include prosecution for a capital crime, persecution under legal authority (such as being killed by an officer of the law), attack by a guard, or for lack of medical treatment, while incarcerated, or death by exposure after expulsion from one's repossessed or otherwise legally confiscated home. However, when large groups of people are dispossessed, or have the protection of law removed, casualties can be quite high. For instance, the {{w|Partition of India}} in 1947 resulted in 200,000 to 2 million deaths. The laws of the {{w|Great Leap Forward}} contributed to the starvation of tens of millions of Chinese, disproportionally many of them lawyers and law professors. Perhaps most ironically, a lawyer who committed a capital crime in a country which practices capital punishment (such as the United States, China or Iran), and was executed for it would be directly killed by the thing s/he studies. In 2000, approximately 300,000 died from war and collective violence.("[https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/abstract_en.pdf WHO:World report on violence and health]")

*{{W|Criminology}} is very similar to law, but is the study of crime, meaning it's more dangerous than just "law." Criminologists may be directly involved with criminals in the course of their studies, increasing their exposure to potentially life-threatening behavior. There were 520,000 deaths from violence (excluding war, suicide, and accidental/incidental deaths resulting from criminal activity) in 2000.("[https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/abstract_en.pdf WHO:World report on violence and health]")

*{{W|Meteorology}} is the study of weather. Encountering powerful weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, floods, and thunderstorms brings distinct possibility of injury and death. Curiosity to see a storm in person, or (if working for television news) exposing yourself to the weather event in order to file a report, may expose you to lightning, wind-blown projectiles, cold, water, etc., any of which can negatively affect your survival. Less dramatic weather also kills - hot weather can lead to heat stroke and dehydration. Adverse weather events kill about 100,000 to 200,000 annually.("[http://www.supportoursharks.com/en/Education/Shark_Attacks/Biggest_Killers.htm Support our Sharks:How many sharks have been killed]")

*{{W|Chemistry}} is the study of chemicals and reactions of those chemicals. Since, under terrestrial conditions, everything is made up of chemicals (and chemists often use especially reactive or dangerous chemicals), the likelihood of a chemist's death being caused by chemistry (e.g., explosions, poisoning, chemical burns, suffocation) is not insignificant. Unintentional poisoning is identified as cause of death for about 200,000 people a year, chemical assisted suicide kills over 300,000 yearly.("[https://www.who.int/ipcs/poisons/en/ WHO:International Programme on Chemical Safety:Poisoning Prevention and Management]") Many other causes of death, such as snake bite (100,000), drug and alcohol disorders, some respiratory disorders and cancers are more or less directly caused by chemicals.("[https://ourworldindata.org/causes-of-death Our World In Data:Causes of Death]")

*{{W|Marine biology}} is the study of ocean life. Many marine creatures are venomous, many are very large. Death could result from storms, boat accidents, drowning, diving accidents, exposure to pathogenic bacteria, toxins (such as those produced by cone snails, and "red tide" dinoflagellates), allergies to shellfish, or water pollution, in addition to such perhaps more obvious (but overwhelmingly rarer) risks as shark attacks. About 360,000 people die of drowning annually.("[https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/drowning WHO Fact sheet:Drowning]") Unprovoked shark attacks kill an average of 6 people annually.("[https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/yearly-worldwide-summary/ International Shark Attack File:Yearly Worldwide Shark Attack Summary]")

*{{w|Volcanology}} involves the study of {{w|volcanoes}}, {{w|lava}}, and {{w|magma}}, with obvious risks to the scientists studying them in the field. Volcanoes have killed an estimated average of 500 people per year; most deaths resulting from remote effects, such as tsunamis and climate disruption.("[https://www.foxnews.com/science/volcanoes-kill-about-540-people-a-year-scientists-say Volcanoes kill about 540 people a year, scientists say]", "[https://appliedvolc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13617-017-0067-4 Volcanic fatalities database: analysis of volcanic threat with distance and victim classification]") At least 67 scientists have been killed in volcanic eruptions, as of 2017 ("[https://cosmosmagazine.com/geoscience/volcanologists-lose-their-lives-in-pursuit-of-knowledge Volcanologists lose their lives in pursuit of knowledge]").

*{{w|Gerontology}} involves the study of aging, and of growing old in general. As everyone ages and eventually dies{{Citation needed}}, those who study gerontology are not immune to dying in old age even if they evade all the other possible causes of death - thus making it the most likely among all shown fields. A gerontologist still can die from something else first, but without the inherent risk factors of other professions such as active volcanoes or underwater diving they're more likely to survive to retirement and thus meet their death of old age.

*The title text is about {{w|Epidemiology}}: the study of health and disease conditions in populations. In the event of an epidemic, there is a strong chance that epidemiologists in the search for the causation, transmission and treatment will be exposed and become victims of the disease in their own right. However, the title text refers more broadly to the role of epidemiology in maintaining detailed statistical records of diseases and other causes of death, such that eventually any epidemiologist (whatever the cause of death) will become one of his/her own statistics.

==Transcript==

:[A line chart is shown going from left to right with two arrows on either side. On the line are ten dots spread out unevenly from close to each end. The first four dots are clustered together on the left side. Then follows 5 more dots unevenly spaced, all to the left of center. On the far right of the line, near the end, there is one dot. Beneath each dot there goes a line down to a label written beneath each line. Above the chart there is a big title and below that an explanation. Below that again, there is a small arrow pointing to the right with a label above it.]
:<big>Probability that you'll be killed by the thing you study</big>
:By field

:[Arrow pointing right, labeled:]
:More likely

:[Labels for the ten dots from left to right:]
:Mathematics (0 pixels from first field, 0.00% of overall range of fields)
:Astronomy (9px, 1.35%)
:Economics (16px, 2.40%)
:Law (22px, 3.30%)
:Criminology (77px, 11.56%)
:Meteorology (96px, 14.41%)
:Chemistry (156px, 23.42%)
:Marine Biology (166px, 24.92%)
:Volcanology (206px, 30.93%)
:Gerontology (666px, 100.00%)

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Rankings]]

2140: Reinvent the Wheel

2019-05-16T04:12:25Z

Observer of the Absurd: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2140
| date = April 22, 2019
| title = Reinvent the Wheel
| image = reinvent_the_wheel.png
| titletext = Right now it's a bicycle wheel, so we've had to move to lighter vehicles, but the reduced overhead is worth it. There was one week when a wheel of cheese got dangerously close to the first page, though.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a WHEEL OF CHEESE. Second paragraph needs to be expanded. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

"{{w|Reinventing the wheel}}" is an idiom/metaphor that refers to duplicate effort to recreate something that has already been created or perfected previously without adding any value in the process. The phrase relates to the idea that the round {{w|wheel}} was invented a long time ago and there is no way to make it better, as a circle is the most optimal shape. While the phrase includes the word "wheel", it isn't typically directly associated with the wheel but instead uses the word "wheel" because of the easily understandable meaning - a simple object with no improvements that can be made. That being said, we have actually reinvented the wheel at one point in time - a {{w|tire}} is a modern improvement to the wheel, which reduces bumps and shocks that people in the car would feel from uneven road surfaces.

In this comic, [[Beret Guy]] works for an automotive company (or this is his [[:Category:Beret Guy's Business|own company]]), and he is explaining to Ponytail their decision to not reinvent the wheel for the automobiles that they produce, using the phrase in a literal sense instead of figuratively. Instead of determining for themselves what wheel to use, they want to use whichever wheel is presumably considered the "best" wheel by the world, using a daily Google image search for "wheel" to determine the highest ranked wheel, and then using that wheel on the vehicles they produce that day.

The point of the comic is to make fun of programmers who take the idea that you should never reinvent the wheel too seriously. When these people have a problem, they may Google to find a solution to that problem, and when they find a piece of online code, they use it in their own code, even if it wasn't initially designed to handle the task for which it is being used and thus may have unintended side effects or other issues.

Another way that programmers may go too far in avoiding reinventing the wheel is in using external dependencies. It can be valuable to use external libraries, especially for applications where certain tasks have strange edge cases that a 'reinvention' is likely to miss or require lots of development effort to correctly implement (like [https://infiniteundo.com/post/25326999628/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-time time]). However, using someone else's code means taking on the risk of security vulnerabilities, and when the library is updated on live installations, the user also takes on the risk that the library might become unavailable or otherwise break. In this case, Beret Guy's company updates their wheel "library" on a daily basis from Google's image search. Google is unlikely to shut down a core search product, but they might change the API that Beret Guy's company uses (unless he's just going to their website himself), and they have been known to shut down projects that people like, such as [https://www.google.com/reader/about/ Google Reader]. On the day this comic was released, Randall changed the [[Design_of_xkcd.com#Header_text|Header text]] of xkcd, adding a [[Design_of_xkcd.com#2019-04-23|reference to Google Reader]].

The popular programming language "Python" manages external dependencies with packages called "wheels" which are "published to the cheese shop", which may or may not be an intended reference.

In any event, Beret Guy is in effect reinventing the wheel by doing a new search for wheels on Google Images every day. If the wheel he finds on Google Images on a given day is suitable for his company's needs, the company would likely be better off using the same wheel on succeeding days (unless circumstances change which make that unfeasible), compared to trying to doing a new search for wheels every day.

The title text indicates that Beret Guy is currently using bicycle wheels for his vehicles, requiring his vehicles to be lighter as bicycle wheels cannot carry a lot of weight. He says this "reduce[s] overhead", which is both literally true, that his vehicle weighs less, and refers to the usual figurative desire of reducing overhead costs of development by using external libraries. Finally, the narrator (supposedly Beret Guy) explains that at one point a wheel of cheese was near the top of the Google images search. If it had reached the top, it would have been disastrous as a wheel of cheese is completely unsuited for use as a vehicle's wheel.{{Citation needed}}

On the day the comic was released a bicycle wheel came up first when searching for "wheel", see image in the [[#Trivia|Trivia]] section below.

==Transcript==
:[Beret Guy is talking to Ponytail.]
:Beret Guy: We don't want to reinvent the wheel, so every day we Google image search "wheel", and whatever object comes up, that's what we attach to our vehicles.
:Beret Guy: Sure, external dependencies carry risks, but so far they've all been pretty good wheels.

==Trivia==
*On the day this comic came out a Google search on Wheel would in some cases have a bicycle wheel at the top:
:[[File:2140_Reinvent_the_Wheel_Google_Search_Wheel.png|400px]]
*The JavaScript development community has had several security and reliability incidents caused by over-dependence on automated package updates. In 2016, a JavaScript developer [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/23/npm_left_pad_chaos/ un-published several libraries] (including one "library" which was just an eleven-line function for padding strings, which was nevertheless included in thousands of projects and downloaded millions of times a month) from the npm package repository. This broke projects that depended on them and, until npm un-un-published his packages (with new maintainers), also opened the possibility that a bad actor could register malicious projects under those names and hijack all of their dependents. In July 2018, an attacker gained access to the npm account of an ESLint maintainer and [https://eslint.org/blog/2018/07/postmortem-for-malicious-package-publishes published malicious versions of their packages], and in September 2018, the event-stream library was taken over by a malicious maintainer who [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/26/npm_repo_bitcoin_stealer/ added code to look for and steal bitcoins from the users who installed it].

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Beret Guy's Business]]

Talk:2070: Trig Identities

2019-05-15T13:28:15Z

Observer of the Absurd:

I am confused by the insect line. This seems to be true only if s=t.
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.209|141.101.96.209]] 19:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
:I added a note regarding how similar it sounds to 'sinsec'. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.154|172.68.51.154]] 01:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

:That one and the `cas` aren't making any sense to me. [[User:GreatBigDot|GreatBigDot]] ([[User talk:GreatBigDot|talk]]) 20:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
::Oh, the casinus is much important to... What was it? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
::cas is realtively easy... it is cos(theta)=a/c -> cs(theta)=ao/c -> cas(theta)=o/c; when you realise that the top one isn't zero but o it clicks [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.209|141.101.96.209]] 23:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
:::You made the same error Randall did: you divided by 'o' on the left and multiplied on the right. I think the theme of the page is expanding significantly upon common math errors that were already humorous, like the common proof of 5=3 by dividing and multiplying by zero. The error here is in line with the theme of casual beginner errors. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.154|172.68.51.154]]
:: You can see cin is derived from sin by swapping the positions of c and s. Likewise, Switching the a and o in cos(theta) = a/c gives cas(theta) = o/c i.e. no need for multiplicative consistency. The rule of treating things as a product of terms is implemented fully in the following lines. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.83|162.158.91.83]] 11:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
::: <math> sin \theta = b/c</math> leading to <math>cin \theta = b/s</math> is algebraically valid if you interpret sin as the product of s, i, n by multiplying both sides by c/s. It is not valid to just "swap" two letters in one equation that is part of a system of equations. You could do the same trick and get <math>cas \theta = a^2/oc</math> from <math>cos \theta = a/c</math> or start with <math>sec \theta = c/a</math> and get <math>cas \theta = c/e</math>. Note for all equations except <math>cas \theta = o/c</math> and switching an <math>s</math> to a <math>t</math> to find <math>tan \theta = insect \theta^2</math>, the equations can be correctly derived by treating trig functions as product of single letter variables and algebraically manipulating them. [[User:Jimbob|Jimbob]] ([[User talk:Jimbob|talk]]) 16:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

:I think insect is.. a bug.. ;) [[User:Smerriman|Smerriman]] ([[User talk:Smerriman|talk]]) 20:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Is Enchant at target a magic:the gathering reference? [[User:AncientSwordRage|AncientSwordRage]] ([[User talk:AncientSwordRage|talk]]) 20:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
:I think it is a Magic: The Gathering reference. Although it is phrased oddly. You'd think it would be "at target enchantment", rather than "target at enchantment". --[[User:Dryhamm|Dryhamm]] ([[User talk:Dryhamm|talk]]) 21:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
:: Likely, it refers to the bigbox retailer, Target. {{unsigned ip|172.68.58.233}}
::: To me it sounds more like a reference to a [https://www.kingdomofloathing.com/ nerdy video game], where a [http://kol.coldfront.net/thekolwiki/index.php/Wand_of_Nagamar certain object] worked like this, turning e.g. '''BEAM OF DARK ENERGY''' into a '''BAKED FERRY GNOME''' [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.11|108.162.246.11]] 21:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

:Voila - s=t. {{unsigned|Elliott}}
::That was incredible! (assuming previous poster discovered the extrapolated proof in the description) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.154|172.68.51.154]] 01:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
::Combining <math>\cos\theta=\frac{a}{c}</math> and <math>\mathrm{cas}\ \theta=\frac{o}{c}</math> allows you to conclude <math>a^2 = o^2</math>, not <math>a=o</math>. {{unsigned ip|162.158.146.10}}

Somebody added a comment on puns, e.g. that "cin sucks". More explanation is needed. It looks like some kind of a meta-joke. If you ask why, and start interpreting, you see that "b/c" == "because". It might be the answer to why the puns line should be removed, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.154|172.68.51.154]]

For the Bot->Boat->Stoat line, this comes from the word game where you add/change letters to make a new word. Start with bot=a/c, multiply by a on both sides gets boat=a^2/c. Multiply by st on both sides and divide b on both sides gets Stoat=a^2/c*St/b. {{unsigned ip|162.158.78.166}}

Uh... people... THE NAME GAME? Hello?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_Game {{unsigned ip|162.158.79.107}}

Checking through the math, just working from the real trig identities, without considering Randall's at-first-glance questionable identities like cas theta = o/c, basically everything that does not have a factor of d or 2 in it is equal to 1, and d is equal to 1/2, which then establishes the more questionable identities as tautological, 1=1. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.100|162.158.142.100]] 04:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

<math>\sec\theta = sect \eta</math> [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.71|141.101.104.71]] 13:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC) AndreasH

Am I the only one who saw t²n²a⁴ as "tuna"? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.233|172.68.58.233]] 14:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
:Yes. {{unsigned ip|162.158.75.190}}

<math>\frac{d}{dx}\sec x=\sec x\tan x=</math> sex tanks. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 21:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I thought "distance 2 banana" had to be a reference to QBasic's Gorillas game. "Enchant at target" could refer to the banana exploding when it hits something. mrpsbrk {{unsigned ip|162.158.123.91}}

From when I saw <math> cin\theta </math> I knew the rest of the comic would be <math> \frac{b}{s}</math>. [[User:Observer of the Absurd|Observer of the Absurd]] ([[User talk:Observer of the Absurd|talk]]) 13:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:1856: Existence Proof

2019-05-06T12:23:04Z

Observer of the Absurd:

Whoever added the citation needed got more of a laugh out of me then Randall did this morning. Well done. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.29|172.68.142.29]] 17:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
: I hope you enjoy the joke just as much the second time. And the third. And the fourth. And the fifth. And the sixth. And the... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.100|162.158.75.100]] 00:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
::{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}}{{Citation needed}} [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.28|162.158.78.28]] 03:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
:: I don't re-read old pages of explain xkcd so often it would stop being funny. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 04:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
:: I disagree, I must have seen 5 or 6 crazy "citation needed"s in recent memory, and for me it never stops being funny. :) A couple of faves have been that a baby could not plan and execute a jewel heist [citation needed] and 5 million years is longer than the average lifespan [citation needed]. :) I might have to start collecting these. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
: <AOL>Me too!</AOL> [[User:RoyT|RoyT]] ([[User talk:RoyT|talk]]) 07:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
: [ [https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/l-Used-Chevrolet-Citation-d1282 Citation needed] ][[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 16:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Does the function have any special hidden meaning, or is it just some random function?
[[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 20:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

: Yeah - I wondered that too. But I'm not sure if there is enough information to know. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 21:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

: Without knowing what the functions are, there's no way to tell. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 23:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

:: Unless I'm way off-base, There are an infinite number of solutions. For example, let's assume f(x)=2x and G(x)=x+1. X can, in this example, be literally any number because G(f(0)) = G(2*0) = G(0) = 0+1 = 1. As long as G(x) takes the result of f(0) and makes it equal to 1, it doesn't matter what f(x) is. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.225|162.158.62.225]] 13:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

:::Well, f(x) would also have to be equal to 1, not just G(f(0)). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.154|108.162.237.154]] 14:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

: Mitchell Feigenbaum's study of the universality of period-doubling ratios involved a function that solved f(0)=1 and af(x)=f(x/a) (IIRC). The equation in the comic reminded me of this, though it's not quite right. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.58|172.68.78.58]] 16:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"I'm finally in the right one," made me laugh more than usual. It added character to Offscreen Student #2, something that the comic usually lacks [[User:HisHighestMinion|HisHighestMinion]] ([[User talk:HisHighestMinion|talk]]) 03:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

: Could be Black Hat? [[User:Observer of the Absurd|Observer of the Absurd]] ([[User talk:Observer of the Absurd|talk]]) 12:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_proof "existence proof" means a non-constructive proof. Such proofs are annoying to some mathematicians as they claim existence of something but do not show how to find it. So I fully understand the teacher that she wants to grab a sword and finally find it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.76|162.158.202.76]] 08:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Jokes on her. The number is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_model_of_arithmetic | nonstandard integer]. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.28|172.68.78.28]] 10:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

To me, the comic reads (especially with the title text) with the implication that the teacher is encouraging the students to help her actually fight real numbers in real life, as if the platonic idea of numbers was "realer" than we think. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.215.98|172.68.215.98]] 10:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The sentence "There exists some number x such that f(x)=G(f(0))=1." boils down to "There is an x such that f(x)=1". The part with G(f(0)) is only a way to arrive at 1. For some reason there is an x that satisfies f(x)=G(f(0)), and since G(f(0))=1, it is equivalent to f(x)=1. {{unsigned ip|141.101.76.142}}

Talk:1569: Magic Tree

2019-04-05T01:55:35Z

Observer of the Absurd:

Explanation may benefit from adding that cell phone tower appearance has evolved to be more treelike.
[[http://www.linkedin.com/in/Comet Comet]] 05:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I know XKCD isn't really heavy on proportions, but the heads look slightly bigger in all but the last panel. It kinda makes both characters look like children initially. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 07:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Could the "giants in yellow helmets" be a reference to Clash of Clans? [[User:Aruta|Aruta]] ([[User talk:Aruta|talk]]) 10:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
:I don't think so. [[User:Sobsz|Sobsz]] ([[User talk:Sobsz|talk]]) 10:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

;It's not Batesian mimicry

Evolutionary biologist here: '''it's not Batesian mimicry. It's mimesis.'''

Archetypal mimesis is a stick insect looking like a twig, because predators don't care about twigs. It's the same thing here: trees looking like telegraph poles, because people don't care about telegraph poles.

It has nothing to do with the telegraph pole's defences (what would that mean?). Without defences, you can't have Batesian mimicry. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.176|141.101.98.176]] 11:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Cell phone towers evolved to look like trees to defend themselves against people who would object to their presence on grounds of visual blight.
http://www.wired.com/2013/03/dillon-marsh-invasive-species/
[[http://www.linkedin.com/in/Comet Comet]] 22:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that cell towers do have defenses. When you wound them, they start emiting utility workers, policemans and lawyers. (I'm sure the operator will get message if BTS is disconnected.) -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

At the time of this comic, there was a website devoted to cell towers that were camouflaged to look like trees. The site was FraudFrond.com and had several euphemisms for them. Fake firs, sham shrubs, bogus botanicals, and my favorite, counterfeit conifers.

I don't if it is relevant but there is an old MSX game called magical tree that displayed the tree in side view in a very similar way. http://www.mobygames.com/game/msx/magical-tree ZeroA4 {{unsigned ip|188.114.98.202}}

:That is a striking resemblance and an identical name. Makes me wonder if it was an inspiration. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.148|108.162.241.148]] 05:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The third paragraph needs amending. "...attempt to mimic cellphone towers" implies conscious evolution, and the reference to the tower's "defenses" is a relic of the Batesian mimicry reference. What I'm guessing is happening (I'm not an evolutionary biologist) is that trees with a slightly more towerlike appearance are slightly less likely to be cut down by predatory Beret Guys, and will survive to pass similar traits onto their offspring, and over millions of years certain lineages of celltowertrees will increasingly resemble treecelltowers built by humans in turn to resemble them. The claim that this is a "standard textbook example of convergent evolution" is tongue-in-cheek more than facetious; a real example of it ought to be used rather than the Terry Pratchett reference, which seems to illustrate conscious evolution.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.108|141.101.99.108]] 17:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

;Original transcript
Randall's original transcript (no changes by me) is this:
:[Beret guy excitedly points to a pillar about a meter across. There's a sign on the side. Beret guy is pointing it out to his friend, Fancy Haircut]
:Beret: Check it out! I threw my magic beans on the ground here yesterday, and this big tree appeared!

:[Now in silhouette we see the pillar is several hundred feet tall, covered in antennae, and the figures are as ants in its shadow.]
:haircut: that's a cell tower.
:beret: no way-- it has branches! See? I'm gonna climb it!

:[Beret guy begins to shimmy up the side of the pole. Somehow. With impressively powerful thighs I guess.]
:haircut: No, they just put those there to make it look-- ...never mind.

:[Later...]
:haircut: Why do I have no signal?
:beret, with an axe: there were scary giants with yellow helmets in that tree! luckily, I cut it down before they ate me.

Is Megan "Fancy Haircut"? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)