https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=108.162.216.114&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T06:09:24ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2445:_Checkbox&diff=2094332445: Checkbox2021-04-02T00:45:30Z<p>108.162.216.114: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2445<br />
| date = April 1, 2021<br />
| title = Checkbox<br />
| image = checkbox.gif<br />
| titletext = Check check check ... chhecck chhecck chhecck ... check check check<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a CHECKBOX. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}} <br />
This is an April Fools comic that looks similar to a loading screen. The actual comic (this “loading screen”) consists of a gif of a checkbox (hence the name). <br />
<br />
The frame is replaced with an interactive panel. In the centre is a check box, which clears itself immediately when checked. In the bottom right is a mute button, which begins muted.<br />
<br />
Under the checkbox is a scrolling visual representation of the timing and duration of clicks in the check box, which also produce matching beeping sounds when unmuted.<br />
<br />
By varying between brief and long presses, and brief and long intervals between presses, it is possible to enter characters in Morse Code.<br />
<br />
The title text hints at the use of Morse Code in the comic; interpreting the "check" as a Morse Code dot and the "chhecck" as a Morse Code dash gives ...---..., which is the Morse Code for "SOS", the international distress signal. Incidentally, inputting the SOS signal gives "YOU TOO?".<br />
<br />
The check box then begins operating by itself, producing sounds which can be decoded as Morse Code.<br />
<br />
For the majority of inputs, the check box responds with 'WHAT'. Some keywords have special responses.<br />
<br />
===Special Responses===<br />
[.s are short presses, -s are long presses, and /s are spaces (just for readability)]<br />
<br />
xkcd -> FILE NOT FOUND<br />
<br />
[-..- -.- -.-. -..]<br />
<br />
SOS -> YOU TOO?<br />
<br />
[... --- ...]<br />
<br />
HI -> HELLO! ANYBODY OUT THERE?<br />
<br />
[.... ..]<br />
<br />
HELLO -> HELLO TO YOU TOO!<br />
<br />
[.... . .-.. .-.. ---]<br />
<br />
HELP -> YES PLEASE<br />
<br />
[.... . .-.. .--.]<br />
<br />
WHAT -> ECHO<br />
<br />
[.-- .... .- -]<br />
<br />
ECHO -> ECHO<br />
<br />
[. -.-. .... ---]<br />
<br />
CHECK -> MATE<br />
<br />
[-.-. .... . -.-. -.-]<br />
<br />
MORSE -> SAY AGAIN<br />
<br />
[-- --- .-. ... .]<br />
<br />
AGAIN -> COME AGAIN<br />
<br />
[.- --. .- .. -.]<br />
<br />
E (''repeat n times'') -> E (''repeat n times'')<br />
<br />
[.]<br />
<br />
EEEEE -> AAAAA<br />
<br />
[. . . . .]<br />
<br />
T (''repeat n times'') -> T (''repeat n times'')<br />
<br />
[-]<br />
<br />
WHO ARE YOU -> SOJOURNER<br />
<br />
[.-- .... --- / .- .-. . / -.-- --- ..-]<br />
<br />
<br />
CQ -> CQD DE SOJ<br />
<br />
[-.-. --.-]<br />
<br />
SOJOURNER -> CFM (short for Confirm)<br />
<br />
[... --- .--- --- ..- .-. -. . .-.]<br />
<br />
QUIET -> (turns the volume off)<br />
<br />
[--.- ..- .. . -]<br />
<br />
MUTE -> (turns the volume off)<br />
<br />
[-- ..- - .]<br />
<br />
BEEP -> (turns the volume on)<br />
<br />
[-... . . .--.]<br />
<br />
QRS -> (reduces playback speed)<br />
<br />
[--.- .-. ...]<br />
<br />
QRQ -> (increases playback speed)<br />
<br />
[--.- .-. --.-]<br />
<br />
QRA -> QRA SOJOURNER<br />
<br />
[--.- .-. .-]<br />
<br />
QRB -> QRB 264 MILLION KM<br />
<br />
[--.- .-. -…]<br />
<br />
QRH -> QRH 0.652 METERS<br />
<br />
[--.- .-. ....]<br />
<br />
QRG -> QRG PATHFINDER<br />
<br />
[--.- .-. --.]<br />
<br />
QRZ -> QRZ SOJOURNER<br />
<br />
[--.- .-. --..]<br />
<br />
QTH -> QTH ARES VALLIS<br />
<br />
[--.- - ....]<br />
<br />
QSL -> QSL<br />
<br />
[--.- ... .-..]<br />
<br />
ET -> PHONE HOME<br />
<br />
[. -]<br />
<br />
LS -> DID YOU MEAN DIR<br />
<br />
DIR -> ENTER IMAGE NUMBER<br />
<br />
(any number <=2445) -> (loads xkcd comic in new tab)<br />
<br />
MAKE ME A SANDWICH -> NOT A CHANCE<br />
<br />
[-- .- -.- . / -- . / .- / ... .- -. -.. .-- .. -.-. ….]<br />
<br />
SUDO MAKE ME A SANDWICH -> NOT POSSIBLE HERE<br />
<br />
[... ..- -.. --- / -- .- -.- . / -- . / .- / ... .- -. -.. .-- .. -.-. ....]<br />
<br />
F -> DID YOU MEAN FORTUNE<br />
<br />
[..-.]<br />
<br />
FORTUNE -> NEVER FEAR THE END OF SOMETHING MARKS THE START OF SOMETHING NEW<br />
<br />
FORTUNE -> OPEN ME<br />
<br />
[..-. --- .-. - ..- -. .]<br />
<br />
OPEN -> YOUR DREAMS ARE NEVER SILLY DEPEND ON THEM TO GUIDE YOU<br />
<br />
[--- .--. . -.]<br />
<br />
<nowiki />:) -> :D<br />
<br />
[---... -.--.-]<br />
<br />
<nowiki />:( -> :C<br />
<br />
[---... -.--.]<br />
<br />
<nowiki />;) -> :O<br />
<br />
[-.-.-. -.--.-]<br />
<br />
<nowiki />:O -> :X<br />
<br />
[---... ---]<br />
<br />
UWU -> OWO<br />
<br />
[..- .-- ..-]<br />
<br />
OWO -> UWU<br />
<br />
[--- .-- ---]<br />
<br />
STATUS -> RADIO ONLINE, MOTOR ONLINE, UNILATERAL PHASE DETRACTOR UNPOWERED, CARDINAL GRAMMETER UNSYNCHRONIZED<br />
<br />
[... - .- - ..- ...]<br />
<br />
UNIX -> (''Opens [https://uni.xkcd.com uni.xkcd.com]'')<br />
<br />
[..- -. .. -..-]<br />
<br />
GET YE FLASK -> YE WISH! IF THERE WAS A FLASK IN THIS GAME, WE'D KNOW ABOUT IT.<br />
<br />
[--. . - / -.-- . / ..-. .-.. .- ... -.-]<br />
<br />
YOUTUBE -> RXJKDH1KZ0W ''(Note: video ID for [https://youtu.be/RXJKdh1KZ0w Rockwell Retro Encabulator])''<br />
<br />
[-.-- --- ..- - ..- -... .]<br />
<br />
HAHA -> SAY AGAIN<br />
<br />
[.... .- .... .-]<br />
<br />
SAY AGAIN -> NOT FOLLOWING<br />
<br />
[... .- -.-- / .- --. .- .. -.]<br />
<br />
AGAIN -> COME AGAIN<br />
<br />
[.- --. .- .. -.]<br />
<br />
I LOVE YOU -> TRY THAT AGAIN<br />
<br />
[.. / .-.. --- ...- . / -.-- --- ..-]<br />
<br />
YO -> YO<br />
[-.-- ---]<br />
<br />
DROP TABLE -> HAHA NO<br />
[.... .- .... .- / -. ---]<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
Loading...<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Interactive comics]]<br />
[[Category:April fools' comics]]</div>108.162.216.114https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2313:_Wrong_Times_Table&diff=192696Talk:2313: Wrong Times Table2020-05-29T22:04:05Z<p>108.162.216.114: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
Such an illogical table. Smaller numbers multiply to larger answers than larger numbers? Even numbers multiply to odd numbers?! How?!?! What sort of illiterate alien declared this to be the multiplication table?! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.101|108.162.221.101]] 20:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This is easily one of the worst XKCD comics, period. Not funny, nor clever. Just seems like noise. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.183|172.69.68.183]] 20:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)<br />
:I suspect Randall may have just been feeling random, perhaps after several months of mostly Coronavirus-related comics. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)<br />
::That's fair, I'm being a bit harsh, but this just comes across as exceptionally meaningless and contrived, so much so that I felt the need to come here and comment immediately for the first time ever [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.56|172.69.71.56]] 21:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)<br />
:I relate to certain mathematical facts not sounding right, like how 54 intuitively feels like it's divisible by 4. Nonsensical, but makes sense anyway. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.233|162.158.62.233]] 21:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This seems like the multiplication equivalent of looking at a word and thinking it is spelled incorrectly. Sometimes I look at a simple word like "fish" and think: "That can't be right." Sometimes multiplication can feel that way, particularly 7's because those were tricky for some reason. The alt text confirms fishiness with 7's [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.173|108.162.246.173]] 21:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)<br />
:Is it weird that I ''don't'' get this? I have this sense of "that is obviously wrong" when it comes to multiplication of small numbers like these, even with sevens and eights. If I read that 7 * 8 = 54, my brain screams "NOOOOOOOOO IT IS 56 YOU IDIOT!". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.101|108.162.221.101]] 21:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Well, 2,2 that's actually 2^3=8. 2,3 is addition instead of multiplication. 1,2 is division instead of multiplication. 1,1 is subtraction. 10,10 seems to be a visual gag, though most of the 10s row is either multiplication by 11 or 12... There's some logic to some of these, but it's different for each row, column, or cell. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.167|162.158.74.167]] 21:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)<br />
:Yeah, there is something going on. It looks like a lot of it is remembering the correct answer to a different problem. By my count 55 squares are the correct answer to a square next to it and 31 have a correct answer for somewhere else on the grid. Also, 2*2, 4*4 and 5*5 are double the correct answer.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.76|108.162.245.76]] 21:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's almost disappointing that he didn't hide one or two asymmetries in there just to throw us off! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.114|108.162.216.114]] 22:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)</div>108.162.216.114https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1585:_Similarities&diff=102752Talk:1585: Similarities2015-10-02T15:08:24Z<p>108.162.216.114: </p>
<hr />
<div>;Origins<br />
<br />
I've heard 50 Shades of Grey started out as Twilight fan fiction, but don't know how The Martian came to be. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.115|108.162.216.115]] 05:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
-- Still missing from the explanation is what kind of brand ''The Martian'' is about... -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.217|162.158.114.217]] 08:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)<br />
:NASA? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.238|108.162.229.238]] 08:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)<br />
:A Mars bar? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.65|141.101.98.65]] 09:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)<br />
:I'm going with NASA. --[[User:PsyMar|PsyMar]] ([[User talk:PsyMar|talk]]) 09:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: It is Twilight fan-fiction. The original version is still availble for free. They just renamed the characters and removed references to Christian being a sparkling vampire and published it as a new book.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.115.22|162.158.115.22]] 08:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Allegedly removed by the author, first from the fan fiction sites and then her personal site just prior to publication! And you're right, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/02/11/the-most-scandalous-part-of-fifty-shades-of-grey-isnt-the-sex-and-bondage/ the original is 89% similar to the published trilogy]. Names have been changed to protect the author from legal battles, and [http://www.avclub.com/article/holy-crow-fifty-shades-grey-crazy-similar-its-twil-215185 crucial changes from "holy cow" to "holy crap"] were also made.<br />
::[http://www.literarykiss.com/2012/10/communication-in-fifty-shades-of-trey.html I even found a few graphs about its literary horror and crap references, for people like me who are easily amused. Unfortunately it's so bizarre I'm feeling the effects of Poe's law here. Is it really that bad, or is this some parody? I'll never read the books to find out. --[[User:Fedora-tionOfPlanets|Fedora-tionOfPlanets]] ([[User talk:Fedora-tionOfPlanets|talk]]) 11:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I believe Ponytail is not terrified by suggested title. That's more like she thinksthat Cueball will almost certainly read it and dares him to say otherwise. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.53|141.101.80.53]] 11:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)<br />
: I agree; the ''tell'' is italicized, and that emphasis indicates she's using an American idiom to indicate her enthusiasm for the idea. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.143|108.162.219.143]] 12:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: To clarify: in English (American?) slang there are two ways to use "tell me you didn't/wouldn't X".<br />
:A) "(''please/AUGH'') tell me you didn't X" can be translated as "I am horrified to think you did/would-do X, please reassure me you didn't/wouldn't do it:" (usually preceded by a pleading "please" or some exclamation of horror): "please tell me you didn't cross the streams", "ARGH! Please tell me you didn't tell Blackhatguy my email-address, living address and greatest fear!"<br />
:B) (smugly/challenging) "tell my you didn't/wouldn't X" would be translated as "I know you well enough to be 99% sure that you actually _did_/_would_ do X, and I really enjoy your blushing right now because you realise I caught you red-handed, but you cannot lie about it to deny me": "Oh dear Randall, tell me you wouldn't watch a debate between the reanimated corpses of Feynman and Einstein. *Randall blushes in guilty admission* Haha I knew you would"<br />
:[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.193|162.158.90.193]] 12:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I agree, that was my reading of it too. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.141|108.162.221.141]] 12:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I also agree that she thinks it's a great book idea, I made the change. Not sure how I like the wording I jsed so please edit. [[User:Bbruzzo|Bbruzzo]] ([[User talk:Bbruzzo|talk]]) 12:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Considering the timing, I wouldn't be surprised if Randall did indeed saw the movie, but had the comics ready in advance and after the movie only added the title and published it. So the part about him not liking the movie based on comics is unfounded. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It also seems like pure speculation. Is Randall's opinion on Fifty Shades of Grey even known? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.114|108.162.216.114]] 15:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is the sojourner used to communicate in the movie? It seems like it is just kept around to beetle around the hah module and the Lander is used for comms. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.180|141.101.98.180]]IB<br />
<br />
Curiously, in Italian the third book of the series (fifty shades freed) has been actually translated as "Fifty Shades of Red". --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.23.193|162.158.23.193]] 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)</div>108.162.216.114https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1325:_Rejection&diff=80590Talk:1325: Rejection2014-12-11T15:35:57Z<p>108.162.216.114: </p>
<hr />
<div>Ugh Randall. Your presumption that the woman is acting fully rational because people act rational, is countered by the fact that you believe the guy in front of you is not acting rational. Can't you just admit for once that all people act irrational. The guy complaining could very well be right about the particular girl he is talking about. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.114|108.162.216.114]] 15:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How do we know which one is Cueball and which one is “guy”?<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.119|108.162.254.119]] 08:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I was wondering the same thing. Is there some kind of assumption that Cueball is always the "smart" stick figure? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.65|108.162.254.65]] 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Cueball has a bigger head. Please notice the difference. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.240|103.22.201.240]] 14:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First of all we dont know that the first guy has been recently rejected, that is actually an assumption made by the second guy. Also, the "they choose jerks over nice guys" argument is wrong not because it lacks judgement and self awareness, it is wrong because it belittles the woman's judgement and self-awareness. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.105|108.162.254.105]] 08:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the first guy is a jerk and the girl rejected him because he's a jerk. The second guy is quite blatantly pointing out that the first guy's a jerk, but the first guy is so self-absorbed that he just doesn't get it - and probably never will. This is indicates a personality disorder/character flaw. The first guy is incapable of accepting that he is a jerk and therefore has to blame the girl by falling back on a cliche about girls only wanting nice guys. This is OK for the first guy because he thinks nice guys are losers.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.9|108.162.229.9]] 09:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Uhm... Some of the above may be correct - but not the last sentences. The first guy thinks he is a nice guy, and he is about to use this to explain why he has been rejected since girls only say they want nice guys but really want something else. She probably doesn't want a jerk! But may rather go for a sporty/strong/hansom type without considering how nice he is. So the guy she chooses may or may not be nice to her (and may even be a real jerk). All this is of course just part of the stereotyping of women. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm having trouble editing the article. I am trying to change the explanation to:<br />
<br />
In popular culture women supposedly go for jerks instead of "nice guys". The guy on the left in this picture is frustrated and complaining as he has just been (presumably) rejected by a girl, and thinks it's because he's the "nice guy" type. However, there are many other reasons why a woman might reject a guy who isn't a jerk. (Though this guy just might be a jerk.) Cueball is trying to tell this guy that there are many, more complicated, reasons, and that saying "women don't like nice guys" and presuming to know what women "really want" is showing a rejection of that woman's agency, which might be the real that reason she rejected him.<br />
<br />
The Alt Text continues the "conversation", with Cueball implying that he believes that the first guy is bad at taking hints, offering a sarcastic "crash course" in hint taking, with Cueball outright saying that he is trying to end the conversation while the first guys continues to follow him.<br />
<br />
but it won't save. Can someone help me or copy/paste my changes themselves? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.77|173.245.50.77]] 10:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Nevermind. Found the captcha check while posting the above. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.77|173.245.50.77]] 10:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
::Dear 173.245.50.77, You could create a userid and login -- that way your explanation would also appear in the history nicely with your name against it [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 14:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's about "negging" by pick-up-artists. See http://xkcd.com/1027 The theory is that putting a woman down somehow makes her more attracted to you. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.216|108.162.222.216]] 11:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)DivePeak<br />
<br />
:Exactly, "Nice guys" is a pick up artist phrase, especially in conjunction with the "what women really want" type of line. One of the techniques they use is "negging" which is exactly what Cueball describes. It isn't about being passive-aggressive. Very often they constitute the "[http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html missing stair]" in a group. --[[User:Ioldanach|Ioldanach]] ([[User talk:Ioldanach|talk]]) 13:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What is particularly interesting is the assumption by Randall that ALL woman are self aware enough to know what they really want in a man. The cartoon generalizes that self proclaimed "nice guys" are in error and whining needlessly and cluelessly about their situation. But it is this exact sort of generalization that has lead to the popular cultural conception of woman going for "jerks" over "nice guys."<br />
In reality, there are men who are rejected by woman who have poor judgement in men, as well as men who perceive themselves to be "nice guys" but do not have the introspection and awareness to respect a woman's judgement, even if it could be poor. [[User:Tardyon|Tardyon]] ([[User talk:Tardyon|talk]]) 14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In fairness, if your judgment is poor your judgement shouldn't be respected regardless of gender. It should be pointed out to you, such as is happening here. That being said the primary issue the generalization."Guy" can speak about only one person, the woman he knows. And it'd still be estimation, but it'd probably be a deeper insight into the girl than all women everywhere. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.170|199.27.128.170]] 17:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Rheios<br />
<br />
Consider a parallel comic: "Harvard says they want well-rounded students, but what they really want are - " "Applicants who respond to rejection letters by belittling Harvard's judgment?" Suddenly it's not so amusing.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.39|108.162.219.39]] 20:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Suddenly? I actually find that equally amusing. Your parallel is a bit off thou, as guy talks about women generally rather than a specific one, so rather than Harvard it would be universities and then cueball's response would be more helpful, as in that guys current response won't help him and perhaps he need to self analyze to find out why he failed and change to do better with the next application (or woman).[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.96|199.27.128.96]] 16:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I actually don't see your point. Are you saying Harvard doesn't want well-rounded students? I'm sure they do; if you go there with a 5.0 GPA but nothing else to recommend you, you probably won't get in, and if you do get in you won't be successful.<br />
<br />
When girls say they want "nice guys", they want someone who will treat them well. What would something like that look like to Harvard? Maybe - someone who respects the institution, the staff and the property, someone who won't plagiarize, who won't use the facilities for illegal or unethical activities. Someone who isn't going there just so they can say "I'm going to Harvard". Can you measure these things ahead of time? No, probably not. Even if you could measure them, by themselves, would they make you attractive to Harvard, or likely to succeed there? No, they would not. Harvard wants intelligent, well-rounded, hard-working individuals who can actually demonstrate that they are worthy of acceptance. So yes, of course they want "nice guys", but that doesn't mean shit unless you bring everything else too. <br />
<br />
1. Yes, girls want guys who will treat them well, instead of badly. And they shouldn't really have to say it.<br />
<br />
2. Being a "nice guy" has almost nothing to do with getting the girl. You have to bring more than that.<br />
<br />
3. It is necessary, but not sufficient. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 19:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
How do we know that the girl did not go with someone who is more jerk than the character who thinks to be a nice guy? {{unsigned ip|141.101.70.103}}<br />
:Doesn't matter. "Nice Guy" said "they", not "she", so he is generalizing. If he specified his last girlfriend, he might have case, but he did not, so he does not. Anonymous 19:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I found the girl's response to be rude and belittling his judgement. She cut him off before he could finish. He could have said something like '''"what they really want are interesting, exciting guys"''' as if he was making a discovery on the matter. He could have said that girls used it as a casual expression.<br />
<br />
Or he could have said that girls want the "bad boy", which could mean muscular, but not character-wise bad.<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.87|173.245.55.87]] 13:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.216.114https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1277:_Ayn_Random&diff=80561Talk:1277: Ayn Random2014-12-10T20:07:51Z<p>108.162.216.114: </p>
<hr />
<div>Computers don't store any "thing", they store a representation. Therefore, a computer can reference any "thing", because representation "sets" can be swapped out. At any given moment, if the user is aware, "1" could mean a purple flying dog. At any other given moment, "1" could mean a swimming cactus. Therefore, the number of "things" that computers can store representations for is unlimited, even if the "set" of representations it can store at any given time is limited. In our specific example, the computer can store a representation of an irrational number by collapsing the number into a recursive or incremental method of reproducing the number. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.114|108.162.216.114]] 20:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think that should be /(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}/i.<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/173.66.108.213|173.66.108.213]] 05:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I agree. I was confused for a while about what the b's were doing.<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/99.126.178.56|99.126.178.56]] 06:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Maybe it's time to have an Ayn Rand category? --[[Special:Contributions/141.89.226.146|141.89.226.146]] 07:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Can someone explain to the mathematically challenged *how* the list of names fits the regular expression? [[Special:Contributions/141.2.75.23|141.2.75.23]] 09:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Agreed, I would like to understand what the hell is going on with that. --[[User:Zagorath|Zagorath]] ([[User talk:Zagorath|talk]]) 09:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
: How specific do you want it? Basically it matches two words consisting of the letters plurandy. The list of names is just a random selection of two part names that only consists of these letters. More specifically it matches: Two groups ({2}), each consisting of a word boundary (\b), followed by a non-empty sequence of the letters plurandy ([plurandy]+), followed by a word boundary (\b), finally followed by an optional space ( ?). [[User:Pmakholm|Pmakholm]] ([[User talk:Pmakholm|talk]]) 09:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Also, the /'s on the end delimit the regex proper, and the `i` on the end denotes case insensitivity. --[[Special:Contributions/75.66.178.177|75.66.178.177]] 09:39, 14 October <br />
2013 (UTC)<br />
:::In the explanation of how the regex works after the explanation "'''the {2} on the end means to repeat the pattern, so it must match exactly twice'''" I think you need an explanation of how the optional space in the middle interacts with the word boundaries. I.e.<br />
::::(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}<br />
:::Expanding:<br />
::::\b[plurandy]+\b ?\b[plurandy]+\b ?<br />
:::Now the optional space at the end is redundant, and the space in the center is not optional, since if there is no space the word boundaries do not exist. If the space is present the word boundaries are redundent because letter space letter sequence always matches them.<br />
::::\b[plurandy]+ [plurandy]+\b ?<br />
:::And this now closely matches the text description "'''Overall, it matches two words separated by a space, composed entirely of the letters in [plurandy], which is what all the names listed have in common.'''" --[[Special:Contributions/108.17.2.71|108.17.2.71]] 17:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Some examples<br />
:* "Ru Paul" would match, because it is two sequences, each containing only capital or lowercase versions of the listed letters.<br />
:* "Randall Flagg" would not match, because the letters F and G are not in the bracketed list.<br />
:* "Aura Anaya Adlar" would not match; even though the letters are all in the list, there are more than two sequences.<br />
:Hope this helps!<br />
:[[User:Swartzer|Swartzer]] ([[User talk:Swartzer|talk]]) 20:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
[[Special:Contributions/209.132.186.34|209.132.186.34]] 09:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I do not think Randal would make such mistake, he would probably use \< \> anyway... unless, he wants us<br />
to think he did mistake, or that backslash was eliminated in html/javascript... thus poining ut to<br />
source code of the page... is there something interesting?<br />
: I skimmed over the source and didn't see anything unusual. The '\'s are absent from the source too. I think it's just that Randall (or a tool he's using) was so affraid of [[327|Bobby Tables]] that he stripped all backslashes from the alt text. {{unsigned|Jahvascriptmaniac}}<br />
::The title text at xkcd.com now has the missing backslashes. Do you normally update the comic here to reflect updates?--[[Special:Contributions/108.17.2.71|108.17.2.71]] 16:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Already updated. You were saying?<br />
::::Hmm, backslashes are still missing for me when viewing the original at xkcd.com (viewing in Chrome) [[User:Brion|Brion]] ([[User talk:Brion|talk]]) 02:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Can someone explain to me where "In their view, if some humans are born more capable of satisfying their desires than other people, they deserve to reap greater rewards from life than others" comes from? I'm somewhat familiar with objectivist philosophy and I've never heard this put forward as an actual principle. [[Special:Contributions/50.90.39.56|50.90.39.56]] 14:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Objectivism is the target for much scorn and ridicule in the intellectual world, for its being an inconsistent philosophy that has the sole objective of justifying selfishness and elevating it towards moral righteousness. It's used as the basis for libertarian thought and other radical capitalist economical theories and political stances which promote shameless exploitation (and this attracts further hatred). Randall is no exception to this trend of detractors, and I'd say rightfully so. Ayn Rand's writings are particularly awful, both aesthetically and content-wise, yet in the US a relatively large group of philosophers still adhere to her maxims and the debate continues.{{unsigned ip|37.221.160.203}}<br />
:In fact, this is an imprecise and, therefore, incorrect statement of Objectivist philosophy. A correct and more complete statement can be found under the entry for "Selfishness" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon: "The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.8|108.162.237.8]] 23:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Most people would write the regexp as /(\b[adlnpruy]+\b ?){2}/i. Using "plurandy" makes it look like a word, which is more confusing than using the letters' natural order. --[[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Would it be better to identify Alan Alda not for his role as Hawkeye Pierce in MASH, but for his role in The West Wing as Arnold Vinick, a fiscally-conservative Republican presidential candidate? [[Special:Contributions/193.67.17.36|193.67.17.36]] 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Depends, are we trying to remind him to general audience (I think MASH is more known) or find out why he was included in list? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is probably an additional joke or three in that the regex is the minimum needed to capture the first three names together (hinted at by "plurandy" eg plural rand) , but also captures the others. on top of which all of the listed people are considered "intrinsically better" (by virtue of fame if nothing else)[[Special:Contributions/74.213.201.51|74.213.201.51]] 03:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Alan Ladd may have been a founding member of the Secret Council of /(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}/i. [[Special:Contributions/71.190.237.117|71.190.237.117]] 07:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's probably obvious to most programmers, but is it worth pointing out that part of the pun is that the random number generator function is called rand() in most C-family languages? [[Special:Contributions/130.60.156.183|130.60.156.183]] 14:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Another member of this secret society is Randall P [[Special:Contributions/79.182.178.53|79.182.178.53]] 16:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
From above: "Objectivism is the target for much scorn and ridicule in the intellectual world, for its being an inconsistent philosophy that has the sole objective of justifying selfishness and elevating it towards moral righteousness. It's used as the basis for libertarian thought and other radical capitalist economical theories and political stances which promote shameless exploitation (and this attracts further hatred). Randall is no exception to this trend of detractors, and I'd say rightfully so. Ayn Rand's writings are particularly awful, both aesthetically and content-wise, yet in the US a relatively large group of philosophers still adhere to her maxims and the debate continues." OK, but a few comments: All philosophies are inconsistent when looked at closely enough, refer Godel and others. Others do not see the inconsistency in Objectivism quite so plainly as in the quoted comment. Ayn Rand and Objectivism are not "the" basis of libertarian thought, there are far more highly thought of libertarian thinkers, a list of whom should come readily to mind to any of those occupying "the intellectual world" (sic), whether or not they have sympathy with libertarian ideas. It is also unfair to characterise Objectivism as having as its "sole" objective that as stated. Further, as a general principle, one ought not to take someone poking fun at a concept as *proof* that they are quite as opposed to it as you are. Now, whereas I would not categorise myself quite as a fellow traveller, a much fairer view of Objectivism is found at WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) [[Special:Contributions/81.135.136.159|81.135.136.159]] 11:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Other philosophies are no more consistent, agreed. But other philosophies do not claim perfect "objective" consistency as their fundamental principle. Attacking Objectivism/Objectivists for lack of internal consistency--or for not recognizing that at some, very fundamental, level it is all stacked on top of some assumptions (just like every other philosophy, and even the scientific method)--is the equivalent of attacking Christianity/Christians for lacking compassion and forgiveness. [[Special:Contributions/129.176.151.14|129.176.151.14]] 14:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Poking fun can indeed fall into the categories of self-irony or goodwill, but in this case Randall quite explicitly accuses the recipient of bias, making his disapproval pretty unequivocal. [[Special:Contributions/199.48.147.40|199.48.147.40]] 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I have added a line about the rational numbers joke; it's definitely there, though I'm not sure if Randall intended it (probably did?). {{unsigned ip|76.124.119.161}}<br />
:Don't think it makes much sense, because a random number generator algorithm of any kind couldn't possibly generate irrational numbers in finite time. [[Special:Contributions/77.244.254.228|77.244.254.228]] 16:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
: It does make sense, mathematically speaking a random number chosen in any open interval is irrational with probability 1, and yet any open interval contains rational numbers that could, in principal, be chosen due to density of the rationals. The joke is brilliant, if intended. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 04:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yes but, at that point, all random number generators are biased and not just the Ayn Random number generator. Also, the bias towards rational numbers doesn't seem to be there when your pool of numbers is just the rationals. The whole idea behind the joke seems to be more like Ayn Rand's assumptions of objectivity ending up favoring certain social groups. I dunno, it just seems forced to me. [[Special:Contributions/220.117.150.36|220.117.150.36]] 19:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: Considering real numbers are well-understood mathematically this seems like a shortcoming of implementation, which isn't that interesting... the concept is there. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 22:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: The whole idea behind random number generation bias is the bugs they can create within software implementation (for example, weakening cryptography). An hypothetically generated irrational number would have to be truncated at some decimal place (thus making it rational) for it to be usable. Here it's a programming joke, not a math one. [[Special:Contributions/95.229.229.31|95.229.229.31]] 22:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: ...unless interpreted as a math joke. I agree that the joke admits programming interpretation, but I'd never try to exclude other interpretations as well. The math interpretation is valid since one can choose not to get muddled in implementation and to instead envision a hypothetical random number generator not bound by truncation. Randall's comics certainly admit this kind of whimsy. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 23:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Well, it says "This Ayn Random number generator you wrote" so I'd take it at face value, but that's just me. [[Special:Contributions/95.229.229.31|95.229.229.31]] 00:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
And somehow, no one's mentioned the classic cartoon ''[[221]]:Random Number'', which presents a random number generator which is heavily biased towards one number. [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 21:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is the joke here not along the lines that Ayn Rand's politics, and that of Libertarianism, <i>claim</i> that they are fair and that they treat everyone equally - in that, supposedly, anyone can get what they want and be successful if they work hard - but the reality is that some people will fare better than others due to having certain advantages such as having been born into wealth, knowing the right people, one might even suggest that being white, middle class and male are advantageous. In a random number generator you would expect any number to be as likely to come up as any other. Similarly, Rand supporters would argue that under Objectivism, any person is by default as able to be successful as any other. The fact that some people succeed and others fail is explained as some people being inherently more able to succeed, rather than any bias in the system itself - hence she divides people into 'looters' and 'moochers'; there's also that scene I always remember in Dirty Dancing where the guy chucks a copy of The Fountainhead in Baby's direction and says 'some people count, some people don't'. Randall is mocking the idea of a system that is supposedly inherently fair and yet biases certain classes of people, with the idea of a 'random' number generator that is biased towards certain numbers not because of a problem with the system but because some numbers are supposedly 'inherently better'.[[Special:Contributions/213.86.4.78|213.86.4.78]] 15:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Regarding rational numbers, p and q are allowed to have a common factor. 3/3 is still rational, just not reduced. Every rational number has an irreducible representation, but it doesn't have to be reduced to be part of the set of rationals. Also, since the definition is otherwise very specific, it could mention that q cannot be 0, which I don't think is mentioned. While that's a neat observation, I agree with the guy above that pointed out that no implementation of a random number generator produces irrational numbers. It isn't simply that the random number generator has to truncate the number, but you cannot fit infinite digits which neither terminate or repeat in a physical computer's finite memory. The random number generator would have to return symbolic results like "sqrt 2" or "e" instead of numerical values, but not returning actual numbers makes the idea of it being a random 'number' generator debatable. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.197}}<br />
<br />
All numbers are random, but some numbers are more random than others. [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 23:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.216.114https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1199:_Silence&diff=80214Talk:1199: Silence2014-12-04T20:10:55Z<p>108.162.216.114: </p>
<hr />
<div>Really, we get it, reality is artistic. That doesn't mean you have some deeper understanding of it. It just means you made a basic observation. Observational =/= Creative. And art requiring an artist requires creativity. Art without an artist is reality. And you can't take credit for reality. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.114|108.162.216.114]] 20:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
What are the chances that: that empty room is an anechoic chamber? [[Special:Contributions/66.42.134.195|66.42.134.195]] 04:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:plain walls..plain floor...virtually zero[[User:Xseo|Xseo]] ([[User talk:Xseo|talk]]) 09:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Besides, 4'33" was not meant for anechoic chambers, Cage specifically talks about all the "sound and music" going on while the piano player is "doing nothing". 4'33" is separated into 3 parts, in which the piano player is also supposed to open and close the piano. --[[User:Pnariyoshi|Pnariyoshi]] ([[User talk:Pnariyoshi|talk]]) 14:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I may have had a professor in college show us a recording of 4'33", I can honestly say it was the least usefull 4'33" minutes of my academic career.... The argument we had over if this was artistic shortly afterwards was much more entertaining however.[[Special:Contributions/69.146.97.120|69.146.97.120]] 04:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hmm... if we know the room is 4'33", couldn't we use that to figure out how tall Megan is? Just a thought. [[Special:Contributions/86.181.5.232|86.181.5.232]] 12:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:4'33" I believe is the length of the song. Not feet and inches.<br />
<br />
Do you guys think the title text might be a reference to Parks and Rec's [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt3rEJrRDjE|"Jazz plus Jazz equals Jazz"]? --[[User:Pnariyoshi|Pnariyoshi]] ([[User talk:Pnariyoshi|talk]]) 14:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is a controversy whether 4′33″ (4 mins 33 secs) was the intended duration. The original manuscript is lost, the first performance lasted 4′33″ (and there is a transcript of it with the exact duration of each movement shown), and later editions only show three movements “tacet”. Cage himself said (though much later), “the work may be performed by any instrumentalist or combination of instrumentalists and last any length of time”. --[[Special:Contributions/77.186.113.21|77.186.113.21]] 14:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Uh, what? You can buy sheet music for 4'33" (!) and it's in Cage's own handwriting. Whether it's the "original manuscript" or not, the duration we have know was definitely okayed by Cage. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 15:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:4'33"=273=absolute temperature zero. This is the "standard" explanation of this length. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.230.125|108.162.230.125]] 15:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::For clarity, 4'33" is minute and second notation. 4 minutes, 33 seconds. Which is also 273 seconds. And if you put a negative sign in front of it and a "°C" behind it: -273°C, which is "absolute 0" (0 in Kelvin); the theorized coldest anything could be in our universe. I only bring this up because, as an American, I think of 4'33" as being 4 foot, 33 inches. Which is weird on its own. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I tend to prefer the {{w|radio edit}}, titled 3'44". Whereas the extended dance remix 7'20" has a nice beat but completely misses the point. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 16:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::If this wiki had mod points, I'd upvote you.[[User:CityZen|CityZen]] ([[User talk:CityZen|talk]]) 03:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
Perhaps the alt text is being overanalyzed. Is it not more likely to be just a sarcastic comment that all music is coincidental ambient noise interfering with the silence? [[User:MegsyS|MegsyS]] ([[User talk:MegsyS|talk]]) 14:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I read it as more a semantic middle-ground between the (current) main explanation and yours. Instead of 'making all music have Cage's work "embedded" into it.', it means that 'all music(1) is Cage's work with someone else playing (other) music inside it, ambiently'. (1 - Any given four minutes and thirty-three seconds of music, that is. Whether that includes a subset of the longer 'embedded' piece, a superset of a a ''shorter'' embedded piece or a dislocated translation/truncation of shared 'sound space'. IYSWIM. YMMV.) [[Special:Contributions/31.109.25.88|31.109.25.88]] 17:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I wrote this long before Cage did, and no one ever gave me any credit. Just because he was already famous does not make this a useful composition. [[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 23:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3#Precursors][[Special:Contributions/96.238.211.171|96.238.211.171]] 20:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
When out and about, the other day, I realised that I might well have 'caught' 4'33" as a mindworm. Every bit of 'silence' with just ambient noises. Awkward... [[Special:Contributions/178.98.135.249|178.98.135.249]] 23:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)</div>108.162.216.114https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:926:_Time_Vulture&diff=74030Talk:926: Time Vulture2014-08-20T14:09:28Z<p>108.162.216.114: </p>
<hr />
<div>An obvious reference to death itself, which stalks everyone, usually for decades. This is a "memento mori". [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206|75.103.23.206]] 17:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Is this a reference to Dr. Who's [[wikia:tardis:Weeping Angels|Weeping Angels]], who also (in a different way) hunt by having their victims live to death? [[Special:Contributions/23.19.87.80|23.19.87.80]] 04:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
::I doubt it. While there is definitely a similarity, it seems like too much of a stretch to have been intentional. [[Special:Contributions/71.225.14.203|71.225.14.203]] 00:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::While the idea of weeping angels seems pretty true on the surface, they get their 'food' from transporting something through time, but this animal doesn't eat time or anything, it just dramatically speeds up how quickly time passes for it- similar to how sometimes a night's sleep feels only like an hour or sometimes a year. <br />
:::Oh, I want those overnight feels like a year sleeps. I get less of them the older I get. Having a kid pretty much put a nail in that coffin. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.114|108.162.216.114]] 14:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.47|108.162.219.47]] 16:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::Does anyone know if Randell is a Who fan? {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.56}}</div>108.162.216.114https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=871:_Charity&diff=73934871: Charity2014-08-19T02:08:57Z<p>108.162.216.114: /* Explanation */ This is a far more reasonable explanation</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 871<br />
| date = March 11, 2011<br />
| title = Charity<br />
| image = charity.png<br />
| titletext = I usually respond to someone else doing something good by figuring out a reason that they're not really as good as they seem. But I've been realizing lately that there's an easier way to handle these situations, and it involves zero internet arguments.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
Organizations such as {{w|Steam (software)}} often offer sales where certain games are available for low prices--in order to compel or persuade buyers to make donations to worthwhile charities. [[Cueball]] is participating in one of these purchases (to fight {{w|malaria}}), but [[Megan]]'s snide denigration of Cueball's act of charity as inadequate and self-serving has dissuaded him from any act of charity at all, if this is what it gets him. It is not a positive force; instead, her mockery dissuades him from donating again to charity and (because she will not humbly consider the effect of his actions) does not lead to her giving to charity, either.<br />
<br />
It is important to note the third panel, in which a totally normal conversation is had where purchases are not evaluated on a global scale. Most people do not say "don't buy that video game--donate to charity instead!" on a regular basis. People do however say, "Why did you buy that game for ten dollars and only give the other ten to charity, instead of all twenty?" Supposedly these kinds of conversations happen to [[Randall]] on the internet, so a good way to avoid them would be to quit participating in stupid and meaningless discussions there.<br />
<br />
The proper response, of course, is to neither care what people say about you nor attack other people's charitable giving. The action that Randall recommends here is to right one, which is to donate anyway without caring about what others say or do. Clicking on the original image leads to [http://www.nothingbutnets.net the website of] {{w|Nothing But Nets}}, an organization that distributes mosquito bed nets in Africa for the eradication of malaria.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:Cueball: I'm going to buy this $10 game I want, and I'm donating $10 for malaria eradication.<br />
<br />
:Megan: If you actually cared, you'd skip the game and donate all $20.<br />
:Megan: What's more important? Games, or mosquito nets and medicine for kids?<br />
<br />
:Later:<br />
:Cueball: I think I'm going to buy these two $10 games I want.<br />
:Friend: Cool; which ones?<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]</div>108.162.216.114https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:892:_Null_Hypothesis&diff=73873Talk:892: Null Hypothesis2014-08-18T14:59:59Z<p>108.162.216.114: </p>
<hr />
<div>If you get a 50% discount at two shops and buy stuff from both of them, you have a 100% discount. Math. That's how it works, bitches. '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|purple|David}}<font color=green size=3px>y</font></u><font color=indigo size=4px>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 10:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That's a misleading thing about percentages. Like this:<br />
Prices of coffee increase by 2% this year, then by 3% next year. That's a 1% increase between years, or a 50% increase between years (from 2 to 3). So which is it? 1 or 50?<br />
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.240|141.101.98.240]] 08:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That's why they've invented the "base points" in financials, to denote the percentages of percentages. It's 1% absolute but 50bpp (base point percentage). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.11|108.162.246.11]] 18:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Oh really. If you say it increased by 2% this year, then by 3% next year. It increased 3%. Unless you mean it will increase by 3% from LAST YEAR to NEXT YEAR. Then it really increased by 2% then .97%. But for this purpose let's throw that out and make it simple. It increased by 2% this year, and will increase by 3% next year. 50% isn't how much it increased, but how much the increase increased. That's called acceleration. The rate of increase per year is always 2 or 3%. So, 1% doesn't factor into this equation at all no matter how you do the math. The answer is 1.02*1.03. It increased by 5.06% over the last two years. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.114|108.162.216.114]] 14:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Don't these discussion points belong in a different comic? Or perhaps the garbage? Except (1), he lol'd me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 21:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.216.114https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:849:_Complex_Conjugate&diff=73557Talk:849: Complex Conjugate2014-08-12T19:44:26Z<p>108.162.216.114: </p>
<hr />
<div>Actually multiplying complex number (x + iy) by its complex conjugate (x - iy) does not "remove" imaginary part, but calculate square of absolute value of complex number, (x^2 + y^2). BTW. in quantum physics the wavefunction is complex valued, and its absolute value is probability density (a real valued function). --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 00:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I got hit in the face with my complex conjugate and lost an eye. {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.114}}<br />
<br />
I procreated with my complex conjugate and lost myself. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.114|108.162.216.114]] 19:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)</div>108.162.216.114