explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2940: Modes of Transportation

2024-06-20T03:35:31Z

Prosfilaes: note on red balloons

I'd say a bicycle is way less dangerous than a car [[Special:Contributions/172.68.192.196|172.68.192.196]] 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) (para 1/4)
:Considering only the two vehicles themselves, I would probably agree with you but this comic is about convenience and danger of various means of transport. Wouldn't you agree that using a bicycle for transport in crowded city traffic is rather more dangerous to the cyclist than using a car is to the driver? {{unsigned ip|172.69.60.138|21:46, 31 May 2024}}
:It depends on whether you're comparing worst case injuries versus injury rate. Since airliners are considered one of the safest, I think it's injury rate. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
:I'd say a bicycle is less dangerous than a unicycle, but apparently walking<unicycle<car<bicycle. No metric I can think of matches that order, neither danger in a vacuum, danger in a self-environment, danger in a car environment, or danger to others in any environment. I'm quite confused. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.29|172.70.114.29]] 05:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::On a per-passenger-mile basis, walking is over ten times more dangerous than driving, and trains are about four times as dangerous as planes. So this comic can't be about risk of death per mile. It must be something more like risk of death per hour, which is extremely low for unicycles since people don't usually ride them in life-threatening situations outside of circuses. Similarly, travelling to and from work on a pogo stick every day would be quite dangerous, but in practice, people hardly ever die on a pogo stick. So it depends how you measure it. [[User:EebstertheGreat|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat|talk]]) 06:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::: I can see the danger/hour, but surely the unicycle shouldn't count as a mode of transportation when it is used in a circus? You also don't want to count the hours when a car is stationary and the driver is waiting for someone to enter or leave (which is a significant amount of time for taxi's). So when it is used for actual transportation, it is most certainly more dangerous per hour than many other things on this graph. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.99|172.70.110.99]] 23:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:I think there is a couple that are off on here since I think light aircraft and helicopters are also less dangerous than cars when looking at accident rates vs trips or vs miles traveled. Cars are quite dangerous. They sure are convenient though. [[Special:Contributions/172.64.238.87|172.64.238.87]] 09:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:Agreed: By any metric I can think of, this chart is grossly off on more than one form of transport. For one thing, inline skating is ''much'' safer than skateboarding in almost every scenario except approaching a bunch of mean kids. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
: I think the metric he's using is actually ''perceived'' danger.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.145|172.70.90.145]] 08:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:: I think the whole chart is on a "perceived" level. I would assume that "convenience" also would include "getting from A to B fast" for which cars and bicylces are too close together. And motorcycles are surely fun but if they were even closely as convenient as a car I would use the former more often than latter - which I don't as a car is MUCH more convenient. I think the meaningfulness of the chart is more like [[Fuck Grapefruit]] a matter of opinion than an actual analysis based on actual statistics. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Most deaths are either due to involved cars or people doing races or stunts. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.192.196|172.68.192.196]] 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) (para 2/4)

I would not count "died because plane crashed onto road" into car dangers, as I would not count F1 driver death into the same bucket as car commuters. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.192.196|172.68.192.196]] 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) (para 3/4)
:So I would do the same for bikes. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.192.196|172.68.192.196]] 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) (para 4/4)
::Agreed. Deaths caused by cars should not count against bikes unless "plane crashed onto road" would count against cars & 'flying by nuclear rocket' would count against the poor people walking below.
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not actually true that a hot air balloon has only one possible direction of travel. It seemed relevant so I added a couple of sentences to the explanation. I suspect Randall is aware of this of course, being a weather nerd. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.69|162.158.74.69]] 00:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Meh... A hot air balloon is not a "mode of transportation", that is it's not a means to go from location A (on the ground) to location B (on the ground) A hot air balloon is means of going ''Up'', and staying ''up'' for an reasonable period of time. In most balloon rides, the "destination" is irrelevant, the purpose of the ride is to reach altitude, not travel horizontally. I feel Randall misses the point of balloons here. It shouldn't be only the graph, because it's not a "Mode of transport".
[[User:Zeimusu|Zeimusu]] ([[User talk:Zeimusu|talk]]) 21:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:The graph only addresses how convenient\dangerous things are as a form of transport. A Slip-N-Slide could easily have made the list, if Randall had viewed any such record attempts lately. Putting only practical modes of transport on the chart, would leave the lower right empty. If one wanted to know whether hot-air balloon ''was'' a practical mode of transport, one could theoretically consult a chart like this to find out that it isn't.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Are American hot air balloonists commonly fond of taking sniper rifles up with them? [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 23:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
:From what I understand, it's considered unamerican not to.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.176|172.70.85.176]] 10:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::Its not a commonly known law, but its actally illegal to enter a hotair balloon with anything less than a 12 gauge [[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 16:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Dangerous to whom is relevant. Yes, cars are less dangerous to the driver than bicycles and pedestrians, but that is because the main threat to bicyclists and pedestrians is cars. If you count victim deaths in addition to perpetrator deaths, then cars are the least safe vehicle. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.99.30|172.71.99.30]] 01:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Regret
:Cars aren't dangerous; drivers are...[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.82|172.70.86.82]] 09:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:In fact, even the first part isn't true. If you just count self-caused injury/death, cars are more dangerous to their occupants than bikes are to their riders or, er, feet are to those walking.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.18|172.70.162.18]] 10:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Are scooters really more convenient than bikes or does Randall just think they are cooler? Please discuss. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.128|172.69.58.128]] 04:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:The convenience of scooters probably includes their relative storability/carryability between uses, easier to hop on and off (also you might get away with scootering down long corridors where a bike would be (more) frowned upon) and takes less maintenance. (Electric ones do have the additional fuss of charging (and ICE ones needing fuel/being more disruptively noisy), but hard to tell whether Randall means shove-along or motorised in any way). Probably he doesn't mean mopeds (also known as 'scooters', in some contexts), but they also may be considered like bicycles but marginally more convenient (when fuelled/serviced) and commensurately a little bit more dangerous (though I'd argue further over to near full-on-motorbikes, myself). But it's a lot of speculation either way. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.28|172.71.242.28]] 11:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:Very inconvenient, and definitely more dangerous. No way to transport anything except in a rucksack. Terribly small wheels. Muscle-powered very strenous compared to a bike. Electrical make you freeze to death in winter. Wear down very quickly (bearings in wheels and steering, brakes). Only use for scooters are flat, smooth passages, certainly indoors. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.246.69|172.71.246.69]] 09:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:I think Randall's use of "scooters" here, may include mopeds & ebikes, since ebikes aren't listed here, yet are roughly equivalent to (or even just ''are'') a moped, while mopeds & high-output ebikes <45MPH are often classed among "scooters". [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::A "high-output e-bike" is (or should) be classified under "motorbike". And I already (before I read this) included reference to electrically-assisted bicycles under the Bicycles entry itself. There may be various distinctions recognised under different local laws, but power-assisted-pedalling versions (augmenting, but not making insigificant, the riders' 'normal' effort) and power-rather-than-pedalling versions (which would go all the way up to those with ''no pedals'', totally reliant upon the motor) would probably sit either side of the notional divide that might be recognised by those in charge of classifying them. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.182|172.69.79.182]] 22:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I suspect what ProphetZarquon was getting at is that they are often ''referred to'' as "scooters", as opposed to legally classed as such.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.121|172.70.163.121]] 10:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::::"Scooter" for moped, yes. But though "moped" comes from "motor-assisted pedal cycles", where I come from, they're mini-motorbikes and essentially classed as such (you need road training, driving licence, insurance, vehicle registration), divorced entirely from non-motorised bicycles and now (fudging the issue) those bicycles with electric motor assistance. It's perhaps confusing enough with "bike" being understood differently by the cycling and the motorcycling communities, but an "e-bike" that's a "scooter" is really going to be an "e-motorbike" to avoid this kind of ambiguity, and I invite anyone who might be more confused by the current crop of motor-assisted-bicycles being called "e-bikes" to submit their own more disambiguative term. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.65|172.70.90.65]] 21:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC) (PS, the CAPTCHA I was just presented with was asking about "Motorcycles" and, as usual, just contained several obvious mopeds/scooters... But I know from experience that I have to go along with supporting the CAPTCHA's technically miseducated classification system.)
:::::Thing is, in a technical sense, any ebike is literally a moped, & not only are mopeds commonly and legally classed with scooters, but there's also a '''big''' regulatory gap between ≤750W ebikes & the >12KW emotos that consistently require "motorcycle" registration. A low-power ebike ''is'' just classed as a bicycle in most US regions, & over 45 MPH you're ''always'' into motorcycle classifications, but the plethora of moderately assisted 2-wheelers ''in between'', are not nearly so powerful or fast as to require motorcycle registration in many states, & instead fall into the non-licensed "scooter" classification, ''right alongside the classic mopeds which their performance characteristics are most directly comparable to.'' Not legal on interstates or other high-speed routes, nor on non-motorized routes, but legal to ride on surface streets & generally without requiring licensure. A low-power ebike doesn't differ from the performance characteristics of a bicycle enough to merit a separate listing, & a high-powered emoto is literally just an EV motorcycle, but a 1500W "ebike" is ''technically'' most similar to a moped, & legally falls into that same "scooter" category in many jurisdictions, due to being utterly unable to attain highway speeds. So, to the extent that some ebikes ''are'' much faster than a bicycle yet slower than a motorcycle, I believe ''those'' would logically be classed (like mopeds) as scooters.
:::::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 01:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I would expect that unicycles are more dangerous than bicycles. For that matter, bicycles are probably more dangerous than tricycles, and those would be slightly less safe than quadcycles. There we probably hit the optimal point, but I doubt anyone has done an in dept study into this matter. Just for starters: a double blind test would not be particularly safe for the riders. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.101|172.71.98.101]] 07:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:When you have learnt how to ride a bike, a tricycle can actually be ''harder'' to ride, due to having to unlearn your existing bicycling instincts. To turn (or not to turn) on a bicycle involves at least 'microleaning', as well as steering, which can actually work against the steering geometry on a tricyle (perhaps a quadricycle is less effected, as one reverts to car-like behaviour/has to account for uneven road surfaces even more differently). Before you have the bike-riding skills (especially on front-wheel-pedal kids' trikes, which have yet more things going on than proper road-cycling tricycles) you generally don't get into the wrong mode of balance where you actually veer off exactly the opposite way to what you intend and maybe start to lift one of the rear wheels off the ground, or more.
:For similar reasons, it's much better to have a completely new passenger ('stoker') on a tandem who is not a cyclist than one who is (but it being their first time on a tandem). The 'steersman' does not need too much complication from their "luggage" instinctively leaning on their own (or unconsciously tugging left/right on their fixed-handlebars), at least until they've practiced their coordination so that there's just the right amount of weight redistribution at the right time to make the whole machine correctly metastable for the circumstances. A non-cyclist can generally be asked to "just sit there and pedal" and not, despite being told, throw themselves around in various ways not related to the (synchronised with the steersman) pedal-revs. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.28|172.71.242.28]] 11:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

There's a "jetpack" missing to the right of hot air ballons... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.61|108.162.221.61]] 10:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:On the far right. Together with paragliding. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.246.69|172.71.246.69]] 09:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::Hey now, paragliding is quite safe & convenient, so long as you can locate updrafts, & have free airspace, & stay away from the back & sides of any upwind slopes, & don't bank too hard, & ... OK yeah, I can see it now. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:: And jetskis.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.177|172.70.90.177]] 08:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::: Also, {{w|Lawnchair_Larry_flight|helium balloon chair}}.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.7|172.70.85.7]] 08:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hot air balloons can be particularly dangerous in large groups, each being approximately 1.11% of an extinction level event. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.246.143|172.69.246.143]] 15:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:That's only asserted to be true for the red ones... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.157|172.70.85.157]] 17:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:: Actually, the original report was 99 Luftballons; the English translation apparently took ... artistic liberties.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 03:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The place where motorcycles are on the map is why my uncle calls them "donercycles" - so many of their riders are organ donors because they die so much.
:You mean people are scraping them up and using them to make kebabs?![[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.184|172.69.43.184]] 12:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

== Other in-between modes of transport? ==

So which modes of transports belong in the white band between the "Zone of specialty and recreational vehicles" and the Hot air balloons? I would suggest the Autogyro (see [[1972:_Autogyros|#1972]]) between the skis and the hot air balloon. Any other suggestions? [[User:Frog23|Frog23]] ([[User talk:Frog23|talk]]) 22:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
:A shovel? Tunneling is both dangerous & inconvenient...
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::Jet packs and guns https://whatif.xkcd.com/21/ [[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 16:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

== Explain "sign error" (done?) ==

I came here to find out what a sign-error is, but the description assumes I already know. {{unsigned ip|162.158.74.69|22:58, 31 May 2024}}
: I think he means if you have erroneously given a negative as a positive, and thereby flipped your y-axis the wrong way up - making inconvenient things appear convenient.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.186|172.70.162.186]] 08:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::''And'' flipped the x-axis. Or at least how you treat it. Note that one axis is "more is better" (convenience) and the other is "less is better" (danger), so any analysis that looks at comparative overall desirability has to treat one axis's position in a negative manner, whether seeking the coordinate with least deviation from perfection, the most deviation from imperfection, the most desirable vector away from a midpoint or whatever. The choice of exactly how to compare might juggle the effective linear rank of all items, although it visually looks like Trains would always rank first in most treatments (except those with a very weird weighting between the two measures, or even an 'ideal' position not on the "not dangerous at all" edge but maybe at a 'comfortably desired' amount of thrill).
::So you need to apply exactly one sign-flip to identify the (normally) practical zone for being best (not "very convenient and very dangerous", which is high+high seeking; nor "undangerous and inconvenient", which seeks low+low). Apply that sign-flip to ''x'' instead of ''y'' (or vice-versa, depending upon your goal-seeking method) and you're identifying Hot Air Balloons as your perfect solution instead of (by Randall's apparent perception) Trains.
::At this point, you've not (just) flipped the Convenience axis over. Either you've flipped ''both'' around or you're now not doing the sanity-check on the original graph ''at all'' and just relying upon your doubly-missigned 'algorithm' (one input flipped, the other ''de''flipped).
::A related sign-error coordinate thing is in 3D data, where left-handed and right-handed coordinate systems are just a single sign-flip away (or all three flipped!), but often also combined with whether you should go with ''z'' being 'into' (or out of!) the paper graph (standard x-along and y-up, from 2D graphing) or it being 'up' (or 'down'!) with x/y being both laid horizontally. Both can be made true on a 'tabletop map', but less obvious which is the best way to use on a vertical screen. All this before you start applying other rotations, of course, to the data you initially define in whichever choice of fundemental coordinates you wish. But it can be confusing if you're unsure as to which baseline (left/right-handed, and "which axis is ''z''" probably less certain than subsequently filling in where the other two are) either to implement yourself or to interact with when you start work atop another basic implementation. I probably had more designs come up sideways (in some manner) than I ever did have them accidentally mirrored, whenever I started to dabble in a new 3D platform. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.230|172.69.195.230]] 10:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"There is no such thing as a gliding helicopter." is a common misconception. Every helicopter pilot learns to [[wikipedia:Autorotation|autorotate]] reflexively when there is a power failure. {{unsigned|Ericprud|20:53, 5 June 2024|You're new: Remember to sign Talk comments; Don't top-post; We tend to use the handy wikilink template here... Otherwise, a valid comment. -- RandomIP editor, passing by.}}

Other than jetpack as someone mentioned, and a few other oddities with things attached to a chair, I thought of something worse, so bad I've only seen it in works of fiction, though I've seen it in a few separate ones, including the Secret of Mana video game and the original War of the Worlds novel (unlike many later adaption like the famous radio play and movies, which all changed quite a lot, the Martin's didn't travel to Earth using a rocket.) Namely, travel by being shot out of a cannon.
--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.28|172.70.131.28]] 18:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

== Trains less convenient than buses? ==

I am sorry but who wrote "examples such as buses (a mass transit solution arguably more convenient than trains)"? Is this some us centric view or what? I think I found Noone who would say a bus is more convenient than a train. Yet alone because buses are waaay slower while fast trains can drive with 300 km/h (sorry for SI units again, European here as you see). In trains you usually also have restaurants etc. so what could be less convenient than in a bus? --[[User:Rugk|Rugk]] ([[User talk:Rugk|talk]]) 00:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:If you want a train to go between two places, you might need to build tracks, stations, etc to service the route. If you want to establish a bus route, you just need the roads, that many of the other transport options will possibly already be using.
:You can set up potentially unlimited bus-stops, as well as whatever end-point depot(s) might serve as hub, so less infrastructure there, too. (Some train services grant flag-down purposes in remote areas, and can handle there being no platforms, but there'll still be limitations and stopping/starting a train all the time isn't very convenient ''for the train''.)
:You can have a bus that takes you up or down a hill, on a local journey, in which any practical train route would (dedicated funiculars/cog-railways aside) have to take a long, slow and shallow-gradient route that will probably take you much longer and cost far more.
:...if you have the presence of a train service (and a long enough journey to make it worthwhile), then the possible added comforts of restaurant cars/other facilities are icing on the cake (long-distance coach journeys might also have basic choice of food and drink, on board, and the necessary means to deal with the inevitable sanitary issues without a road-stop), but planes can do much of that ''only'' with the provision of end-point airport (or prearranged airstrips/suitable floatplane-compatible bodies of water). Or else the dubiously 'convenient' use of {{w|Fulton surface-to-air recovery system|skyhook}} and/or parachute.
:But in comparison with many of the other types of transportation (assuming you have access to the particular vehicle, and the minimal amount of infrastructure as that vehicle requires to operate), trains are only convenient when a train-route infrastructure (or a set of linked ones) is established ''just for the train'', which (as far as end-points, at least) also applies to fixed-wing air travel to various degrees.
:Define your exact journey, and we can probably better define the convenience. I don't think unicycling from Denver to Honolulu is ever going to be practical, but then neither is relying (entirely) upon a railroad system and the boat will have a difficult start. Meanwhile, getting across campus for your first lecture of the day might make that unicycle ''one'' of the best options (quick; and least objectionable, apart from any implied smugness), assuming you can ride one. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.161|172.70.90.161]] 10:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:Well, the convenience of a mode of travel is somewhat variable based on where you need to travel between and other details of the circumstances (and to a lesser sense the danger, for instance some modes of travel increase in danger much more than others due to adverse weather conditions.) It's hard to definitively measure the convenience of most of these as an absolute value with no context, and not only due to some of these only being usable on certain routes or with certain endpoints. As for omitting buses, a bus is essentially a large car that transports many people on scheduled routs owned and operated by a company rather than an individual owner who is likely both the driver and the one who needs to be transported. Arguably, you don't need to include buses any more than you need to include trucks, suvs, taxis, limousines, etc. Plus this is far from comprehensive anyway, including nonsense like unicycles and bumper cars, but not tricycles, horses, pedicabs, piggyback rides, hopping on one foot, hovercrafts, hoverboards, being carried by a gorrila while stuffed in a burlap sack, Star Trek transporters, having a giant pick you up and throw you, rocket powered skates like sometimes used by Wile E. Coyote, teleporting using psychic powers or superhero abilities, swimming, flying like Superman, gyrocopters, opening a wormhole to your destination, hang gliders, riding a pteradon, zeppelins, roller coasters, digging a tunnel, redefining your destination to your current location making travel unnecessary, making the universe collapse into a single point so you are already there, etc. {{unsigned ip|172.69.7.50|04:49, 15 June 2024}}
:: AH, I see you the point was it is "convenient for travel" (everywhere) vs me assuming it is "convenient when/while traveling", which is why I thought of things like restaurant (aka convenience in the sense of comfort), more space (again comfort) and speed. While you interpreted it probably correctly, as a "generic travel thing going anywhere – what works?" which then includes infrastructure. The zone "Practicality" highlights this possibly, it's practical to travel everywhere and thus "convenient" if you have any randomly chosen target possibly. (so maybe in average if you choose 100 random targets it's obviously more convenient) --[[User:Rugk|rugk]] ([[User talk:Rugk|talk]]) 13:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2324: Old Days 2

2020-06-29T01:52:52Z

Prosfilaes:

I've gotta try that, see how the ice cream truck guy reacts. Wonder where I can find an ice cream truck though? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.16|172.69.71.16]] 23:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
: The above is me, wasn't logged in, would I get in trouble for fixing the signature? [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 23:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
(@Mikemk, I recon you sorted it by adding what you did. If you'd have just changed things, probably no crime if you explained it in the edit Summary. But I'm just an IP Address, so no authority.) Anyway. The bit about a phone-call stopping all electronic business is obviously rooted in dial-up needing exclusive use of a POTS line, something that only went out with broadband piggy-backing alongside voice-calls, the respective carrier-signals now microfiltered at each end of the house-to-exchange copper cabling to let them coexist over the same circuit without blocking/overwhelming each other. Though, in this comic, it's hyperbole, overly fuzzy memory, leg-pulling and/or an alternate-history being described. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.130|141.101.98.130]] 02:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
::I would just have deleted the auto signature and put in the correct after login in. Great you signed it correctly. As there is already a discussion opn this I will not correct it. Had no one answered you I would have just put your signature where the special contribution signature is and deleted your second line... ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

In the early days (of the ARPAnet) there was actually something that today would be classed as a "cloud service" (before the term was invented) although limited. It was a computer (in Cambridge, MA) funded by ARPA with massive amounts of storage and anybody on the ARPAnet could use it for storage (primary access was through FTP). So, cloud storage but not cloud computing. If you wanted to do something with the data you had to copy the whole file to your local disk, edit it there, and then send it back. The actual bits were stored on magnetic tape and there was an elaborate X/Y mechanism to select a tape and mount it on a tape drive, and later return it to its cubby. [[User:MAP|MAP]] ([[User talk:MAP|talk]]) 02:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"State landline" is reminiscent of the old sailing joke where you'd ask a n00b to bring you 100 feet of shoreline. -- brad

Hm, I'd think that "state landline" is a pun on "state line". [[User:Gvanrossum|Gvanrossum]] ([[User talk:Gvanrossum|talk]]) 04:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, while mainframes didn't exactly knit sweaters when they ran your code, they *did* produce physical artifacts -- reams of line printer paper. [[User:Gvanrossum|Gvanrossum]] ([[User talk:Gvanrossum|talk]]) 04:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
:Kniting a sweater out of all teletyp tapes (5 holes width could work) that where common in releationship to mainframe landline interfaces 09:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Knitter

"It's not even likely that any punch patterns used in computer coding would be interpretable as valid sweater-creating instructions." Is anyone up to the challenge? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 05:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
: I actually very much doubt that it couldn't be interpreted. The loom will probably work just fine. It's not like those cards started with a header our CRC. It will probably not produce a meaningful pattern, but it will produce something. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.249|162.158.158.249]] 10:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't a loom produce woven textiles rather than knit garments like sweaters? Seems like an additional layer of tall tales. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.179|172.68.189.179]] 06:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

In fact, you can buy computer-programmable knitting machines - even consumer models have been around for quite a while. One short article: https://www.futurity.org/knitting-machines-software-1719232/ [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 14:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that the comic is having fun with false etymologies. There is especially one article that 'explains' a lot of idiom (in the sense of making up a fanciful story), which has been debunked by Snopes
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/life-in-the-1500s/ and the comics seems to allude to a similar situation in computer science, which is now old enough that early days are shrouded in a bit of mist out of which selective trivia is remembered (punch cards had something to do with looms) and then put together into a semi-coherent story that no longer reflects reality. (With part of the joke being that many people here will actually still know or even remember what it was really like in the 'early years', but the fewer those become, the more likely it will be that made-up 'origin stories' become accepted as true.

[[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.33|141.101.69.33]] 06:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a pun in the title text, regarding double meaning of driver? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.226.26|172.68.226.26]] 07:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Eddy

The explanation about landlines needs to be reviewed. Landlines are still a thing, people are still using them, they're not a "stone age" technology.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.130|141.101.98.130]] 14:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
:I disagree. The explanation does not claim landlines are a stone age technology. It instead says that Cueball, in this context, may associate them with an imagined stone age technology. In the same vein, it is the youngster Cueball who may believe that nobody today uses landlines for anything at all. [[User:JohnB|JohnB]] ([[User talk:JohnB|talk]]) 21:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This comic is why we have children and encourage them to go into the same line of work as us: so we can tell them stories of the "good old days." My wife wants nothing to do with my stories of computers in the 70s and 80s, but my son - now also a developer like me - actually listens. [[User:Gbisaga|Gbisaga]] ([[User talk:Gbisaga|talk]]) 16:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"Also it is unknown how it should know in which repo to create a pull request and whom to contact about it." I assumed it was akin to those USB dead drops. You give the disk to an ice cream man and hope that there is something interesting in the repo. Also the thrill is more in being one of the few insiders who know how to access it, not necessarily the value of the contents themselves.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.131|173.245.54.131]] 19:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
:Removed - presumably the contents of the floppy disk would tell the truck driver which repo and whom to contact. Just as the requests you send over a network do now. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.28|108.162.245.28]] 00:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

: Git is a version control system, which employs and manages a centralized copy of a coding project to prevent and resolve conflicts from multiple people editing the project at once.
No. Git itself has no concept of "centralized copy". It is 100% distributed. Human developers often choose one of the copy and call it "main", "master", or whatever. But that’s only a convention humans can agree on when using this tool. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.91|141.101.69.91]] 21:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
:It might be notable that Git is while not first definitely version control system which popularized decentralized distributed version control systems. In old days, version control systems were centralized, with master copy on single server and developers fetching the code from it and then committing their changes back. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The circulating mag tape is very reminiscent of quotations such as this.

"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway."
— Andrew S. Tanenbaum

Related: {{w|Sneakernet}} and {{w|Delay-tolerant networking}}. In areas that are not served by communication lines/wireless communication, vehicles running on a regular route have been used as basis for network communications. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.28|108.162.245.28]] 00:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

"And it's not likely that any punch patterns used in computer coding would be interpretable as a suitable pattern for a sweater." - Is that a CHALLENGE? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.50|172.68.50.50]] 08:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
: Sounds like it would make an interesting esolang. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.125|172.69.63.125]] 13:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

"For example, out of 256 possible identifiers for partition type shared between all operating systems running on IBM PC compatible hardware, 65 entries are allocated to miscellaneous variants of FAT and NTFS systems, 38 of them originating from Microsoft itself - including esoteric variants like "Corrupted fault-tolerant FAT16B mirrored master volume."" ? This doesn't really seem to be pertinent. A private listing of numbers used internally by Microsoft and IBM, where Microsoft uses 15%? (Surely how many other people used is irrelevant.)--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 01:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2249: I Love the 20s

2020-01-07T09:16:07Z

Prosfilaes: Look up the Long Nineteenth Century

in gif diehard is a Christmas movie. There is no right or wrong answer.
But is White Hat right or wrong? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.197|162.158.91.197]] 19:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:Both. It's the only way to settle this. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.63|173.245.54.63]] 19:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
::I think that he is right, but it’s like asking if diehard is a Christmas movie. There is no right or wrong answer.
:::Indeed, famed D.J. and space journalist [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZVOSZqth70 Scott Manley says it's a new decade in C but not in FORTRAN]. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.241|172.68.189.241]] 19:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
::::You mean it's already 21th century for FORTRAN? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
::::But what decade is it in the {{w|Delisle scale}}? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.250|141.101.98.250]] 20:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain Ponytail contradicts herself in panel 5. Arguing that decades are not cardinally numbered is arguing that the decade starts in 2021 (ordinal numbering.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.34|162.158.126.34]] 21:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:She doesn't: you're assuming there are only two options, but that's not the case. Decades (in the common "20s, 30s, 40s" form) are not technically numbered at all: they're named, it's just that those names are based on numbers.
:It's still a sequence, like names or dictionary entries being grouped into "As, Bs, Cs" and so on, though. (Is there a specific name for this type of sequence? If so, I don't know it.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.144|141.101.107.144]] 23:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
::She (more likely Randall's slip of the pen) is still wrong: what she means is that they aren't ''ordinally'' numbered, which is the reason the other guy is wrong. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.179|162.158.158.179]] 08:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Having had this conversation on WhatsApp, I have settled on an ingenious solution that works for me (on being told that "0" had not been invented in the year between -1 and +1") and explains why decades start with "10, 20...": As usually nowadays, the first decade was the Betaversion and so only ran from 1-9... {{unsigned ip|188.114.103.5|07:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)}}
:Nobody really recognised the possibility of having/not having 0AD until c.525AD, anyway. (Sitting betwixt the nominal start of what became in our zero in 5thC and its eventual formalising in 7thC, over in India/etc.) If you ask me (and you aren't doing, I know!) I think they probably were envisaging an early version of 1s' Compliment, but knew it would be silly to have two separate numbers for the year ±0 and so fudged it entirely the other way. ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.9|162.158.158.9]] 11:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Every year is a new decade. Just some of them overlap. The 203rd decade was from 2021 to 2030, while the '20s will run from 1920 to 1929. Both are legitimate decades. So id 1994-2003; it just doesn't have a convenient name to refer to it by. Heck, you don't even need a new year. 1981-12-03 to 1991-12-02 is the first decade of my life :) So if you want to celebrate the start of a new decade, you should celebrate ''every single day''. [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 10:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
:By that logic, the 203rd decade started 203 planck lengths (or other smaller time units) after the big bang. Or was it 202 planck lenghts after? However I agree, that decades start and end all the time. The question is just, what day does the decade "the 20s" start. I'd say it started on January 1, 2020. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 11:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

There is an interesting theory that CULTURALLY, a new decade doesn't really start until year 2 or year 3 of said decade. So, what we traditionally envision as "the 80s" actually was typical for ca. 1983-1992, what we think of as "the 90s" actually happened between 1993 and 2002, and so on. It makes a lot of sense if you think of it (and if you listen to music or look at pictures of the time); mullets were still a thing in 1991, just as carrot pants were in 1981 and psychedelic music was in 1971. (It also works for centuries, but with a longer timespan, about 15 years. 1910 or 1911 feels a lot more 19th century than 20th century. In 1815, the Congress of Vienna was held, which ended the European Wars of the 18th century and laid the foundation for the nation states typical of the 19th century, and for a period of relative peace that enabled the Industrial Revolution. And so on.)--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.233|162.158.158.233]] 12:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
:I'd argue that this is just randomness. There is no reason, any trends should align to the way the years are set up. Of course noone says "hey, it's first January 2020, let's start a new style of dressing and listen to new music." But neither do they in 2022. However e.g. carrot pants were MOST popular, and on their peak of popularity in the 70s, and psychadelic music in the 60s, even though trends linger and resurface long after all the time. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
::Well, I'd already planned to use exclusive and entirely 2020s' slang and fashion from yesterday onwards. After a few false starts because nobody knew what I was vocing about, I'm now starting it ween and only going full-barbecue as I get past the prime snick of my voc, in empthy my viewclan viz my deltas and merj my vocstyel, all charged for the dec fronting up! Ten-four, me hearties? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.40|141.101.98.40]] 16:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
: Except the 19th century started in 1789; cf. the long nineteenth century. I had never heard of a 1815 start for the nineteenth century before. The nineteenth century is 1789-1914, and the twentieth century started in 1914 and ended in 1991, with the fall of the Soviet Union. Looking at just American history, the nineteenth century obviously starts in 1776 and ends at the start or end of the Civil War, 1860ish. It's all arbitrary lines.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 02:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
::Do you have any source or examples from actual historians, using a definition of centuries based on events instead of 100-year periods following each other? Eras or Ages might be debatable and dependent on the spirit of a given time, events, rulers, etc. but I have never heard about centuries being defined that way. The 19th Century started either in 1800 or 1801 and lasted until 1899/1900. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 07:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
::: Cf [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_nineteenth_century The Long Nineteenth Century].--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 09:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

In the decades under discussion, VH1 and MTV were competing channels, not parent company - child company. (And MTV came first.) It's much more relevant to the explanation that VH1 was a music channel on cable TV than to explain who owns what now, three decades later. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.159|172.69.63.159]] 15:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I find it surprising that Randall didn't reference ISO-8601 by way of Wikipedia, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero#ISO_8601 in the Year Zero article], to make the argument that the first 10 years ran from 0-9 as "the standard". Though I suppose it is more entertaining/broadly targeted to reference pop. culture sources when labeling pop. culture trends. [[User:SensorSmith|SensorSmith]] ([[User talk:SensorSmith|talk]]) 16:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Well I might be stepping into a minefield by saying this, but obviously both CNN and FOX had dedicated articles reporting this issue and, as expected, have slightly different stances on the answer. I wonder if Randall is aware of this.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/21/us/when-does-the-decade-end-begin-trnd/index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/us/does-2020-start-a-new-decade-or-not-everyone-has-an-opinion

== Rewrite ==

I did a significant rewrite which captures most of what had been said, but tidies up and clarifies some points. I also removed some information that I felt wasn't relevant (eg. the trivia about Jesus' birth - while true and interesting, it isn't actually relevant to the comic or the explanation) - feel free to add anything back that you think should still be included for completeness.

Can I just say, though, that I am not a fan of this rambling style of recapping the comic blow-by-blow while explaining it? It seems to be a common style here but it makes the explanation ''significantly'' more difficult to follow. Here is an example of what I mean:

<blockquote>"At this point Megan stops their heated argument claiming she can resolve this. She then states that MC Hammer's song "U Can't Touch This", released in 1990, was featured in a 1990s-themed television show (I Love the '90s) instead of its 1980s-themed counterpart. Ponytail then claims that this settles the discussion. And White Hat throws in the towel stating that he accepts VH1's authority and lets Ponytail win."</blockquote>

Recapitulating the comic can sometimes be useful to give context to the explanation, but it gets difficult to follow when the text starts jumping back-and-forth between explaining things and simply stating things that are happening in the comic. In my rewrite, I have attempted to give a short recap at the very start of the explanation, to provide context; then, I have added explanations of the points raised by the comic. I still don't think it's the best way to go about it, but I think it's better. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 14:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
: +1 - I really like your rewrite :) --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 14:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2249: I Love the 20s

2020-01-07T02:35:30Z

Prosfilaes:

in gif diehard is a Christmas movie. There is no right or wrong answer.
But is White Hat right or wrong? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.197|162.158.91.197]] 19:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:Both. It's the only way to settle this. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.63|173.245.54.63]] 19:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
::I think that he is right, but it’s like asking if diehard is a Christmas movie. There is no right or wrong answer.
:::Indeed, famed D.J. and space journalist [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZVOSZqth70 Scott Manley says it's a new decade in C but not in FORTRAN]. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.241|172.68.189.241]] 19:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
::::You mean it's already 21th century for FORTRAN? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
::::But what decade is it in the {{w|Delisle scale}}? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.250|141.101.98.250]] 20:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain Ponytail contradicts herself in panel 5. Arguing that decades are not cardinally numbered is arguing that the decade starts in 2021 (ordinal numbering.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.34|162.158.126.34]] 21:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:She doesn't: you're assuming there are only two options, but that's not the case. Decades (in the common "20s, 30s, 40s" form) are not technically numbered at all: they're named, it's just that those names are based on numbers.
:It's still a sequence, like names or dictionary entries being grouped into "As, Bs, Cs" and so on, though. (Is there a specific name for this type of sequence? If so, I don't know it.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.144|141.101.107.144]] 23:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
::She (more likely Randall's slip of the pen) is still wrong: what she means is that they aren't ''ordinally'' numbered, which is the reason the other guy is wrong. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.179|162.158.158.179]] 08:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Having had this conversation on WhatsApp, I have settled on an ingenious solution that works for me (on being told that "0" had not been invented in the year between -1 and +1") and explains why decades start with "10, 20...": As usually nowadays, the first decade was the Betaversion and so only ran from 1-9... {{unsigned ip|188.114.103.5|07:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)}}
:Nobody really recognised the possibility of having/not having 0AD until c.525AD, anyway. (Sitting betwixt the nominal start of what became in our zero in 5thC and its eventual formalising in 7thC, over in India/etc.) If you ask me (and you aren't doing, I know!) I think they probably were envisaging an early version of 1s' Compliment, but knew it would be silly to have two separate numbers for the year ±0 and so fudged it entirely the other way. ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.9|162.158.158.9]] 11:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Every year is a new decade. Just some of them overlap. The 203rd decade was from 2021 to 2030, while the '20s will run from 1920 to 1929. Both are legitimate decades. So id 1994-2003; it just doesn't have a convenient name to refer to it by. Heck, you don't even need a new year. 1981-12-03 to 1991-12-02 is the first decade of my life :) So if you want to celebrate the start of a new decade, you should celebrate ''every single day''. [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 10:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
:By that logic, the 203rd decade started 203 planck lengths (or other smaller time units) after the big bang. Or was it 202 planck lenghts after? However I agree, that decades start and end all the time. The question is just, what day does the decade "the 20s" start. I'd say it started on January 1, 2020. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 11:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

There is an interesting theory that CULTURALLY, a new decade doesn't really start until year 2 or year 3 of said decade. So, what we traditionally envision as "the 80s" actually was typical for ca. 1983-1992, what we think of as "the 90s" actually happened between 1993 and 2002, and so on. It makes a lot of sense if you think of it (and if you listen to music or look at pictures of the time); mullets were still a thing in 1991, just as carrot pants were in 1981 and psychedelic music was in 1971. (It also works for centuries, but with a longer timespan, about 15 years. 1910 or 1911 feels a lot more 19th century than 20th century. In 1815, the Congress of Vienna was held, which ended the European Wars of the 18th century and laid the foundation for the nation states typical of the 19th century, and for a period of relative peace that enabled the Industrial Revolution. And so on.)--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.233|162.158.158.233]] 12:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
:I'd argue that this is just randomness. There is no reason, any trends should align to the way the years are set up. Of course noone says "hey, it's first January 2020, let's start a new style of dressing and listen to new music." But neither do they in 2022. However e.g. carrot pants were MOST popular, and on their peak of popularity in the 70s, and psychadelic music in the 60s, even though trends linger and resurface long after all the time. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
::Well, I'd already planned to use exclusive and entirely 2020s' slang and fashion from yesterday onwards. After a few false starts because nobody knew what I was vocing about, I'm now starting it ween and only going full-barbecue as I get past the prime snick of my voc, in empthy my viewclan viz my deltas and merj my vocstyel, all charged for the dec fronting up! Ten-four, me hearties? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.40|141.101.98.40]] 16:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
: Except the 19th century started in 1789; cf. the long nineteenth century. I had never heard of a 1815 start for the nineteenth century before. The nineteenth century is 1789-1914, and the twentieth century started in 1914 and ended in 1991, with the fall of the Soviet Union. Looking at just American history, the nineteenth century obviously starts in 1776 and ends at the start or end of the Civil War, 1860ish. It's all arbitrary lines.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 02:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

In the decades under discussion, VH1 and MTV were competing channels, not parent company - child company. (And MTV came first.) It's much more relevant to the explanation that VH1 was a music channel on cable TV than to explain who owns what now, three decades later. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.159|172.69.63.159]] 15:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I find it surprising that Randall didn't reference ISO-8601 by way of Wikipedia, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero#ISO_8601 in the Year Zero article], to make the argument that the first 10 years ran from 0-9 as "the standard". Though I suppose it is more entertaining/broadly targeted to reference pop. culture sources when labeling pop. culture trends. [[User:SensorSmith|SensorSmith]] ([[User talk:SensorSmith|talk]]) 16:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Well I might be stepping into a minefield by saying this, but obviously both CNN and FOX had dedicated articles reporting this issue and, as expected, have slightly different stances on the answer. I wonder if Randall is aware of this.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/21/us/when-does-the-decade-end-begin-trnd/index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/us/does-2020-start-a-new-decade-or-not-everyone-has-an-opinion

== Rewrite ==

I did a significant rewrite which captures most of what had been said, but tidies up and clarifies some points. I also removed some information that I felt wasn't relevant (eg. the trivia about Jesus' birth - while true and interesting, it isn't actually relevant to the comic or the explanation) - feel free to add anything back that you think should still be included for completeness.

Can I just say, though, that I am not a fan of this rambling style of recapping the comic blow-by-blow while explaining it? It seems to be a common style here but it makes the explanation ''significantly'' more difficult to follow. Here is an example of what I mean:

<blockquote>"At this point Megan stops their heated argument claiming she can resolve this. She then states that MC Hammer's song "U Can't Touch This", released in 1990, was featured in a 1990s-themed television show (I Love the '90s) instead of its 1980s-themed counterpart. Ponytail then claims that this settles the discussion. And White Hat throws in the towel stating that he accepts VH1's authority and lets Ponytail win."</blockquote>

Recapitulating the comic can sometimes be useful to give context to the explanation, but it gets difficult to follow when the text starts jumping back-and-forth between explaining things and simply stating things that are happening in the comic. In my rewrite, I have attempted to give a short recap at the very start of the explanation, to provide context; then, I have added explanations of the points raised by the comic. I still don't think it's the best way to go about it, but I think it's better. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 14:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
: +1 - I really like your rewrite :) --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 14:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)