explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

42: Geico

2013-02-02T00:20:46Z

Sudopeople: Removed "to me" ...I don't care about the guy who wrote it, it's unclear to everyone.

{{comic
| number = 42
| date = November 28, 2005
| title = Geico
| image = geico.jpg
| imagesize =
| titletext = David did this
}}

==Explanation==
This comic references an mid-2000s ad campaign for Geico insurance in which a character (different in each commercial) lists a series of horrible events or news, but then caps it off with "but I've got good news: I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico" – news which may be good, but is usually either trivial compared to the magnitude of the preceding bad news, or else is said to the person whom all of the preceding bad news applied to, giving them false hope that the good news was for them. It became a recognizable pop culture phrase.

In this one-panel comic, [[Cueball]] parodies the punchline by saving money on his car insurance by intimidation, instead of choosing the best provider.

It is unclear who [[David]] is that is referred to in the title text, but he's referred to again in the image text for comic [[51: Malaria]]. It is similarly unclear what "this" is that he did, whether it is the comic, or whether [[Randall Munroe|Randall]] is suggesting that David saved money on his car insurance by threatening his insurance agent.

==Trivia==
* Original quote from [[Randall]]: "Current mood: :( sick"
* Original comment from [[Randall]]: "No laughing, 'less you want some of this too! *hefts golf club menacingly*"
* This is the thirty-eighth comic originally posted to livejournal. The previous was [[35: Sheep]]. The next was [[38: Apple Jacks]]

==Transcript==
:I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by threatening my agent with a golf club.

{{Comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics posted on livejournal]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

12: Poisson

2013-02-01T23:32:00Z

Sudopeople: /* Explanation */ changed 'image text' to 'title text' for consistency across the entire wiki.

{{comic
| number = 12
| date = December 22, 2005
| title = Poisson
| image = Poisson.jpg
| titletext = Poisson distributions have no value over negative numbers
| imagesize =
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic, [[Cueball]] expresses himself as a {{w|Poisson distribution}}.

Per Wikipedia, in mathematics, a {{w|Poisson distribution}} is a distribution that shows the probability of a given number of events occurring in a fixed interval of time or space. The horizontal axis typically represents the “number of events” while the vertical axis is a decimal representing the probability (i.e. 0.5 for 50% probability) a given number of events will occur in that fixed interval of time or space. It is commonly represented by a bar graph, or a point graph (sometimes with a line connection to show a trend, even though there is no actual value for non-integers).

A simple example is the number of heads coming up on a fair coin flip. The distribution for one coin flip should be 0.5 at 0 heads and 0.5 at 1 heads; for 2 coin flips, the distribution would be 0.25 at 0 heads, 0.5 at 1 heads and 0.25 at 2 heads; Etc. Multiple graphs like this are sometimes overlaid on one graph with a legend to distinguish the points (one coin flip in red, two coin flips in blue, etc).

What's important to note for this comic is that this distribution only has data points on non-negative integers and is not continuous through decimal numbers or (as the image text tells us) negative numbers because events can’t occur 0.3 of a time, or -2 times.

After implying that the concept of a person being a mathematical distribution is irrational, [[Black Hat]] suggests he is “less than zero”. Since the Poisson Distribution doesn’t exist or has no value at negative values, Cueball either leaves or disappears magically.

Hence, the punchline is the same as the title text: Cueball doesn't exist to Black Hat anymore, because he has a value less than zero.

==Trivia==

* This is the first appearance of [[Black Hat]] in [[xkcd]].
* [[Randall Munroe|Randall]] was still experimenting with character design, as [[Cueball]] has a face in the first two frames.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball talking to Black Hat]
:Cueball: I'm a poisson distribution!

:Cueball: Still a poisson distribution.
:Black Hat: What the hell, man. Why do you keep saying that?

:Cueball: Because I'm totally a poisson distribution.
:Black Hat: I'm less than zero.

:[Cueball is gone; Black Hat is whistling.]

{{Comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Math]]

6: Irony

2013-02-01T23:06:34Z

Sudopeople: Grammar.

{{comic
| number = 6
| date = September 30, 2005
| title = Irony
| image = irony_color.jpg
| imagesize =
| titletext = It's commonly known that too much perspective can be a downer.
}}

==Explanation==
It must be part of the {{w|human condition}} that causes us to think that odd statements are sometimes more humorous than those supposed to be funny. [[Cueball]] makes a true statement, that his statement is not very funny. But! Because he invoked {{w|irony}}, the sentence is now funny! ''Right?''

Now going meta: In 20,000 years, there might be no more humans on earth to find the irony funny anymore. How ''ironic''!

Also see [[33: Self-reference]], and [[6: Irony]].

==Trivia==
* "Too much perspective can do that." – [[Randall]]
* This is the ninth comic originally posted at livejournal. The previous one was [[8: Red Spiders]]. The next one was [[9: Serenity is coming out tomorrow]].

==Transcript==
: Narrator: When self-reference, irony, and meta-humor go too far
: Narrator: A CAUTIONARY TALE
: Man 1: This statement wouldn't be funny if not for irony!
: Man 1: ha ha
: Man 2: ha ha, I guess.
: Narrator: 20,000 years later...
: [desolate badlands landscape with an imposing sun in the sky]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics posted on livejournal]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

5: Blown apart

2013-02-01T23:03:28Z

Sudopeople: /* Explanation */ changed 'image text' to 'title text' for consistency across the entire wiki.

{{comic
| number = 5
| date = October 25, 2005
| title = Blown apart
| image = blownapart_color.jpg
| titletext = Blown into prime factors
}}

== Explanation ==
The title text to this one explains the comic. An {{w|anthropomorphism|anthropomorphic}} number 70 is blown into its {{w|prime factor}}s (2, 5 and 7). {{w|Prime number}}s are numbers which can not be divided by any number other than itself and 1. Factors of a number are numbers which can be multiplied together to produce that number (2x5x7 = 70). 70 has other factors, including 1, 10, 14, 35 and 70, but 2, 5 and 7 are the only factors which are prime. All other factors of 70 (other than 1) can be formed by multiplying two of the prime factors together.

== Transcript ==
:[A black number 70 sees a red package.]
:70: hey, a package!

:[The package explodes with a <<BOOM>> and a red cloud of smoke.]

:[There are a red 7, a green 5 and a blue 2 lying near a scorched mark on the floor.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Math]]

1: Barrel - Part 1

2013-02-01T23:00:26Z

Sudopeople: Added reference to Randall

{{comic
| number = 1
| date = September 30, 2005
| title = 1: Barrel - Part 1
| image = barrel_cropped_(1).jpg
| titletext = Don't we all.
}}

== Explanation ==
"He's fairly upbeat about the situation!" – [[Randall]]

This comic is about the unlikely optimism of people. The boy in the barrel is completely lost, it would seem hopelessly alone, without any plan or control of the situation. Yet he is curious: 'I wonder where i'll float next?'

This is the first in a five-part series of comics whose parts were randomly published during the first few dozen strips. The series features a [[:Category:Barrel|character]] that is not consistent with what would quickly become the [[xkcd]] [[stick figure]] style. The full series is:

*[[1: Barrel - Part 1]]
*[[11: Barrel - Part 2]]
*[[22: Barrel - Part 3]]
*[[25: Barrel - Part 4]]
*[[31: Barrel - Part 5]]

== Transcript ==
:[A boy sits in a barrel which is floating in an ocean.]
:Boy: i wonder where i'll float next?

:[The barrel drifts into the distance. Nothing else can be seen.]

== Trivia ==
* {{1110|1|n|48|e}} from [[1110| comic 1110]] is a reference to this comic.
* This was the fifth comic originally posted on livejournal. The previous comic is [[2]]. The next comic is [[24]]. View archive [http://liveweb.archive.org/http://xkcd-drawings.livejournal.com/?skip=40 here].
{{Comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics posted on livejournal]]
[[Category:Barrel|01]]

798: Adjectives

2013-02-01T22:46:42Z

Sudopeople: Improved perceived accuracy.

{{comic
| number = 798
| date = September 27, 2010
| title = Adjectives
| image = adjectives.png
| titletext = 'Fucking ineffable' sounds like someone remembering how to do self-censorship halfway through a phrase.
}}

==Explanation==
'''Comic 798''' is a {{w|Plot_(graphics)|plot graph}} comparing how often certain adjectives are used alone versus in the phrases ''"fucking [adjective]"'' and ''"[adjective] as shit"''. Plot data is based on Google search engine result count, or ''hits''. The graph's formula uses the {{w|natural logarithm}} of the hits for the obscene phrase divided by the hits for the adjective alone.

It's a social observation of linguistics pointing out that the use of swear words as intensifiers is more common with everyday words (''eg. annoying, pissed, stupid'') than it is with more arcane words (''eg. piquant, fungible''). The last two examples are each used in a sentence that one is not likely to overhear, and in the case of ''fucking fungible'', a way to justify its relatively high occurrence online.

The only word included in the graph that's never found in either obscene phrase is ''peristeronic''. Its definition ''("Of or pertaining to pigeons")'' is included due to its extreme obscurity.

The title text mocks the use of the word ''fucking'' in combination with ''ineffable'' since the colloquialism ''effing'' or ''F-ing'' is a way of censoring "the F-word", ''fuck''. The two used together resembles someone partially self-censoring the phrase "fucking unfuckable."

==Transcript==

:Frequency with which various adjectives are intensified with obscenities (based on Google hits)
:((The legend above the plot reads:))
:Red marker: "fucking ____"
:Blue marker: "____ as shit"
:((Mathematical formula for scale next to the legend:))
:Scale: ln(hits for intensified phrase hits for adjective alone)
:((The plot itself lists a series of adjectives in approximately descending order. Each has a red and a blue marker corresponding to the scale described.))
:((Horizontal axis starts with none, then has a vertical dashed line, then 'rarely' at -17, increasing to 'often' at -5.))
:((Each adjective is listed with approximate red and blue values, in that order.))
:Annoying -5 -5
:Pissed -5 -6
:Stupid -5 -8
:Bored -6 -6
:Sexy -5.5 -6.5
:Adorable -6.5 -9.5
:Disgusting -6.5 -12.5
:Calm -7 -10
:Delicious -8 -13
:Obscene -6 -14
:Prosaic -10 -13.5
:Bemused -8.5 -14
:Apropos -10.5 -16
:Ambivalent -12 -17
:Improper -12.5 -18
:Evanescent -14 -14.5
:Piquant -9.5 never
:Jejune -9 never
:Kafkaesque -10 never
:Stochastic -14 never
:Fungible -12 never
:Peristeronic never never ("Of or pertaining to pigeons")
:[there are two small scenes in the bottom right of the plot. The first shows a pair of women holding wine glasses.]
:Second woman: Yes, the Cabernet is piquant as shit this time of year.
:[The second shows a person sitting at a computer desk.]
:Person: Whoa, these commodities are fucking fungible!

{{comic discussion}}

798: Adjectives

2013-02-01T22:43:38Z

Sudopeople: Simplified a little and used less conjecture.

{{comic
| number = 798
| date = September 27, 2010
| title = Adjectives
| image = adjectives.png
| titletext = 'Fucking ineffable' sounds like someone remembering how to do self-censorship halfway through a phrase.
}}

==Explanation==
'''Comic 798''' is a {{w|Plot_(graphics)|plot graph}} comparing how often certain adjectives are used alone versus in the phrases ''"fucking [adjective]"'' and ''"[adjective] as shit"''. Plot data is based on Google search engine result count, or ''hits''. The graph's formula uses the {{w|natural logarithm}} of the hits for the obscene phrase divided by the hits for the adjective alone.

It's a social observation of linguistics pointing out that the use of swear words as intensifiers is more common with everyday words (''eg. annoying, pissed, stupid'') than it is with more arcane words (''eg. piquant, fungible''). The last two examples are each used in a sentence that one is not likely to overhear, and in the case of ''fungible'', a way to justify its relatively high occurrence online.

The only word included in the graph that's never found in either obscene phrase is ''peristeronic''. Its definition ''("Of or pertaining to pigeons")'' is included due to its extreme obscurity.

The title text mocks the use of the word ''fucking'' in combination with ''ineffable'' since the colloquialism ''effing'' or ''F-ing'' is a way of censoring "the F-word", ''fuck''. The two used together resembles someone partially self-censoring the phrase "fucking unfuckable."

==Transcript==

:Frequency with which various adjectives are intensified with obscenities (based on Google hits)
:((The legend above the plot reads:))
:Red marker: "fucking ____"
:Blue marker: "____ as shit"
:((Mathematical formula for scale next to the legend:))
:Scale: ln(hits for intensified phrase hits for adjective alone)
:((The plot itself lists a series of adjectives in approximately descending order. Each has a red and a blue marker corresponding to the scale described.))
:((Horizontal axis starts with none, then has a vertical dashed line, then 'rarely' at -17, increasing to 'often' at -5.))
:((Each adjective is listed with approximate red and blue values, in that order.))
:Annoying -5 -5
:Pissed -5 -6
:Stupid -5 -8
:Bored -6 -6
:Sexy -5.5 -6.5
:Adorable -6.5 -9.5
:Disgusting -6.5 -12.5
:Calm -7 -10
:Delicious -8 -13
:Obscene -6 -14
:Prosaic -10 -13.5
:Bemused -8.5 -14
:Apropos -10.5 -16
:Ambivalent -12 -17
:Improper -12.5 -18
:Evanescent -14 -14.5
:Piquant -9.5 never
:Jejune -9 never
:Kafkaesque -10 never
:Stochastic -14 never
:Fungible -12 never
:Peristeronic never never ("Of or pertaining to pigeons")
:[there are two small scenes in the bottom right of the plot. The first shows a pair of women holding wine glasses.]
:Second woman: Yes, the Cabernet is piquant as shit this time of year.
:[The second shows a person sitting at a computer desk.]
:Person: Whoa, these commodities are fucking fungible!

{{comic discussion}}

781: Ahead Stop

2013-02-01T22:27:41Z

Sudopeople: /* Explanation */ changed 'image text' to 'title text' for consistency across the entire wiki.

{{comic
| number = 781
| date = August 18, 2010
| title = Ahead Stop
| image = ahead_stop.png
| imagesize =
| titletext = They actually started the reversed-text practice in 1977 -- not for ease-of-reading reasons, but because too many people were driving backward down the highway blasting the Star Wars opening theme.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic refers to how words or instructions written on the highway are always backwards from how you would read them. It seems that the "highway" engineers write the words as if you would read them as your car goes over them. Sometimes this approach works, other times (probably most of the time) it is terribly confusing. The sentence on the comic is: Highway Engineers Think I Read Backwards. Adding the period is a perfectly hilarious touch, as there are probably not too many periods on the highways.

The title text is referring to how the {{w|Star Wars opening crawl|words of the opening sequence}} of ''{{w|Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope}}''(released in 1977) move from the bottom of the screen to the top so that it can be read by normal human being. However, the image text says the engineers initially reversed the text because people were driving BACKWARDS down the highway trying to re-enact the opening sequence, so they started reversing the word order to get people to drive the "correct" direction.

The title of the comic ("Ahead Stop") is also a reference to this phenomenon because the common "Stop Ahead" instruction would be written on the highway as "Ahead" and then "Stop".

It is also kind of odd that there is a sidewalk next to the highway in this comic.

This could also be a reference to {{w|Posting_style#Top-posting|Top-posting}} in email threads and online discussion forums, as summarized in the following comedic signature line:

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

==Transcript==
[Words are painted in white on a black road.]
BACKWARD.
I READ
THINK
ENGINEERS
HIGHWAY

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]

Adjectives

2013-02-01T22:06:07Z

Sudopeople: Added redirect to main article

#REDIRECT [[798: Adjectives]]

798

2013-02-01T22:05:32Z

Sudopeople: Added redirect to main article

#REDIRECT [[798: Adjectives]]

798: Adjectives

2013-02-01T21:49:30Z

Sudopeople: Perfect accuracy! ...plus a bit more grammar.

{{comic
| number = 798
| date = September 27, 2010
| title = Adjectives
| image = adjectives.png
| titletext = 'Fucking ineffable' sounds like someone remembering how to do self-censorship halfway through a phrase.
}}

==Explanation==
'''Comic 798''' is a {{w|Plot_(graphics)|plot graph}} comparing how often certain adjectives are used alone versus in the phrases ''"fucking [adjective]"'' and ''"[adjective] as shit"''. Plot data is based on Google search engine result count, or ''hits''. The graph's formula uses the {{w|natural logarithm}} of the hits for the obscene phrase divided by the hits for the adjective alone.

It's a social observation of linguistics pointing out that the use of swear words as intensifiers is more common with everyday words (''eg. annoying, pissed, stupid'') than it is with more arcane words (''eg. piquant, fungible''). The last two examples are each used in a sentence that one is not likely to overhear, but [[Randall]] has imagined as comedic, and in the case of ''fungible'', a way to justify its relatively high occurrence online.

The only word included in the graph that's never found in either obscene phrase is ''peristeronic''. Its definition ''("Of or pertaining to pigeons")'' is included due to its extreme obscurity.

The title text mocks the use of the word ''fucking'' in combination with ''ineffable'' since the colloquialism ''effing'' or ''F-ing'' is a way of censoring "the F-word", ''fuck''. The two used together resembles someone partially self-censoring the phrase "fucking unfuckable."

==Transcript==

:Frequency with which various adjectives are intensified with obscenities (based on Google hits)
:((The legend above the plot reads:))
:Red marker: "fucking ____"
:Blue marker: "____ as shit"
:((Mathematical formula for scale next to the legend:))
:Scale: ln(hits for intensified phrase hits for adjective alone)
:((The plot itself lists a series of adjectives in approximately descending order. Each has a red and a blue marker corresponding to the scale described.))
:((Horizontal axis starts with none, then has a vertical dashed line, then 'rarely' at -17, increasing to 'often' at -5.))
:((Each adjective is listed with approximate red and blue values, in that order.))
:Annoying -5 -5
:Pissed -5 -6
:Stupid -5 -8
:Bored -6 -6
:Sexy -5.5 -6.5
:Adorable -6.5 -9.5
:Disgusting -6.5 -12.5
:Calm -7 -10
:Delicious -8 -13
:Obscene -6 -14
:Prosaic -10 -13.5
:Bemused -8.5 -14
:Apropos -10.5 -16
:Ambivalent -12 -17
:Improper -12.5 -18
:Evanescent -14 -14.5
:Piquant -9.5 never
:Jejune -9 never
:Kafkaesque -10 never
:Stochastic -14 never
:Fungible -12 never
:Peristeronic never never ("Of or pertaining to pigeons")
:[there are two small scenes in the bottom right of the plot. The first shows a pair of women holding wine glasses.]
:Second woman: Yes, the Cabernet is piquant as shit this time of year.
:[The second shows a person sitting at a computer desk.]
:Person: Whoa, these commodities are fucking fungible!

{{comic discussion}}

798: Adjectives

2013-02-01T21:44:59Z

Sudopeople: Even more clear/more readable phrasing...

{{comic
| number = 798
| date = September 27, 2010
| title = Adjectives
| image = adjectives.png
| titletext = 'Fucking ineffable' sounds like someone remembering how to do self-censorship halfway through a phrase.
}}

==Explanation==
'''Comic 798''' is a {{w|Plot_(graphics)|plot graph}} comparing how often certain adjectives are used alone versus in the phrases ''"fucking [adjective]"'' and ''"[adjective] as shit"''. Plot data is based on Google search engine result count, or ''hits''. The graph's formula uses the {{w|natural logarithm}} of the hits for the obscene phrase divided by the hits for the adjective alone.

It's a social observation of linguistics pointing out that the use swear words as intensifiers is more common with everyday words (''eg. annoying, pissed, stupid'') than it is with more arcane words (''eg. piquant, fungible''). The last two examples are each used in a sentence that one is not likely to overhear, but [[Randall]] has imagined as a way to justify their surprisingly high occurrence online.

The only word included in the graph that's never found in either obscene phrase is ''peristeronic''. Its definition ''("Of or pertaining to pigeons")'' is included due to its extreme obscurity.

The title text mocks the use of the word ''fucking'' in combination with ''ineffable'' since the colloquialism ''effing'' or ''F-ing'' is a way of censoring "the F-word", ''fuck''. The two used together resembles someone partially self-censoring the phrase "fucking unfuckable."

==Transcript==

:Frequency with which various adjectives are intensified with obscenities (based on Google hits)
:((The legend above the plot reads:))
:Red marker: "fucking ____"
:Blue marker: "____ as shit"
:((Mathematical formula for scale next to the legend:))
:Scale: ln(hits for intensified phrase hits for adjective alone)
:((The plot itself lists a series of adjectives in approximately descending order. Each has a red and a blue marker corresponding to the scale described.))
:((Horizontal axis starts with none, then has a vertical dashed line, then 'rarely' at -17, increasing to 'often' at -5.))
:((Each adjective is listed with approximate red and blue values, in that order.))
:Annoying -5 -5
:Pissed -5 -6
:Stupid -5 -8
:Bored -6 -6
:Sexy -5.5 -6.5
:Adorable -6.5 -9.5
:Disgusting -6.5 -12.5
:Calm -7 -10
:Delicious -8 -13
:Obscene -6 -14
:Prosaic -10 -13.5
:Bemused -8.5 -14
:Apropos -10.5 -16
:Ambivalent -12 -17
:Improper -12.5 -18
:Evanescent -14 -14.5
:Piquant -9.5 never
:Jejune -9 never
:Kafkaesque -10 never
:Stochastic -14 never
:Fungible -12 never
:Peristeronic never never ("Of or pertaining to pigeons")
:[there are two small scenes in the bottom right of the plot. The first shows a pair of women holding wine glasses.]
:Second woman: Yes, the Cabernet is piquant as shit this time of year.
:[The second shows a person sitting at a computer desk.]
:Person: Whoa, these commodities are fucking fungible!

{{comic discussion}}

798: Adjectives

2013-02-01T21:42:06Z

Sudopeople: Clearer/more readable phrasing.

{{comic
| number = 798
| date = September 27, 2010
| title = Adjectives
| image = adjectives.png
| titletext = 'Fucking ineffable' sounds like someone remembering how to do self-censorship halfway through a phrase.
}}

==Explanation==
'''Comic 798''' is a {{w|Plot_(graphics)|plot graph}} comparing how often certain adjectives are used alone versus in the phrases ''"fucking [adjective]"'' and ''"[adjective] as shit"''. Plot data is based on Google search engine result count, or ''hits''. The graph's formula uses the {{w|natural logarithm}} of the hits for the obscene phrase divided by the hits for the adjective alone.

It's a social observation of linguistics pointing out that the use swear words as intensifiers is more common with everyday words (''eg. annoying, pissed, stupid'') than it is with more arcane words (''eg. piquant, fungible''). The last two examples are each used in a sentence that one is not likely to overhear, but [[Randall]] has imagined as a way to justify their surprisingly high occurrence online.

The only word that's never found with obscenities and included in the graph is ''peristeronic''. Its definition ''("Of or pertaining to pigeons")'' is included due to its extreme obscurity.

The title text mocks the use of the word ''fucking'' in combination with ''ineffable'' since the colloquialism ''effing'' or ''F-ing'' is a way of censoring "the F-word", ''fuck''. The two used together resembles someone partially self-censoring the phrase "fucking unfuckable."

==Transcript==

:Frequency with which various adjectives are intensified with obscenities (based on Google hits)
:((The legend above the plot reads:))
:Red marker: "fucking ____"
:Blue marker: "____ as shit"
:((Mathematical formula for scale next to the legend:))
:Scale: ln(hits for intensified phrase hits for adjective alone)
:((The plot itself lists a series of adjectives in approximately descending order. Each has a red and a blue marker corresponding to the scale described.))
:((Horizontal axis starts with none, then has a vertical dashed line, then 'rarely' at -17, increasing to 'often' at -5.))
:((Each adjective is listed with approximate red and blue values, in that order.))
:Annoying -5 -5
:Pissed -5 -6
:Stupid -5 -8
:Bored -6 -6
:Sexy -5.5 -6.5
:Adorable -6.5 -9.5
:Disgusting -6.5 -12.5
:Calm -7 -10
:Delicious -8 -13
:Obscene -6 -14
:Prosaic -10 -13.5
:Bemused -8.5 -14
:Apropos -10.5 -16
:Ambivalent -12 -17
:Improper -12.5 -18
:Evanescent -14 -14.5
:Piquant -9.5 never
:Jejune -9 never
:Kafkaesque -10 never
:Stochastic -14 never
:Fungible -12 never
:Peristeronic never never ("Of or pertaining to pigeons")
:[there are two small scenes in the bottom right of the plot. The first shows a pair of women holding wine glasses.]
:Second woman: Yes, the Cabernet is piquant as shit this time of year.
:[The second shows a person sitting at a computer desk.]
:Person: Whoa, these commodities are fucking fungible!

{{comic discussion}}

798: Adjectives

2013-02-01T21:37:35Z

Sudopeople: /* Explanation */ changed 'chart' to 'plot graph' or 'graph', added Wikipieda link to Plot_(graphics)

{{comic
| number = 798
| date = September 27, 2010
| title = Adjectives
| image = adjectives.png
| titletext = 'Fucking ineffable' sounds like someone remembering how to do self-censorship halfway through a phrase.
}}

==Explanation==
'''Comic 798''' is a {{w|Plot_(graphics)|plot graph}} comparing how often certain adjectives are used alone versus in the phrases ''"fucking [adjective]"'' and ''"[adjective] as shit"''. Plot data is based on Google search engine result count, or ''hits''. The graph's formula uses the {{w|natural logarithm}} of the hits for the obscene phrase divided by the hits for the adjective alone.

It's a social observation of linguistics pointing out that the use of everyday words (''eg. annoying, pissed, stupid'') with swear words is more common than with more arcane words (''eg. piquant, fungible''). The last two examples are each used in a sentence that one is not likely to overhear, but [[Randall]] has imagined as a way to justify their surprisingly high occurrence online.

The only word that's never found with obscenities and included in the graph is ''peristeronic''. Its definition ''("Of or pertaining to pigeons")'' is included due to its extreme obscurity.

The title text mocks the use of the word ''fucking'' in combination with ''ineffable'' since the colloquialism ''effing'' or ''F-ing'' is a way of censoring "the F-word", ''fuck''. The two used together resembles someone partially self-censoring the phrase "fucking unfuckable."

==Transcript==

:Frequency with which various adjectives are intensified with obscenities (based on Google hits)
:((The legend above the plot reads:))
:Red marker: "fucking ____"
:Blue marker: "____ as shit"
:((Mathematical formula for scale next to the legend:))
:Scale: ln(hits for intensified phrase hits for adjective alone)
:((The plot itself lists a series of adjectives in approximately descending order. Each has a red and a blue marker corresponding to the scale described.))
:((Horizontal axis starts with none, then has a vertical dashed line, then 'rarely' at -17, increasing to 'often' at -5.))
:((Each adjective is listed with approximate red and blue values, in that order.))
:Annoying -5 -5
:Pissed -5 -6
:Stupid -5 -8
:Bored -6 -6
:Sexy -5.5 -6.5
:Adorable -6.5 -9.5
:Disgusting -6.5 -12.5
:Calm -7 -10
:Delicious -8 -13
:Obscene -6 -14
:Prosaic -10 -13.5
:Bemused -8.5 -14
:Apropos -10.5 -16
:Ambivalent -12 -17
:Improper -12.5 -18
:Evanescent -14 -14.5
:Piquant -9.5 never
:Jejune -9 never
:Kafkaesque -10 never
:Stochastic -14 never
:Fungible -12 never
:Peristeronic never never ("Of or pertaining to pigeons")
:[there are two small scenes in the bottom right of the plot. The first shows a pair of women holding wine glasses.]
:Second woman: Yes, the Cabernet is piquant as shit this time of year.
:[The second shows a person sitting at a computer desk.]
:Person: Whoa, these commodities are fucking fungible!

{{comic discussion}}

798: Adjectives

2013-02-01T21:34:25Z

Sudopeople: Uploaded image, now trying to get it to show up...

{{comic
| number = 798
| date = September 27, 2010
| title = Adjectives
| image = adjectives.png
| titletext = 'Fucking ineffable' sounds like someone remembering how to do self-censorship halfway through a phrase.
}}

==Explanation==
'''Comic 798''' is a graph comparing how often certain adjectives are used alone versus in the phrases ''"fucking [adjective]"'' and ''"[adjective] as shit"''. Chart data is based on Google search engine result count, or ''hits''. The graph's formula uses the {{w|natural logarithm}} of the hits for the obscene phrase divided by the hits for the adjective alone.

It's a social observation of linguistics pointing out that the use of everyday words (''eg. annoying, pissed, stupid'') with swear words is more common than with more arcane words (''eg. piquant, fungible''). The last two examples are each used in a sentence that one is not likely to overhear, but [[Randall]] has imagined as a way to justify their surprisingly high occurrence online.

The only word that's never found with obscenities and included in the chart is ''peristeronic''. Its definition ''("Of or pertaining to pigeons")'' is included due to its extreme obscurity.

The title text mocks the use of the word ''fucking'' in combination with ''ineffable'' since the colloquialism ''effing'' or ''F-ing'' is a way of censoring "the F-word", ''fuck''. The two used together resembles someone partially self-censoring the phrase "fucking unfuckable."

==Transcript==

:Frequency with which various adjectives are intensified with obscenities (based on Google hits)
:((The legend above the plot reads:))
:Red marker: "fucking ____"
:Blue marker: "____ as shit"
:((Mathematical formula for scale next to the legend:))
:Scale: ln(hits for intensified phrase hits for adjective alone)
:((The plot itself lists a series of adjectives in approximately descending order. Each has a red and a blue marker corresponding to the scale described.))
:((Horizontal axis starts with none, then has a vertical dashed line, then 'rarely' at -17, increasing to 'often' at -5.))
:((Each adjective is listed with approximate red and blue values, in that order.))
:Annoying -5 -5
:Pissed -5 -6
:Stupid -5 -8
:Bored -6 -6
:Sexy -5.5 -6.5
:Adorable -6.5 -9.5
:Disgusting -6.5 -12.5
:Calm -7 -10
:Delicious -8 -13
:Obscene -6 -14
:Prosaic -10 -13.5
:Bemused -8.5 -14
:Apropos -10.5 -16
:Ambivalent -12 -17
:Improper -12.5 -18
:Evanescent -14 -14.5
:Piquant -9.5 never
:Jejune -9 never
:Kafkaesque -10 never
:Stochastic -14 never
:Fungible -12 never
:Peristeronic never never ("Of or pertaining to pigeons")
:[there are two small scenes in the bottom right of the plot. The first shows a pair of women holding wine glasses.]
:Second woman: Yes, the Cabernet is piquant as shit this time of year.
:[The second shows a person sitting at a computer desk.]
:Person: Whoa, these commodities are fucking fungible!

{{comic discussion}}