explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2119: Video Orientation

2019-03-05T10:33:24Z

XQx: changed "meet the needs of both types of user." to "equally dissatisfy both types of user."

{{comic
| number = 2119
| date = March 4, 2019
| title = Video Orientation
| image = video_orientation.png
| titletext = CIRCULAR VIDEO - PROS: Solves aspect ratio problem. CONS: Never trust anyone who talks to you from inside a circle.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This was created by a TRUSTWORTHY CIRCULAR VIDEO. Nothing about Bold and Dynamic. Bad dubious template. Better explanation on horizontal and vertical needed. DO NOT DELETE THIS TOO SOON (It already was once.)}}

This comic compares selected pros and cons of 3 video "orientations" (also known as angling), one of which is entirely made-up. This comic could have been inspired {{Dubious}} by articles like https://mashable.com/2017/12/28/vertical-video-mainstream-year/#GEK.NgJ74mqR, and https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/video-looks-most-natural-horizontally-but-we-hold-our-phones-vertically/, which comment on how videos are now filmed vertically through smartphones.

From Randall's comments on horizontal vs vertical, it seems that he is in favor of horizontal videos. However, he does love a good [[690|compromise]][[Category:Compromise]], so he suggests "Diagonal Orientation" as a third option to equally dissatisfy both types of user. The issue with this is that diagonal angling fails to fully capture the benefits of either horizontal or vertical angling.

'''Horizontal orientation'''
# Good for people not used to phones, and has been used for centuries for capturing video.
# Not the best at capturing a human's entire body, without also capturing much of their surroundings.
# Potentially uncomfortable for the one making the recording to maintain over a long period of time, as most phones were designed for vertical holding.

'''Vertical orientation'''
# The norm for most users capturing video on their smartphone.
# Not ideal for capturing the background, as our world is mostly a "horizontal plane".

'''Diagonal orientation'''
# Not a standard format of video, thus "bold and dynamic". {{Citation needed}}
# Equally annoying to all viewers.
# Flawless, as in perfect in every way.{{Dubious}}

Diagonal angling is commonly known as "oblique angle" or "{{w|Dutch angle}}" in cinema and is often used to portray psychological uneasiness or tension in the subject being filmed. This however, is different from the diagonal orientation, as the horizon on-screen is still horizontal in the comic image.

The title text quip about circular video would be a reference to having a demon trapped inside a summoning circle, hence not trusting anything that would be said to you.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[The image shows three columns by three rows with the following headers:]
:'''Video Orientation'''
:'''Pros'''
:'''Cons'''

:[First row:]
:[A wide picture with a text above:]
:Horizontal
:[Pros are:]
:*Looks normal to old people
:*Format used by a century of cinema
:[Cons are:]
:*Humans are taller than are wide
:*I'm not turning my phone sideways

:[Second row:]
:[A high picture with a text above:]
:Vertical
:[Pros are:]
:*How most normal people shoot and watch video now so we may as well accept it
:[Cons are:]
:*Human world is mostly a horizontal plane

:[Third row:]
:[A picture rotated by 45 degrees with a text above:]
:Diagonal
:[Pros are:]
:*Bold and dynamic
:*Equally annoying to all viewers
:*Good compromise
:[Cons are:]
:*None

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Compromise]]

Talk:1299: I Don't Own a TV

2013-12-05T01:05:24Z

XQx:

Annual Data for households between 1958-1970
http://www.tvhistory.tv/Annual_TV_Households_50-78.JPG

Plotted next to a fitted logarithmic function
http://imgur.com/aVWmQ9z

The negative second derivative of this function
http://imgur.com/xywpEJZ

If someone can find more data for television ownership I'd love to see it :) {{unsigned ip|‎173.245.54.12}}

Can someone explain why Randall believes smugness at not owning a television is decreasing? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.138|199.27.128.138]] 08:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Because as TVs become less relevant, people don't feel smug for not owning one. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.216|141.101.99.216]] 11:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

;Current explanation - logistic curve

The current explanation is total bullshit. The thing with the negative second derivative is just saying, that the more embarrased people are, the more the change of the TV ownership rate will increase, which just means, more and more people will get themselves TVs.
The other point of view is, the more smug you will look like for not owning a TV, the more the change of the TV ownership rate will decline, which means, that less and less people are buying TVs.

It has nothing to do with a logistic curve. The function, which second derivative is depicted in this comic is totally irrelevant.

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.19|108.162.231.19]] 08:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have the strong feeling he is talking about a sine wave, not a logistic function. It fits the curve in the comic as well as the condition of f"=-f.
Also, it makes way more sense for the smugness to behave like this over time as for the first 30 years TV is culturally extremely significant and you therefore would want to own one in order to participate. But with declining quality of television and the emergence of the internet you might feel as if you were extremely progressive by not owning one anymore.

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.189|108.162.254.189]] 09:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely could be a sine curve. (see: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=d%5E2%2Fdx%5E2%28sin%28x%29%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=d%5E2%2Fdx%5E2%28sin%28x%29%29]). If one would neglect the beginning of the function for simplicity, this could be a solution.

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.19|108.162.231.19]] 10:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We bid a tearful farewell to our friend the line break. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.216|141.101.99.216]] 11:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sin%283*pi*x%2F100%2Bpi%2F2%29+from+1945+to+2014 [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 12:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the commenter who said that the current explanation is bullshit, but I think he has the cause and effect reversed. Randall is saying that you feel more smug about not owning a TV as a result of observing how quickly TV ownership is becoming more or less trendy. In the 1950's, TV's were catching on quickly and becoming more popular, so you would feel embarrassed for not owning one. Later, the trendiness would start to decline as more people owned one, and you would head towards being smug. In the 2000s, people are giving up TVs because the internet makes them unnecessary. As this happens more and more, there's no point in feeling smug because you're no longer bucking a trend at all. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] ([[User talk:Kazim|talk]]) 12:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

In my view the title text joke is that smugness is defined as a function of TV ownership when in reality TV ownership is a function of smugness. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hold on, the logistic curve gives very reasonable graphs both for ownership of TVs and for the negative second derivative. TV ownership easily fits a logistic curve, as it starts at zero and has to approach some upper limit. The negative second derivative has a very similar shape to the graph in the comic. Here's Wolfram|Alpha for the negative second derivative of a generic logistic curve: <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-%28+d%2Fdx+d%2Fdx+%28100%2F%281%2Be%5E-%28.1x%29%29%29%29>. This would suggest that as time goes to infinity, people's feelings about TV ownership approach neutral; they do not oscillate like a sine function. This makes sense, because for the negative second derivative to be a sine function, TV ownership would have to be too, yet TV ownership is unlikely to be periodic. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.229|173.245.55.229]] 16:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have two issues with this explanation: the first is that it's too long to comfortably read, and I don't think the comic content merits such a long explanation. The other is that it reads too complexly. The point of this wiki is to make xkcd accessible for everyone, but it talks about things like sine waves, oscillation and convergence, which not all readers are going to grok. --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 17:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If we're keeping the explanation surrounding the area of "People therefore discussed television programs frequently, as a major social activity.", it maybe ought to be pointed out that major social discussions about TV programmes dropped off as a result of the increase in the number of TV channels and thus (except for ''particularly'' notable ratings-grabbers) the question of "Did you see what was on TV last night?" increasingly needed further qualifying. (However, I'm not sure this is revelevant.) Oh, and I've a feeling I should be feeling smug, right now. Absolutely gorge myself on radio, though. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 21:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence that this comic's title text refers in any way to a sine curve. If you consider a logistic function modeling TV ownership over time (which would look the similar to a logistic population growth model), you can take the function's second derivative, which vaguely resembles a sine curve, with the important difference that to the sides of the curve, the line becomes more level rather than repeating the curve. I would say the determining factors are the fact that the beginning of the graph is flat (as opposed to the curve just going to zero or showing the end of the previous curve), and the fact that he mentions the "negative second derivative of TV ownership rate," and the TV ownership rate would follow a model similar to a logistic population model, which is not a sine curve, though the second derivative of such a graph would, in fact, represent a sine curve. --[[User:Zweisteine|Zweisteine]] 21:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm coming in at the end of an edit war and pouring fuel on the argument, but I think the whole smugness/TV ownership / Programming comments are well made before the last paragraph. I'm confident that Randell's title text is a superficial comment about the shape of the graph. I've edited the last paragraph so there's no mention of sine waves, oscillation, convergence, or interpretation of where the graph starts or where it's going (that seems subjective to me). Just a link to what a "negative second derivative" is, and a statement that the comic resembles that chart. [[User:XQx|XQx]] ([[User talk:XQx|talk]]) 01:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1299: I Don't Own a TV

2013-12-05T01:02:52Z

XQx:

Annual Data for households between 1958-1970
http://www.tvhistory.tv/Annual_TV_Households_50-78.JPG

Plotted next to a fitted logarithmic function
http://imgur.com/aVWmQ9z

The negative second derivative of this function
http://imgur.com/xywpEJZ

If someone can find more data for television ownership I'd love to see it :) {{unsigned ip|‎173.245.54.12}}

Can someone explain why Randall believes smugness at not owning a television is decreasing? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.138|199.27.128.138]] 08:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Because as TVs become less relevant, people don't feel smug for not owning one. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.216|141.101.99.216]] 11:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

;Current explanation - logistic curve

The current explanation is total bullshit. The thing with the negative second derivative is just saying, that the more embarrased people are, the more the change of the TV ownership rate will increase, which just means, more and more people will get themselves TVs.
The other point of view is, the more smug you will look like for not owning a TV, the more the change of the TV ownership rate will decline, which means, that less and less people are buying TVs.

It has nothing to do with a logistic curve. The function, which second derivative is depicted in this comic is totally irrelevant.

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.19|108.162.231.19]] 08:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have the strong feeling he is talking about a sine wave, not a logistic function. It fits the curve in the comic as well as the condition of f"=-f.
Also, it makes way more sense for the smugness to behave like this over time as for the first 30 years TV is culturally extremely significant and you therefore would want to own one in order to participate. But with declining quality of television and the emergence of the internet you might feel as if you were extremely progressive by not owning one anymore.

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.189|108.162.254.189]] 09:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely could be a sine curve. (see: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=d%5E2%2Fdx%5E2%28sin%28x%29%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=d%5E2%2Fdx%5E2%28sin%28x%29%29]). If one would neglect the beginning of the function for simplicity, this could be a solution.

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.19|108.162.231.19]] 10:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We bid a tearful farewell to our friend the line break. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.216|141.101.99.216]] 11:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sin%283*pi*x%2F100%2Bpi%2F2%29+from+1945+to+2014 [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 12:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the commenter who said that the current explanation is bullshit, but I think he has the cause and effect reversed. Randall is saying that you feel more smug about not owning a TV as a result of observing how quickly TV ownership is becoming more or less trendy. In the 1950's, TV's were catching on quickly and becoming more popular, so you would feel embarrassed for not owning one. Later, the trendiness would start to decline as more people owned one, and you would head towards being smug. In the 2000s, people are giving up TVs because the internet makes them unnecessary. As this happens more and more, there's no point in feeling smug because you're no longer bucking a trend at all. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] ([[User talk:Kazim|talk]]) 12:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

In my view the title text joke is that smugness is defined as a function of TV ownership when in reality TV ownership is a function of smugness. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hold on, the logistic curve gives very reasonable graphs both for ownership of TVs and for the negative second derivative. TV ownership easily fits a logistic curve, as it starts at zero and has to approach some upper limit. The negative second derivative has a very similar shape to the graph in the comic. Here's Wolfram|Alpha for the negative second derivative of a generic logistic curve: <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-%28+d%2Fdx+d%2Fdx+%28100%2F%281%2Be%5E-%28.1x%29%29%29%29>. This would suggest that as time goes to infinity, people's feelings about TV ownership approach neutral; they do not oscillate like a sine function. This makes sense, because for the negative second derivative to be a sine function, TV ownership would have to be too, yet TV ownership is unlikely to be periodic. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.229|173.245.55.229]] 16:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have two issues with this explanation: the first is that it's too long to comfortably read, and I don't think the comic content merits such a long explanation. The other is that it reads too complexly. The point of this wiki is to make xkcd accessible for everyone, but it talks about things like sine waves, oscillation and convergence, which not all readers are going to grok. --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 17:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If we're keeping the explanation surrounding the area of "People therefore discussed television programs frequently, as a major social activity.", it maybe ought to be pointed out that major social discussions about TV programmes dropped off as a result of the increase in the number of TV channels and thus (except for ''particularly'' notable ratings-grabbers) the question of "Did you see what was on TV last night?" increasingly needed further qualifying. (However, I'm not sure this is revelevant.) Oh, and I've a feeling I should be feeling smug, right now. Absolutely gorge myself on radio, though. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 21:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence that this comic's title text refers in any way to a sine curve. If you consider a logistic function modeling TV ownership over time (which would look the similar to a logistic population growth model), you can take the function's second derivative, which vaguely resembles a sine curve, with the important difference that to the sides of the curve, the line becomes more level rather than repeating the curve. I would say the determining factors are the fact that the beginning of the graph is flat (as opposed to the curve just going to zero or showing the end of the previous curve), and the fact that he mentions the "negative second derivative of TV ownership rate," and the TV ownership rate would follow a model similar to a logistic population model, which is not a sine curve, though the second derivative of such a graph would, in fact, represent a sine curve. --[[User:Zweisteine|Zweisteine]] 21:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm fueling an edit war, but I think the whole smugness/TV ownership / Programming comments are well made before the last paragraph. I'm confident that Randell's title text is a superficial comment about the shape of the graph. I've edited the last paragraph so there's no mention of sine waves, oscillation, convergence or any of that. Just a link to what a "negative second derivative" is, and a statement that the comic resembles that chart. [[User:XQx|XQx]] ([[User talk:XQx|talk]]) 01:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

1299: I Don't Own a TV

2013-12-05T00:59:29Z

XQx: The last paragraph had lost all meaning due to successive edits and was just repeating what is previously said. Reverted to a simple comment about the title text resembling a negative second derivative graph. (ie. no sine wave mention.)

{{comic
| number = 1299
| date = December 4, 2013
| title = I Don't Own a TV
| image = i_dont_own_a_tv.png
| titletext = Theory: Smugness is proportional to the negative second derivative of TV ownership rate with respect to time.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete | needs further information}}

This comic is a [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Charts yet another] graph, describing how people who don't own a television feel, throughout several time periods. While televisions have existed since 1928, regular scheduled broadcasts of television programs did not begin until the late 1940s. So before the 1950s, it was common not to own a television and therefore most people's feelings about it would be fairly neutral. This changed as televisions became cheaper and more people started owning televisions, meaning that if someone didn't own a television, it was generally because they couldn't afford one. This might lead to someone feeling embarrassment when admitting they don't have a television. But gradually, television ownership increased until eventually, nearly every household had at least one television, and those that did not were more and more likely to do so by choice rather than due to poverty. The graph therefore peaks at around the year 2000, when many people would be proud to say that they did not own a television. Randall is suggesting that these people would feel smug because they are resisting a popular trend (owning a television,) which the rest of the public take part in. The graph tails downwards at the end, suggesting that Randall believes that people are becoming less smug. This could be because of the abundance of video content on the internet and mobile devices, especially from locations such as YouTube, Netflix and iTunes. So, according to Randall, people are returning to not owning a television simply because it's not necessary and these people therefore feel neutral towards their lack of a television.

The initial upturn from embarrassment to smugness may also be a commentary on the quality of television programs over that period of time. In the 1950s and 1960s, television was a major source of news and information. People therefore discussed television programs frequently, as a major social activity. The limited number of stations and lack of recording devices meant that people tended to watch the same programs at the same time, meaning that those who had missed out on those programs might feel socially "out of the loop".

By contrast, by 2000, many programs were criticized as poor quality or "mindless", e.g. daytime talk shows such as Jerry Springer, and reality shows. So, someone might feel more smug for not watching so-called "mindless television". Similarly, as television viewership increased from the 1950s through the 2000s, it is possible that other activities such as reading has decreased; especially given that the younger generation today don't remember a time without television. So, someone who did not own a television set might feel more smug because they take part in more "beneficial" activities like reading, exercise, and studying.

The title text "smugness is proportional to the negative second derivative of TV ownership rate with respect to time" refers to the fact that the resulting chart closely resembles a generic negative [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_derivative second derivative] graph, with the theoretical input values of TV ownership as (''f'') against time.

==Transcript==
:[A graph is shown with an x- and y-axis.]
:How people feel when they say
:"I don't own a TV"
:<small>by year</small>
:[The x-axis is labled: 1950, 2000, today.]
:[The y-axis is labled ''neutral'' at zero, ''smug'' at top, and ''embarrassed'' to the bottom.]
:[A negative sine curve is shown in red, starting at 1950, moving into negative values, reaching the zero level again at the beginning of the 1980s, reaching its maximum shortly after 2000, and decreasing again until today. An arrow shows the current direction.]

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

1091: Curiosity

2012-08-07T05:27:48Z

XQx: /* Description */

{{comic
| number = 1091
| date = August 6, 2012
| title = Curiosity
| image = Curiosity.png
| imagesize =
| titletext = As of this writing the NASA/JPL websites are still overloaded. Trying CURIOSITY-REAR-CAM_[256px_x_256px].torrent.SwEsUb.DVDRip.XviD-aXXo.jpg instead.
}}

== Description ==

This comic is a reference to the {{w|Curiosity rover|NASA Mars Rover "Curiosity"}} landing on Mars on August 5, 2012 at 10:31pm PDT (August 6, 2012 at 5:31am GMT). NASA live-streamed the landing, but demand for the feed caused server issues. Thus, the time spent trying to download the landing images could be used as an excuse for things such as being late for work, falling asleep during the day, or just about anything demanding one's attention.

The image text is a reference to {{w|Torrent file|torrents}}, which are a more resilient way to download files, due to the decentralized BitTorrent protocol, where the more people there are downloading a file, the more available it is. The name is a play on the file naming convention of release groups who name their files containing data on the file; language (SwEsUb = Swedish subtitles), source (DVDRip = Ripped from DVD), encoding (XviD = XviD codec) and group name ({{w|Axxo|aXXo}} = aXXo, a well known DVD movie releaser). Given that the filename is loaded with keywords that are irrelevant for a still image file, it is unlikely that this torrent will contain the expected pictures.

[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/msl5.html The first images received from Curiosity] via the {{w|2001 Mars Odyssey|Odyssey}} orbiter were low-resolution thumbnails taken from the rover's rear-facing camera, thus the file name CURIOSITY-REAR-CAM_[256px_x_256px].

{{Comic discussion}}

Talk:1091: Curiosity

2012-08-07T05:24:44Z

XQx:

I've already used that excuse today because I '''was''' up at 5:30 am (UK time) to watch it! Amazing. --[[User:SteveBell|SteveBell]] ([[User talk:SteveBell|talk]]) 11:50, 6 August 2012‎ (UTC)

I think the torrent name may also allude to the possibility of ambush porn...? [[User:Zzyss|Zzyss]] ([[User talk:Zzyss|talk]]) 12:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

: The following text was in the explanation, but was {{diff|4841|removed}} as vandalism: "Additionally, since this seems to be 256px_x_256px and has a "jpg" file extension it can be assumed that this is low quality image, not a video, and in all likelihood this is a reference to some sort of colonoscopy photo or something much much worse." Perhaps it has a point, but we could be seeing too far into it. --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 15:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The presence of video-related data in the filename of an image (jpg) suggests it's a screenshot of a video. That, along with the Swedish subtitles, does seem to suggest that it is not in fact the mars lander "curiosity" but is perhaps an alternative "rear camera" that has been made available for people's "curiosity". --[[User:Mbread|Mbread]] ([[User talk:Mbread|talk]]) 14:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

:: There does seem to be a hint of a pornography reference in there.... --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 16:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
::: Seems like if Randall tries that Torrent he's going to get a LOT more than he bargained for. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 16:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
:::The torrent itself, listed at http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/404794105/?tab=summary seems to have a baker's dozen files of black and white images that look to be "legit" and not pornography related. [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 17:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
::::So then what is the point of the title text? Is there no joke, and he's just sharing an alternate file in case others are trying to see the image?--[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 17:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::It's quite possible that someone created the torrent after the comic was released. That would explain the unrelated name (DVDrip, etc) --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 00:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The actual filename for the first image is not as colorful :-) http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/673528main_PIA15971_full.jpg [[User:Mem|mem]] ([[User talk:Mem|talk]]) 15:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think another part of the explanation is the sheer awesomeness of a robot lowered down to Mars using a Skycrane sending us photos that we can download. The way it's written it sounds like a totally made up excuse - and the joke is that it is actually true.
[[User:Crenz|Crenz]] ([[User talk:Crenz|talk]])

It is common for people to upload fake copies of popular files prior to their release on TV/Cinema - usually to try to get people download an ad-infested codec, or to click an ad-sponsored link. Often when they do, they fill the name full of keywords, so people searching for "aXXo" or "DVDRip" or "SWESubs" will find the dodgy release. I think Randall was making a joke about this, because that the file-name, suggesting a DVD Rip in xvid format, released by aXXo with Swedish subtitles is completely inappropriate for a .jpg file. [[User:XQx|XQx]] ([[User talk:XQx|talk]]) 05:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1089: Internal Monologue

2012-08-02T09:35:10Z

XQx:

This is a common anxiety for geek types, who stereotypically are not very skilled in navigating social situations like parties. It can become a vicious cycle where the fear of handling the encounter badly makes one even more uncomfortable which results in behaving as awkwardly as they first feared.
Also, for many geek type personalities, it's common to want to map out a pre-planned course of action that should produce desired results. A strategy that is usually doomed to failure when dealing with sufficiently complex and unpredictable scenarios... like conversations with other people.
This painful, and all too common situation has been mined for comedic effect since the beginning of human civilization.

:I copied this into the article. [[User:Bugefun|Bugefun]] ([[User talk:Bugefun|talk]]) 19:58, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

== Discussion From Comments ==
Joe Green - Yes I like the participatory and discursive nature of the comments.
Also in this instance I find myself wondering why Cueball is hoping that OtherCueball “doesn’t ask me what his name is”. That would be a very strange thing to ask. Well, except in the form “do/don’t you know who I am?”
:BigMal - It’s more like “I know he introduced him/herself earlier, but I already forgot, and he probably remembers my name, so if he asks me to recall his name I’d be caught (and embarrassed)!”
::Joe Green - “if he asks me to recall his name” Well yes, but I just thought that was an unlikely thing for someone to do in such a direct way. Cueball *could* end up being embarrassed in that kind of way though if a friend of his joined the conversation and he wanted to introduce OtherCueball.
:::Harm - My solution to situations like that is something like “Go on, introduce yourselves,” and then standing back.

Talk:1089: Internal Monologue

2012-08-02T09:28:30Z

XQx: /* Discussion */ new section

This is a common anxiety for geek types, who stereotypically are not very skilled in navigating social situations like parties. It can become a vicious cycle where the fear of handling the encounter badly makes one even more uncomfortable which results in behaving as awkwardly as they first feared.
Also, for many geek type personalities, it's common to want to map out a pre-planned course of action that should produce desired results. A strategy that is usually doomed to failure when dealing with sufficiently complex and unpredictable scenarios... like conversations with other people.
This painful, and all too common situation has been mined for comedic effect since the beginning of human civilization.

:I copied this into the article. [[User:Bugefun|Bugefun]] ([[User talk:Bugefun|talk]]) 19:58, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

== Discussion ==

Joe Green
August 1st, 2012
Yes I like the participatory and discursive nature of the comments.
Also in this instance I find myself wondering why Cueball is hoping that OtherCueball “doesn’t ask me what his name is”. That would be a very strange thing to ask. Well, except in the form “do/don’t you know who I am?”
( REPLY )

+2 BigMal
August 1st, 2012
It’s more like “I know he introduced him/herself earlier, but I already forgot, and he probably remembers my name, so if he asks me to recall his name I’d be caught (and embarrassed)!”
( REPLY )

Joe Green
August 1st, 2012
“if he asks me to recall his name”
Well yes, but I just thought that was an unlikely thing for someone to do in such a direct way.
Cueball *could* end up being embarrassed in that kind of way though if a friend of his joined the conversation and he wanted to introduce OtherCueball.
( REPLY )

Harm
August 2nd, 2012
My solution to situations like that is something like “Go on, introduce yourselves,” and then standing back.