https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=162.158.74.33&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T04:42:15ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=780:_Sample&diff=326622780: Sample2023-10-20T21:29:42Z<p>162.158.74.33: Undo revision 326616 by 172.70.214.234 (talk) Phone mentioned... What if you want to find all comics that depict phone-related stuff?</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 780<br />
| date = August 16, 2010<br />
| title = Sample<br />
| image = sample.png<br />
| titletext = There are two or three songs out there with beeps in the chorus that sound exactly like the clock radio alarm I had in high school, and hearing it makes me think my life since junior year has been a dream I'm about to wake up from.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This strip suggests that even a band with the most brilliant and catchy music would soon become the most hated band in the world if it included sound effects of car horns, cell phones, or alarm clocks in its songs. Listeners would most likely mistake the sound effects for the real thing, which could cause havoc.<br />
<br />
For comparison, "{{w|Indiana Wants Me}}", a 1970 hit single by {{w|R. Dean Taylor}}, had the sound of police sirens removed from later pressings because drivers were reportedly mistaking the sound effects for actual police cars and pulling over.<br />
<br />
This can also be a reference to an unusual anti-piracy method, where P2P and Torrent networks are seeded with altered copies of songs that contain obnoxious sounds at random points.<br />
<br />
The title text refers to the common sensation of having sounds from the real-world incorporated into a dream, especially as one is waking up. This gives a (false) sensation that is the reverse of the dream described in [[557: Students]]. It implies that the author has been dreaming his entire life since his junior year of high school, which is obviously not true.{{Citation needed}}<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Caption above the panel:]<br />
:<big>How to become the most</big><br />
:<big>hat<u>ed band in the wo</u>rld:</big><br />
:Record an album that's nothing but brilliant, catchy instant classics guaranteed popularity and airtime,<br />
:[Cueball is at the steering wheel of a car.]<br />
:Music: So far from hooome but I can't sto— ''HONK''<br />
:Cueball: AUGH! WHAT?<br />
:[Caption below the panel:]<br />
:with a sample of a car horn, cell phone, or alarm clock inserted randomly in each song.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Music]]<br />
[[Category:Phones]]</div>162.158.74.33https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2184:_Unpopular_Opinions&diff=177893Talk:2184: Unpopular Opinions2019-08-10T15:02:38Z<p>162.158.74.33: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
I wonder if it has to be below 50% with critic score, audience score, or both? [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Genisys has an Audience Score of 53%, so I think it has to be critic score (Tomatometer). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.124|108.162.241.124]] 21:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
::Critics and audiences are really two distinct groups. So to be "apples to apples", I'd think it would have to be a movie with an Audience score below 50. Disagreeing with something critics hated isn't that rare among the general audience. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.18|162.158.106.18]] 04:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
::The whole idea of the challenge doesn't make sense if the movie is "only" hated by a handful of random critics. As Randall points out, it is easier to hate a movie that everyone loves, so that is also true for critics. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
::I have to agree that basing it on the critic reviews only doesn't make much sense. I can find dozens of movies I like that are rated rotten by the critics, but nearly all of them got good audience reviews (Bright, Constentine, Super Troopers, K-Pax, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, etc). I can only find one that I like that that scores under 50% with both groups, Southland Tales, and even I'll admit it has many flaws. I suspect Randal Monroe was looking at movies that were rated "Rotten" by both groups (green icon and <60%), vs "fresh" (red icon > 60%). But the rules were already a bit too lengthy to spell it out explicitly. [[user]][[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/dvd-streaming-all?minTomato=0&maxTomato=49&services=amazon;hbo_go;itunes;netflix_iw;vudu;amazon_prime;fandango_now&genres=1;2;4;5;6;8;9;10;11;13;18;14&sortBy=tomato Movies] on DVD or streaming, tomatometer 49% down to 0%. <br />
<br />
Plenty of Twilight fans will raise their hands - it is rated 49% --[[User:Thomcat|Thomcat]] ([[User talk:Thomcat|talk]]) 18:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Well, I'm around the typical age of (original) Twilight fans, and none of the movies in the saga came in my adult life. (But they're all below 50%)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.103.147|162.158.103.147]] 18:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I mean, Shaft got a 30% on the Tomatometer and a 94 on the audience score, and I loved it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.22|108.162.241.22]] 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Do Waterworld, in spite of the fact that it only ticks two of the boxes, count? I really liked that one.<br />
:I also liked Waterworld (44%, 1997) and The Postman (9%, 1995) (both with Kevin Kostner, and sort of the same story). Assuming the definition of adult is 18, they both qualify for the adult part, but not the after 2000 part. I also loved Star Wars Episode I, but sure enough, it's above 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. [[User:WhiteDragon|WhiteDragon]] ([[User talk:WhiteDragon|talk]]) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:If it didn't come out while you were an adult, then it doesn't count. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:My immediate search was also for Water World. Would it also not count when you didn't watch it until after 2000? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I don't watch enough movies (or know Rotten Tomatoes well enough) to participate in this particular challenge, but it seems like every time I enjoy a video game, it turns out to have a sizeable and vocal hatedom. I seriously can't relate to the caption here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.165|162.158.107.165]] 20:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Batman v. Superman is probably a good answer for a fair number of people-it has a reasonable number of fans (including myself) who liked it, despite its very poor rating (28%) [[User:SirEpp|SirEpp]] ([[User talk:SirEpp|talk]]) 21:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
: I went to that movie for finding the plausible reason why Batman who only fights criminal and Superman being too unreal for ever being angry for no reason might have a fight which each other. Got less than I expected, in this aspect. But Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, Thor: Ragnarok and Iron Sky are objectively superb films the critics hated. Perhaps with the exception of the relationship between Valerian and Laureline, perhaps, though.[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC) <br />
<br />
Not a movie, per se, but I thought season 8 of Game of Thrones was fantastic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.88|162.158.214.88]] 22:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Critically panned films that I like include: Crimes of Grindelwald, Passengers, and Warcraft. Critically acclaimed films that I do not like: Avatar and Life of Pi. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.213|173.245.48.213]] 22:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Oooh, ''Passengers'' is a good one, I'm stealing that. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:I second Crimes of Grindelwald (37 RT), and add Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (48 RT), which I also enjoyed and actually recommend to people. Now these movies aren't "classics" or "great movies", they aren't perfect, but they are effective entertainment, and ''not'' because they "are so bad their good". Grindelwald has many effective scenes and acting, and Valerian is a very effective effort at making a movie out of a comic book that ''feels like a comic book''-- a fact I appreciated. Of course 48 RT is also just under the 50 RT threshold.[[User:Careysub|Careysub]] ([[User talk:Careysub|talk]])<br />
:It's almost like you totally misunderstood the point of the comic. [[User:A74xhx|A74xhx]] ([[User talk:A74xhx|talk]]) 09:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
::How so? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.16|172.69.69.16]] 21:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Not under 50%, but I'm shocked that "The Secret Life of Walter Smitty" has only 51%... National Treasure has only 46%... I like this game, it is a test in optimism.<br />
:"The Secret Life of Walter '''Mitty'''" deserves a low rating, particularly when compared to the original with Danny Kaye. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 05:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Frankly it would be easier to list the movies I like that aren't below 50% on rotten tomatoes. [[User:CJB42|CJB42]] ([[User talk:CJB42|talk]]) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)s<br />
<br />
My experience with rotten tomatoes ratings in particular is that they have no clue and I find their ratings useless. The challenge from Randall in this comic is a case in point: the first movie I though to check, “Another Gay Movie” gets a 40% on the tomatometer yet is one of my favorites. Same thing with all the “Eating Out” movies: good comedies that I enjoy, yet Tomatometer scores of 16%, 44%, and 17% for the first three. (And why is “Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds” so much higher ranked than 1 or 3? It’s not that different...)<br />
I think the criteria that Randal assumes (but doesn’t mention) is that the movie has to be a box office hit that appeals to mainstream audiences.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 03:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see why Suicide Squad got trashed. It was light, colourful, had an engaging story, and well made. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.209|172.68.253.209]] 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sucker Punch. There, I said it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.77|141.101.99.77]] 07:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There's a certain type of movie that 'h8ers' will auto-trash before they even come out (especially "Gender-switched version of a classic", like that ''Ghostbusters'', and "Strong female type", like ''Wonder Woman'' - as easy examples of those that some people love to hate, regardless of actual merit). So I recon there'd be good mileage in keeping an eye on (for example) the double-whammy that is the upcoming Female Thor movie. If it doesn't ''actually'' turn out to be so bad that you personally don't like it, I predict that it'll be pre-release troll-sniped down below 50% in "popular" opinion and even if they're not at all right about their guess there'll be a window of opportunity before any counter-viewpoint from actual viewers ups the score again. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:No one hated Wonder Woman. It has 93%, and is arguably the best live action superhero movie that DC has released so far. Ghostbusters was a money grabbing remake that brought nothing new. It COULD have been great with almost no effort, by getting someone to write an original script that built on the things that came before that everyone loves, instead of trying to replace it with an inferior version. The only one to blame is the Hollywood studios that would rather throw money at something that already exists instead of taking a risk on an unknown. Then they add insult to injury and tell everyone that the reason they failed isn't because they made bad decisions, but because ''people don't like seeing women in leading roles'', which is not true in any form. No real people care if the lead is male or female. They care about a good story, good acting, and having a good time watching a movie they paid their money for. [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What the heck are all these Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller movies doing at sub-50%? I didn't know people supposedly hated Night at the Museum that much. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.67|172.68.189.67]] 17:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thanks to the link I found two: Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. I don't consider them like super-good, but I like them. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thanks to the link I found four: Hancock, Knowing, The Lovely Bones, The Book of Eli.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.28|162.158.150.28]] 11:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Immediately: Venom (29%) I like to pretend I like it for the "so bad it's good", but here in anonymous interwebzland, I can admit I just enjoyed it (despite expecting to hate it for the retcon). Does it matter that the RT audience score is 81%? I often find that my enjoyment of a movie is inversely proportional to how much critics didn't, and it seems I'm not alone.[[User:Daemonik|Daemonik]] ([[User talk:Daemonik|talk]]) 09:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the point here is that people feel more comfortable disliking something than liking it. It isn't that we don't all have movies that we like that other people hated, it's that many of us are afraid to say it. Also, t's not a movie, but I honestly enjoyed that one episode of ''Stranger Things''. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 04:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I admit a weakness for the Roland Emmerich movies ("The Day After Tomorrow" and "2012"). OK the science behind the events is pretty rubbish, but they are decent action movies nonetheless with a few enjoyable twists (like the USA having to beg Mexico to let them emigrate south in TDAT).<br />
<br />
I'm shocked no one else has mentioned Jupiter Ascending yet; there was a decent amount of silliness in that movie, but I genuinely found it super compelling, and it deserves better than a 27%. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.90|172.68.65.90]] 16:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
300 got very mediocre reviews (52% on Metacritic), but I'ts absolutely one of my all-time favourite action movies. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 16:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Geostorm. Didn't even need the link for that. [[User:Conster|Conster]] ([[User talk:Conster|talk]]) 21:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Like another user said, Roland Emmerich movies like TDAT and 2012 are ones I'll always be a sucker for. Also, The Book of Eli (2010) is actually a great movie IMO despite having a 48% on RT. I always put that as a classic. Meet the Fockers (2004) is funny, too. <br />
<br />
Side note: Armageddon is a pre-2000 movie (1998), but I think most would agree that it's a classic apocalyptic movie.<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 14:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Also, a reminder that the original Purge movie has a 39% on RT. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 15:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Post-2000? ==<br />
<br />
Anyone have an idea why "post-2000" is a criteria? [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 23:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe because Rotten Tomatoes was launched close to the end of the 1990s, so post-2000 movies are the only ones that have been reviewed as they came out? Or perhaps it's to limit the scope of "movies that came out in your adult life", since adult life could go back a long way for some people. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:I don't know for certain, but I feel incredibly confident that it's the timing of Rotten Tomatoes, that older movies that came out before the site existed won't be thoroughly / properly covered. Like if you look closely you'll see the 40% rating on this movie comes from only 1 vote. I suspect Randall feels that as of 2000, there was enough activity on the site to provide sufficient coverage. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Pre-2000 films, being prior to RT, have the 'benefit' <!-- Though I suppose it's what you look for. I always wanted a "Oscars of the Ten/Twenty/Thirty/... Years Ago" thing that redid the award with (today's version of) historical hindsight that would end up giving a running commentary of the merits/otherwise perceived at various points in time... Anyway, not that anyone will read this comment, I'm sure. --> of studied hindsight. Anybody who bothers to review [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1003722_casino_royale the ''original'' Casino Royale], which would be my choice for this if I were allowed, just has far too much baggage to be thinking the same as with something just being appreciated in the context as a new-release. Including me, probably, across the many years since I first saw that film and fell in love with it, despite the obvious and total car-crash of its Development Hell! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:And there's a lot of selection bias in who reviews movies from pre-2000 as anyone who reviews a movie probably only went to that movies page and wrote a review, because they either really like the movie, or really really really hate it.[[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:It's stated in the explanation: it is so that most respondents would choose a movie that they have seen in their adult life and avoid the "childhood nostalgia" bias where you have fond memories of a movie watched as a kid but that you wouldn't enjoy watching as an adult.<br />
<br />
I KNOW that there are many, many movies I can apply to this challenge - I often find myself enjoying unpopular movies. Plus, critics suck, they seem to always forget that this is ENTERTAINMENT. A clever movie that is dull as dirt and makes you fall asleep should NOT receive high praise, it fails at the primary function - but I can't think of them in the moment. About a week ago on Facebook I had a memory, a list of facts about Eurotrip, where the article called it a flop, while I loved it, so probably that one. This comic triggered my first ever visit to Rotten Tomatoes, who lists Eurotrip as I think 46%, but much higher for Audience score, so I THINK it counts? What bumps me is that it seems like "Audience Score" would be popular opinion, making Eurotrip actually a Popular movie, which seems like then it wouldn't apply here. ???? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hypothesis: People generally give more positive then negative reviews, and positive reviews also cause more people to watch. The number of watching for something bad is therefor lower, while a good movie is watched so often there is always a critic.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.190|172.69.55.190]] 10:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What the hell is wrong with people who don't like Ghost Rider or Daredevil? — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 19:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My favorite bad movies Wild Wild West, The One, Returner, Equilibrium, The Warrior's Way [[User:Houligan|Houligan]] ([[User talk:Houligan|talk]]) 15:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I liked 50 First Dates. But for my really controversial opinion, I'm gonna say not only was Armageddon a terrific movie, but it got enough of the science right to earn our suspension of disbelief :D<br />
--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.245|172.68.142.245]] 21:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is [[653: So Bad It's Worse]] related enough to be mentioned in the explaination or trivia? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I just came here to say, "Pandorum".<br />
<br />
How to talk to girls at parties (2018) - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.113|172.68.46.113]] 20:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)</div>162.158.74.33https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2184:_Unpopular_Opinions&diff=177892Talk:2184: Unpopular Opinions2019-08-10T15:00:45Z<p>162.158.74.33: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
I wonder if it has to be below 50% with critic score, audience score, or both? [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Genisys has an Audience Score of 53%, so I think it has to be critic score (Tomatometer). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.124|108.162.241.124]] 21:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
::Critics and audiences are really two distinct groups. So to be "apples to apples", I'd think it would have to be a movie with an Audience score below 50. Disagreeing with something critics hated isn't that rare among the general audience. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.18|162.158.106.18]] 04:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
::The whole idea of the challenge doesn't make sense if the movie is "only" hated by a handful of random critics. As Randall points out, it is easier to hate a movie that everyone loves, so that is also true for critics. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
::I have to agree that basing it on the critic reviews only doesn't make much sense. I can find dozens of movies I like that are rated rotten by the critics, but nearly all of them got good audience reviews (Bright, Constentine, Super Troopers, K-Pax, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, etc). I can only find one that I like that that scores under 50% with both groups, Southland Tales, and even I'll admit it has many flaws. I suspect Randal Monroe was looking at movies that were rated "Rotten" by both groups (green icon and <60%), vs "fresh" (red icon > 60%). But the rules were already a bit too lengthy to spell it out explicitly. [[user]][[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/dvd-streaming-all?minTomato=0&maxTomato=49&services=amazon;hbo_go;itunes;netflix_iw;vudu;amazon_prime;fandango_now&genres=1;2;4;5;6;8;9;10;11;13;18;14&sortBy=tomato Movies] on DVD or streaming, tomatometer 49% down to 0%. <br />
<br />
Plenty of Twilight fans will raise their hands - it is rated 49% --[[User:Thomcat|Thomcat]] ([[User talk:Thomcat|talk]]) 18:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Well, I'm around the typical age of (original) Twilight fans, and none of the movies in the saga came in my adult life. (But they're all below 50%)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.103.147|162.158.103.147]] 18:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I mean, Shaft got a 30% on the Tomatometer and a 94 on the audience score, and I loved it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.22|108.162.241.22]] 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Do Waterworld, in spite of the fact that it only ticks two of the boxes, count? I really liked that one.<br />
:I also liked Waterworld (44%, 1997) and The Postman (9%, 1995) (both with Kevin Kostner, and sort of the same story). Assuming the definition of adult is 18, they both qualify for the adult part, but not the after 2000 part. I also loved Star Wars Episode I, but sure enough, it's above 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. [[User:WhiteDragon|WhiteDragon]] ([[User talk:WhiteDragon|talk]]) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:If it didn't come out while you were an adult, then it doesn't count. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:My immediate search was also for Water World. Would it also not count when you didn't watch it until after 2000? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I don't watch enough movies (or know Rotten Tomatoes well enough) to participate in this particular challenge, but it seems like every time I enjoy a video game, it turns out to have a sizeable and vocal hatedom. I seriously can't relate to the caption here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.165|162.158.107.165]] 20:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Batman v. Superman is probably a good answer for a fair number of people-it has a reasonable number of fans (including myself) who liked it, despite its very poor rating (28%) [[User:SirEpp|SirEpp]] ([[User talk:SirEpp|talk]]) 21:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
: I went to that movie for finding the plausible reason why Batman who only fights criminal and Superman being too unreal for ever being angry for no reason might have a fight which each other. Got less than I expected, in this aspect. But Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, Thor: Ragnarok and Iron Sky are objectively superb films the critics hated. Perhaps with the exception of the relationship between Valerian and Laureline, perhaps, though.[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC) <br />
<br />
Not a movie, per se, but I thought season 8 of Game of Thrones was fantastic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.88|162.158.214.88]] 22:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Critically panned films that I like include: Crimes of Grindelwald, Passengers, and Warcraft. Critically acclaimed films that I do not like: Avatar and Life of Pi. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.213|173.245.48.213]] 22:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Oooh, ''Passengers'' is a good one, I'm stealing that. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:I second Crimes of Grindelwald (37 RT), and add Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (48 RT), which I also enjoyed and actually recommend to people. Now these movies aren't "classics" or "great movies", they aren't perfect, but they are effective entertainment, and ''not'' because they "are so bad their good". Grindelwald has many effective scenes and acting, and Valerian is a very effective effort at making a movie out of a comic book that ''feels like a comic book''-- a fact I appreciated. Of course 48 RT is also just under the 50 RT threshold.[[User:Careysub|Careysub]] ([[User talk:Careysub|talk]])<br />
:It's almost like you totally misunderstood the point of the comic. [[User:A74xhx|A74xhx]] ([[User talk:A74xhx|talk]]) 09:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
::How so? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.16|172.69.69.16]] 21:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Not under 50%, but I'm shocked that "The Secret Life of Walter Smitty" has only 51%... National Treasure has only 46%... I like this game, it is a test in optimism.<br />
:"The Secret Life of Walter '''Mitty'''" deserves a low rating, particularly when compared to the original with Danny Kaye. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 05:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Frankly it would be easier to list the movies I like that aren't below 50% on rotten tomatoes. [[User:CJB42|CJB42]] ([[User talk:CJB42|talk]]) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)s<br />
<br />
My experience with rotten tomatoes ratings in particular is that they have no clue and I find their ratings useless. The challenge from Randall in this comic is a case in point: the first movie I though to check, “Another Gay Movie” gets a 40% on the tomatometer yet is one of my favorites. Same thing with all the “Eating Out” movies: good comedies that I enjoy, yet Tomatometer scores of 16%, 44%, and 17% for the first three. (And why is “Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds” so much higher ranked than 1 or 3? It’s not that different...)<br />
I think the criteria that Randal assumes (but doesn’t mention) is that the movie has to be a box office hit that appeals to mainstream audiences.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 03:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see why Suicide Squad got trashed. It was light, colourful, had an engaging story, and well made. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.209|172.68.253.209]] 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sucker Punch. There, I said it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.77|141.101.99.77]] 07:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There's a certain type of movie that 'h8ers' will auto-trash before they even come out (especially "Gender-switched version of a classic", like that ''Ghostbusters'', and "Strong female type", like ''Wonder Woman'' - as easy examples of those that some people love to hate, regardless of actual merit). So I recon there'd be good mileage in keeping an eye on (for example) the double-whammy that is the upcoming Female Thor movie. If it doesn't ''actually'' turn out to be so bad that you personally don't like it, I predict that it'll be pre-release troll-sniped down below 50% in "popular" opinion and even if they're not at all right about their guess there'll be a window of opportunity before any counter-viewpoint from actual viewers ups the score again. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:No one hated Wonder Woman. It has 93%, and is arguably the best live action superhero movie that DC has released so far. Ghostbusters was a money grabbing remake that brought nothing new. It COULD have been great with almost no effort, by getting someone to write an original script that built on the things that came before that everyone loves, instead of trying to replace it with an inferior version. The only one to blame is the Hollywood studios that would rather throw money at something that already exists instead of taking a risk on an unknown. Then they add insult to injury and tell everyone that the reason they failed isn't because they made bad decisions, but because ''people don't like seeing women in leading roles'', which is not true in any form. No real people care if the lead is male or female. They care about a good story, good acting, and having a good time watching a movie they paid their money for. [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What the heck are all these Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller movies doing at sub-50%? I didn't know people supposedly hated Night at the Museum that much. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.67|172.68.189.67]] 17:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thanks to the link I found two: Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. I don't consider them like super-good, but I like them. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thanks to the link I found four: Hancock, Knowing, The Lovely Bones, The Book of Eli.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.28|162.158.150.28]] 11:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Immediately: Venom (29%) I like to pretend I like it for the "so bad it's good", but here in anonymous interwebzland, I can admit I just enjoyed it (despite expecting to hate it for the retcon). Does it matter that the RT audience score is 81%? I often find that my enjoyment of a movie is inversely proportional to how much critics didn't, and it seems I'm not alone.[[User:Daemonik|Daemonik]] ([[User talk:Daemonik|talk]]) 09:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the point here is that people feel more comfortable disliking something than liking it. It isn't that we don't all have movies that we like that other people hated, it's that many of us are afraid to say it. Also, t's not a movie, but I honestly enjoyed that one episode of ''Stranger Things''. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 04:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I admit a weakness for the Roland Emmerich movies ("The Day After Tomorrow" and "2012"). OK the science behind the events is pretty rubbish, but they are decent action movies nonetheless with a few enjoyable twists (like the USA having to beg Mexico to let them emigrate south in TDAT).<br />
<br />
I'm shocked no one else has mentioned Jupiter Ascending yet; there was a decent amount of silliness in that movie, but I genuinely found it super compelling, and it deserves better than a 27%. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.90|172.68.65.90]] 16:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
300 got very mediocre reviews (52% on Metacritic), but I'ts absolutely one of my all-time favourite action movies. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 16:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Geostorm. Didn't even need the link for that. [[User:Conster|Conster]] ([[User talk:Conster|talk]]) 21:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Like another user said, Roland Emmerich movies like TDAT and 2012 are ones I'll always be a sucker for. Also, The Book of Eli (2010) is actually a great movie IMO despite having a 48% on RT. I always put that as a classic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 14:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Also, a reminder that the original Purge movie has a 39% on RT. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 15:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Post-2000? ==<br />
<br />
Anyone have an idea why "post-2000" is a criteria? [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 23:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe because Rotten Tomatoes was launched close to the end of the 1990s, so post-2000 movies are the only ones that have been reviewed as they came out? Or perhaps it's to limit the scope of "movies that came out in your adult life", since adult life could go back a long way for some people. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:I don't know for certain, but I feel incredibly confident that it's the timing of Rotten Tomatoes, that older movies that came out before the site existed won't be thoroughly / properly covered. Like if you look closely you'll see the 40% rating on this movie comes from only 1 vote. I suspect Randall feels that as of 2000, there was enough activity on the site to provide sufficient coverage. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Pre-2000 films, being prior to RT, have the 'benefit' <!-- Though I suppose it's what you look for. I always wanted a "Oscars of the Ten/Twenty/Thirty/... Years Ago" thing that redid the award with (today's version of) historical hindsight that would end up giving a running commentary of the merits/otherwise perceived at various points in time... Anyway, not that anyone will read this comment, I'm sure. --> of studied hindsight. Anybody who bothers to review [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1003722_casino_royale the ''original'' Casino Royale], which would be my choice for this if I were allowed, just has far too much baggage to be thinking the same as with something just being appreciated in the context as a new-release. Including me, probably, across the many years since I first saw that film and fell in love with it, despite the obvious and total car-crash of its Development Hell! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:And there's a lot of selection bias in who reviews movies from pre-2000 as anyone who reviews a movie probably only went to that movies page and wrote a review, because they either really like the movie, or really really really hate it.[[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:It's stated in the explanation: it is so that most respondents would choose a movie that they have seen in their adult life and avoid the "childhood nostalgia" bias where you have fond memories of a movie watched as a kid but that you wouldn't enjoy watching as an adult.<br />
<br />
I KNOW that there are many, many movies I can apply to this challenge - I often find myself enjoying unpopular movies. Plus, critics suck, they seem to always forget that this is ENTERTAINMENT. A clever movie that is dull as dirt and makes you fall asleep should NOT receive high praise, it fails at the primary function - but I can't think of them in the moment. About a week ago on Facebook I had a memory, a list of facts about Eurotrip, where the article called it a flop, while I loved it, so probably that one. This comic triggered my first ever visit to Rotten Tomatoes, who lists Eurotrip as I think 46%, but much higher for Audience score, so I THINK it counts? What bumps me is that it seems like "Audience Score" would be popular opinion, making Eurotrip actually a Popular movie, which seems like then it wouldn't apply here. ???? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hypothesis: People generally give more positive then negative reviews, and positive reviews also cause more people to watch. The number of watching for something bad is therefor lower, while a good movie is watched so often there is always a critic.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.190|172.69.55.190]] 10:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What the hell is wrong with people who don't like Ghost Rider or Daredevil? — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 19:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My favorite bad movies Wild Wild West, The One, Returner, Equilibrium, The Warrior's Way [[User:Houligan|Houligan]] ([[User talk:Houligan|talk]]) 15:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I liked 50 First Dates. But for my really controversial opinion, I'm gonna say not only was Armageddon a terrific movie, but it got enough of the science right to earn our suspension of disbelief :D<br />
--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.245|172.68.142.245]] 21:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is [[653: So Bad It's Worse]] related enough to be mentioned in the explaination or trivia? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I just came here to say, "Pandorum".<br />
<br />
How to talk to girls at parties (2018) - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.113|172.68.46.113]] 20:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)</div>162.158.74.33https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2184:_Unpopular_Opinions&diff=177891Talk:2184: Unpopular Opinions2019-08-10T14:48:44Z<p>162.158.74.33: Added opinions</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
I wonder if it has to be below 50% with critic score, audience score, or both? [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Genisys has an Audience Score of 53%, so I think it has to be critic score (Tomatometer). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.124|108.162.241.124]] 21:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
::Critics and audiences are really two distinct groups. So to be "apples to apples", I'd think it would have to be a movie with an Audience score below 50. Disagreeing with something critics hated isn't that rare among the general audience. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.18|162.158.106.18]] 04:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
::The whole idea of the challenge doesn't make sense if the movie is "only" hated by a handful of random critics. As Randall points out, it is easier to hate a movie that everyone loves, so that is also true for critics. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
::I have to agree that basing it on the critic reviews only doesn't make much sense. I can find dozens of movies I like that are rated rotten by the critics, but nearly all of them got good audience reviews (Bright, Constentine, Super Troopers, K-Pax, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, etc). I can only find one that I like that that scores under 50% with both groups, Southland Tales, and even I'll admit it has many flaws. I suspect Randal Monroe was looking at movies that were rated "Rotten" by both groups (green icon and <60%), vs "fresh" (red icon > 60%). But the rules were already a bit too lengthy to spell it out explicitly. [[user]][[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[https://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/dvd-streaming-all?minTomato=0&maxTomato=49&services=amazon;hbo_go;itunes;netflix_iw;vudu;amazon_prime;fandango_now&genres=1;2;4;5;6;8;9;10;11;13;18;14&sortBy=tomato Movies] on DVD or streaming, tomatometer 49% down to 0%. <br />
<br />
Plenty of Twilight fans will raise their hands - it is rated 49% --[[User:Thomcat|Thomcat]] ([[User talk:Thomcat|talk]]) 18:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Well, I'm around the typical age of (original) Twilight fans, and none of the movies in the saga came in my adult life. (But they're all below 50%)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.103.147|162.158.103.147]] 18:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I mean, Shaft got a 30% on the Tomatometer and a 94 on the audience score, and I loved it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.22|108.162.241.22]] 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Do Waterworld, in spite of the fact that it only ticks two of the boxes, count? I really liked that one.<br />
:I also liked Waterworld (44%, 1997) and The Postman (9%, 1995) (both with Kevin Kostner, and sort of the same story). Assuming the definition of adult is 18, they both qualify for the adult part, but not the after 2000 part. I also loved Star Wars Episode I, but sure enough, it's above 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. [[User:WhiteDragon|WhiteDragon]] ([[User talk:WhiteDragon|talk]]) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:If it didn't come out while you were an adult, then it doesn't count. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:My immediate search was also for Water World. Would it also not count when you didn't watch it until after 2000? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I don't watch enough movies (or know Rotten Tomatoes well enough) to participate in this particular challenge, but it seems like every time I enjoy a video game, it turns out to have a sizeable and vocal hatedom. I seriously can't relate to the caption here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.165|162.158.107.165]] 20:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Batman v. Superman is probably a good answer for a fair number of people-it has a reasonable number of fans (including myself) who liked it, despite its very poor rating (28%) [[User:SirEpp|SirEpp]] ([[User talk:SirEpp|talk]]) 21:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
: I went to that movie for finding the plausible reason why Batman who only fights criminal and Superman being too unreal for ever being angry for no reason might have a fight which each other. Got less than I expected, in this aspect. But Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, Thor: Ragnarok and Iron Sky are objectively superb films the critics hated. Perhaps with the exception of the relationship between Valerian and Laureline, perhaps, though.[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC) <br />
<br />
Not a movie, per se, but I thought season 8 of Game of Thrones was fantastic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.88|162.158.214.88]] 22:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Critically panned films that I like include: Crimes of Grindelwald, Passengers, and Warcraft. Critically acclaimed films that I do not like: Avatar and Life of Pi. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.213|173.245.48.213]] 22:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Oooh, ''Passengers'' is a good one, I'm stealing that. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:I second Crimes of Grindelwald (37 RT), and add Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (48 RT), which I also enjoyed and actually recommend to people. Now these movies aren't "classics" or "great movies", they aren't perfect, but they are effective entertainment, and ''not'' because they "are so bad their good". Grindelwald has many effective scenes and acting, and Valerian is a very effective effort at making a movie out of a comic book that ''feels like a comic book''-- a fact I appreciated. Of course 48 RT is also just under the 50 RT threshold.[[User:Careysub|Careysub]] ([[User talk:Careysub|talk]])<br />
:It's almost like you totally misunderstood the point of the comic. [[User:A74xhx|A74xhx]] ([[User talk:A74xhx|talk]]) 09:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
::How so? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.16|172.69.69.16]] 21:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Not under 50%, but I'm shocked that "The Secret Life of Walter Smitty" has only 51%... National Treasure has only 46%... I like this game, it is a test in optimism.<br />
:"The Secret Life of Walter '''Mitty'''" deserves a low rating, particularly when compared to the original with Danny Kaye. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 05:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Frankly it would be easier to list the movies I like that aren't below 50% on rotten tomatoes. [[User:CJB42|CJB42]] ([[User talk:CJB42|talk]]) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)s<br />
<br />
My experience with rotten tomatoes ratings in particular is that they have no clue and I find their ratings useless. The challenge from Randall in this comic is a case in point: the first movie I though to check, “Another Gay Movie” gets a 40% on the tomatometer yet is one of my favorites. Same thing with all the “Eating Out” movies: good comedies that I enjoy, yet Tomatometer scores of 16%, 44%, and 17% for the first three. (And why is “Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds” so much higher ranked than 1 or 3? It’s not that different...)<br />
I think the criteria that Randal assumes (but doesn’t mention) is that the movie has to be a box office hit that appeals to mainstream audiences.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 03:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't see why Suicide Squad got trashed. It was light, colourful, had an engaging story, and well made. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.209|172.68.253.209]] 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sucker Punch. There, I said it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.77|141.101.99.77]] 07:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There's a certain type of movie that 'h8ers' will auto-trash before they even come out (especially "Gender-switched version of a classic", like that ''Ghostbusters'', and "Strong female type", like ''Wonder Woman'' - as easy examples of those that some people love to hate, regardless of actual merit). So I recon there'd be good mileage in keeping an eye on (for example) the double-whammy that is the upcoming Female Thor movie. If it doesn't ''actually'' turn out to be so bad that you personally don't like it, I predict that it'll be pre-release troll-sniped down below 50% in "popular" opinion and even if they're not at all right about their guess there'll be a window of opportunity before any counter-viewpoint from actual viewers ups the score again. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:No one hated Wonder Woman. It has 93%, and is arguably the best live action superhero movie that DC has released so far. Ghostbusters was a money grabbing remake that brought nothing new. It COULD have been great with almost no effort, by getting someone to write an original script that built on the things that came before that everyone loves, instead of trying to replace it with an inferior version. The only one to blame is the Hollywood studios that would rather throw money at something that already exists instead of taking a risk on an unknown. Then they add insult to injury and tell everyone that the reason they failed isn't because they made bad decisions, but because ''people don't like seeing women in leading roles'', which is not true in any form. No real people care if the lead is male or female. They care about a good story, good acting, and having a good time watching a movie they paid their money for. [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What the heck are all these Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller movies doing at sub-50%? I didn't know people supposedly hated Night at the Museum that much. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.67|172.68.189.67]] 17:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thanks to the link I found two: Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. I don't consider them like super-good, but I like them. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thanks to the link I found four: Hancock, Knowing, The Lovely Bones, The Book of Eli.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.28|162.158.150.28]] 11:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Immediately: Venom (29%) I like to pretend I like it for the "so bad it's good", but here in anonymous interwebzland, I can admit I just enjoyed it (despite expecting to hate it for the retcon). Does it matter that the RT audience score is 81%? I often find that my enjoyment of a movie is inversely proportional to how much critics didn't, and it seems I'm not alone.[[User:Daemonik|Daemonik]] ([[User talk:Daemonik|talk]]) 09:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the point here is that people feel more comfortable disliking something than liking it. It isn't that we don't all have movies that we like that other people hated, it's that many of us are afraid to say it. Also, t's not a movie, but I honestly enjoyed that one episode of ''Stranger Things''. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 04:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I admit a weakness for the Roland Emmerich movies ("The Day After Tomorrow" and "2012"). OK the science behind the events is pretty rubbish, but they are decent action movies nonetheless with a few enjoyable twists (like the USA having to beg Mexico to let them emigrate south in TDAT).<br />
<br />
I'm shocked no one else has mentioned Jupiter Ascending yet; there was a decent amount of silliness in that movie, but I genuinely found it super compelling, and it deserves better than a 27%. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.90|172.68.65.90]] 16:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
300 got very mediocre reviews (52% on Metacritic), but I'ts absolutely one of my all-time favourite action movies. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 16:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Geostorm. Didn't even need the link for that. [[User:Conster|Conster]] ([[User talk:Conster|talk]]) 21:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Like another user said, Roland Emmerich movies like TDAT and 2012 are ones I'll always be a sucker for. Also, The Book of Eli (2010) is actually a great movie IMO despite having a 48% on RT. I always put that as a classic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 14:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Post-2000? ==<br />
<br />
Anyone have an idea why "post-2000" is a criteria? [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 23:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe because Rotten Tomatoes was launched close to the end of the 1990s, so post-2000 movies are the only ones that have been reviewed as they came out? Or perhaps it's to limit the scope of "movies that came out in your adult life", since adult life could go back a long way for some people. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:I don't know for certain, but I feel incredibly confident that it's the timing of Rotten Tomatoes, that older movies that came out before the site existed won't be thoroughly / properly covered. Like if you look closely you'll see the 40% rating on this movie comes from only 1 vote. I suspect Randall feels that as of 2000, there was enough activity on the site to provide sufficient coverage. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Pre-2000 films, being prior to RT, have the 'benefit' <!-- Though I suppose it's what you look for. I always wanted a "Oscars of the Ten/Twenty/Thirty/... Years Ago" thing that redid the award with (today's version of) historical hindsight that would end up giving a running commentary of the merits/otherwise perceived at various points in time... Anyway, not that anyone will read this comment, I'm sure. --> of studied hindsight. Anybody who bothers to review [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1003722_casino_royale the ''original'' Casino Royale], which would be my choice for this if I were allowed, just has far too much baggage to be thinking the same as with something just being appreciated in the context as a new-release. Including me, probably, across the many years since I first saw that film and fell in love with it, despite the obvious and total car-crash of its Development Hell! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:And there's a lot of selection bias in who reviews movies from pre-2000 as anyone who reviews a movie probably only went to that movies page and wrote a review, because they either really like the movie, or really really really hate it.[[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
:It's stated in the explanation: it is so that most respondents would choose a movie that they have seen in their adult life and avoid the "childhood nostalgia" bias where you have fond memories of a movie watched as a kid but that you wouldn't enjoy watching as an adult.<br />
<br />
I KNOW that there are many, many movies I can apply to this challenge - I often find myself enjoying unpopular movies. Plus, critics suck, they seem to always forget that this is ENTERTAINMENT. A clever movie that is dull as dirt and makes you fall asleep should NOT receive high praise, it fails at the primary function - but I can't think of them in the moment. About a week ago on Facebook I had a memory, a list of facts about Eurotrip, where the article called it a flop, while I loved it, so probably that one. This comic triggered my first ever visit to Rotten Tomatoes, who lists Eurotrip as I think 46%, but much higher for Audience score, so I THINK it counts? What bumps me is that it seems like "Audience Score" would be popular opinion, making Eurotrip actually a Popular movie, which seems like then it wouldn't apply here. ???? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hypothesis: People generally give more positive then negative reviews, and positive reviews also cause more people to watch. The number of watching for something bad is therefor lower, while a good movie is watched so often there is always a critic.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.190|172.69.55.190]] 10:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What the hell is wrong with people who don't like Ghost Rider or Daredevil? — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 19:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My favorite bad movies Wild Wild West, The One, Returner, Equilibrium, The Warrior's Way [[User:Houligan|Houligan]] ([[User talk:Houligan|talk]]) 15:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I liked 50 First Dates. But for my really controversial opinion, I'm gonna say not only was Armageddon a terrific movie, but it got enough of the science right to earn our suspension of disbelief :D<br />
--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.245|172.68.142.245]] 21:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is [[653: So Bad It's Worse]] related enough to be mentioned in the explaination or trivia? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I just came here to say, "Pandorum".<br />
<br />
How to talk to girls at parties (2018) - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.113|172.68.46.113]] 20:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)</div>162.158.74.33https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2187:_Geologic_Time&diff=1778372187: Geologic Time2019-08-09T18:18:26Z<p>162.158.74.33: /* Explanation */ Quick draft.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2187<br />
| date = August 9, 2019<br />
| title = Geologic Time<br />
| image = geologic_time.png<br />
| titletext = Ok, well, we'll be sure to pay you sometime soon, geologically speaking.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
Analogies to explain the passage of billions of years are often used in popular science explanations, to help compress these huge spans of time into something the human mind can comprehend. The football field analogy is one of these - if you spread billions of years over a football field, each yard is tens of millions of years, and human history, which is only several thousand years old, is a tiny fraction of that. <br />
<br />
This is juxtaposed with normal human time-scales, to imply that being two weeks late on a project is immaterial by the standards of the earth's tremendous age. <br />
<br />
The mouse-over text implies the logical corollary of that, where the payment for the work is also going to be delayed a period of time that's short by comparison to the Earth's age, but presumably much longer than the geologist wants to wait to get paid.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>162.158.74.33https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2137:_Text_Entry&diff=172778Talk:2137: Text Entry2019-04-16T23:35:29Z<p>162.158.74.33: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
== Dvorak ==<br />
<br />
''Title text: I like to think that somewhere out there, there's someone whose personal quest is lobbying TV providers to add an option to switch their on-screen keyboards to Dvorak.''<br />
<br />
Using the Dvorak layout when you have to scroll through letters is particularly bad. Since Dvorak is optimized to alternate strokes between hands (by putting all vowels on one side), you would have to spend even more time navigating between letters. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.102|162.158.106.102]] 16:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I suspect that's at least part of the joke in the title text, as Randall is likely aware of that fact. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 16:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
I of course had to wonder what TV show they were headed for so I started OUR_PL in Google and got "Our Planet Netflix" so now I know . . .I think. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.82|162.158.214.82]] 16:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
My Netflix interface takes entries from a keyboard. Found out about 2 weeks ago... It is a Samsung TV and I think the feature was not there from the beginning.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.52|172.68.50.52]] 16:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Should it be clarified that Ponytail and Cueball are sitting in one chair? The drawing seemed unclear to me at first. --[[User:Youforgotthisthing|Youforgotthisthing]] ([[User talk:Youforgotthisthing|talk]]) 18:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC) One chair? Or a sofa or a loveseat?? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.82|162.158.214.82]] 11:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
It looks to me like a child standing beside (our perspective: behind) his chair and another person looking over his shoulder. ShawnT [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 23:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
I use Dvorak on all my devices when possible and often find myself wishing for Dvorak on-screen keyboards. Sure, there's more absolute distance between consecutive characters on average, but that's offset by me not having to try to remember how QWERTY is laid out. I don't think that the joke here is "Dvorak on-screen keyboards are pointless", I think it's "Dvorak users are such a small percentage of the population that the odds of anyone bothering to cater to them is slim to none, and anyone lobbying for it is wasting their time". [[User:Undergroundmonorail|Undergroundmonorail]] ([[User talk:Undergroundmonorail|talk]]) 18:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Smart TV Keyboards ==<br />
Randall probably doesn't know / have or use [https://tehnoblog.org/review-wireless-usb-mini-keyboard-for-pc-raspberry-pi-ubuntu-windows-android-xbox-playstation/ these little keyboards] that can literally save you from trouble and excruciating pain from one-by-one letter "typing": {{unsigned|172.68.154.88}}<br />
:This has to be an ad, right? I'm pretty sure Randall "literally" knows about USB keyboards, regardless of form factor.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.172|108.162.216.172]] 22:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
::Not necessarily, and since the IP's not blatantly vandalizing pages or spamming links to external sites, and this is the talk page, there's no need to remove it for now. But I've collapsed the URL in case it's an attempt at advertising, as we've seen a lot of (fill in the blank)Review accounts created for that purpose, and some are vandalizing pages. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 07:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
:In my case, my smart TV has a remote control app that allows the phone's keyboard to be used. It also provides a trackpad for issuing a cursor more easily. [[User:Baldrickk|Baldrickk]] ([[User talk:Baldrickk|talk]]) 11:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
If just all on-screen keyboards were qwerty... Depending on the app some use qwerty and some use alphabetical grids. I'm always struggling to find the right letters in ther latter... It gets worse if alphabetical ordered letters are arranged in a standard keyboard pattern. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This got to be so annoying for me that I actually bought Roku streaming boxes for my TV's so that I can use their phone app to replace the remote and can now type on the phone's touch screen instead of going through the usual up-up-left-left-click nonsense. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 14:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Weird lines ==<br />
What are those strange curved lines behind Cueball's head? There are also lines next to his legs that suggest that he's kicking them rapidly. It's unusual to see extraneous stuff like this in an XKCD comic. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 14:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
: I think it is being interpreted that Cueball is sitting next to Ponytail and that's her hair. The extra legs would also be hers. But the drawing here is confusing. It looks like a ponytail attached to no actual head. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.28|162.158.78.28]] 17:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Use Wired Keyboard ==<br />
Any "smart tv", even cheap ones have USB ports, not just for displaying Picture albums, but you can use any USB keyboard and type on the screen. Some of the better streaming boxes such as the FireTv Media Player (discontinued), NVIDIA Shield, and pretty much any Cable box have them so you may type on the screen rather than click each letter. Also All game consoles allow keyboards now, not just in game, but back in the home screen for typing passwords as well.</div>162.158.74.33https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1392:_Dominant_Players&diff=1594071392: Dominant Players2018-06-28T04:02:39Z<p>162.158.74.33: Undo (spam) revision 139095 by Celebsnetworth (talk)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1392<br />
| date = July 9, 2014<br />
| title = Dominant Players<br />
| image = dominant_players.png<br />
| titletext = When Vera Menchik entered a 1929 tournament, a male competitor mocked her by suggesting that a special 'Vera Menchik Club' would be created for any player who lost to her. When the tournament began, he promptly became the first member of said club, and over the years it accumulated a large and illustrious roster.<br />
}}<br />
*A [http://xkcd.com/1392/large larger version] of this image can be found by clicking the image at xkcd.com - the comic's page can also be accessed by clicking on the comic number above.<br />
{{TOC}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
The comic shows the rise and fall of players' strengths in two games, {{w|basketball}} and {{w|chess}}. For chess, there is an overall chart, and a women's chart. <br />
<br />
For basketball, it uses the {{w|player efficiency rating}} (PER), the [http://knickerblogger.net/a-laymans-guide-to-advanced-nba-statistics/ most commonly used player statistic]. Note that that player efficiency ratings and similar "aggregate scores" are the subject of much discussion in basketball due to {{w|Player efficiency rating#Problems with PER|known deficiencies}}.<br />
<br />
For chess, it uses the {{w|Elo rating}}. Elo was adopted by the World Chess Federation, FIDE, in 1970, so the rating is extrapolated backwards in time (among other using [https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Kenneth+Wingate+Regan Kenneth Regan's] computer analysis - as written in the Chess panel) and are thus shown as dashed lines prior to 1970. Interestingly Elo ratings {{w|Elo rating#Elo ratings beyond chess|have been adapted to basketball}}, but the PER is more commonly used to rank basketball players.<br />
<br />
The charts show the players career paths as a function of time with the rating on the y-axis. There is no [[#Scales of the axis|scale on the y-axis]].<br />
<br />
[[#Player inclusion criteria|Included]] are mainly players that could be said to have been among the dominating players at some time in their career. If a player has been the best player over a longer time period (a seriously dominating player) then their career path will be drawn in red, the rest are in gray. There can be more than one red path at a time, but only because the dominating player has played before or after they became dominating. It seems like it has to be at least five years, as there are at least two players that have been no. 1 for four years, without being upgraded to a red curve. The only ones that have managed this with three years or less (on the chart) are those that begin the chart, and thus could have been no. 1 a few years before. This can all be seen in the '''[[#Data tables|data tables]]''' below.<br />
<br />
The title text mentions {{w|Vera Menchik}} who is also the first female chess player listed at the left of the bottom panel. In January 1926 she won the first Girls' Open Championship at the Imperial Club in London, but as can be seen in the last panel she was killed near the end of World War II, 38-year-old, while still holding the title of women's world champion. She, her sister, and mother were killed in a {{w|V-1 flying bomb}} attack which destroyed their home in 1944. <br />
<br />
The title text mentions her specifically because of the club named after her:{{w|Vera_Menchik#The_.22Vera_Menchik_Club.22|The "Vera Menchik Club"}}. When in 1929, Menchik entered the {{w|Carlsbad 1929 chess tournament|Carlsbad}}, Viennese master, usually a tournament only for male chess players, one of the other chess players, {{w|Albert Becker (chess player)|Albert Becker}}, ridiculed her entry by proposing that any player whom Menchik defeated in tournament play should be granted membership into the Vera Menchik Club. In the same tournament, Becker himself became the first member of the "club", much to his ridicule. It should be noted that she did end in last place vs. his fifth place, but that must just have made the defeat even tougher to take for Albert.<br />
<br />
Albert was the first, but far from the last male chess player to enter the Vera Menchik Club, no less than 19 other male chess players, with wiki pages, are listed on Wikipedia, amongst them {{w|Max Euwe}} who went on to become World Chess Champion (1935–37). So it can for sure be said that the club accumulated a large and illustrious roster.<br />
<br />
One and a half year later a comic, named after {{w|Magnus Carlsen}}, was released [[1628: Magnus]]. This comics also compares chess players (Magnus) to other (sporting) events. Magnus was ranked no. 1 on the chess world rank when both comics were released.<br />
<br />
==Basketball vs chess==<br />
Basketball is one of the fastest sports in the world, with some of the tallest people in the world among the players. Chess, on the other hand, will by many not even be considered a sport. Although a general good condition of the body may help you think clearly, you by no means need to be an athlete to do well in chess. You do, however, expect a rather high IQ among the best performers. This is not necessary to become a great basketball player (although here it is not in the way either). Another very important difference is that basketball is a team sport, whereas chess is one of the most individual sports you can imagine.<br />
<br />
So why compare to so different sports? And why the [[#References on the career paths|funny remarks]] for the basketball players against the more serious for the chess players? Maybe [[Randall]] wishes to make fun of basketball and the fact that several of the best of these at some time during their careers choose to be in a movie or documentary. Or that they return after they retired. The remarks for the chess players is more about who loses and wins matches.<br />
<br />
It could also be to show how different the players' career paths are. Basketball players peak early in their career, then have at most a decade at the top of their game (and as the best), and if they are lucky they get close to a career of two decades. Chess players can dominate for two decades, and have careers that last more than three decades. Also they often continue to improve a long time after they became no 1.<br />
<br />
For the reason mentioned here there are 7 red basketball players from 1950-2014, whereas there are only 5 male and 3 female red players for the two chess panels. (And then one extra each for the Chess panels from before 1950). See the [[#Data tables|data tables]] below.<br />
<br />
Except for women's chess between 1944 till 1957 and for chess until 1947 there are always at least two players' career paths at any given time. So at least no. 1 and no. 2 are shown. But at some point in time there can be as many as 7 basketball players, 8 chess players and 8 women chess players' career paths for a given year.<br />
<br />
In [[544: Pep Talk]] a group of chess players tries (and fails) to be competitive in the NBA, also because they are coached by someone with no understanding of basketball...<br />
<br />
===Chess vs chess (women)===<br />
Why is chess divided in an overall (with only one woman included) and basketball not? First of all, there is very little focus on women's basketball (as for most women's sport). This may be the same for chess, but at least here the physical strength advantage for men is no direct advantage. Thus a great woman chess player may play just as interesting chess as a man. Whereas women would typically have no chance if playing on a basketball team with men. But why are women then not represented better on the overall chess ranking? This is explained and may be another reason it is included. In the ''Chess (women)'' panel it says: ''For a long time, sexism, a lack of role models, and institutional hostility largely kept women from pursuing serious chess careers. With the expansion of women's tournaments and prizes starting in the 1970s, this has begun to change''. So now at least one woman has shown that her skills is enough to compete with the best men. With the long careers chess players usually have, then maternity leave can destroy a woman's chance at reaching the ultimate top. This could be the case for the number one woman who now has two children.<br />
<br />
==References on the career paths==<br />
*There are several references at given times of a career path. These can either be noted with:<br />
**A node on the path. An arrow will point to the note and state a fact.<br />
**Dashed path, not including chess player paths from before 1970 where they were all dashed as explained above. For basketball, an arrow will point to the dashed part and state a fact.<br />
**The {{w|Starburst (symbol)|starbursts}} at the beginning or end of a path. A fact will be stated next to the node. These are references to a player disappearing (or reappearing) in unusual circumstances in either Chess panel.<br />
*Some of these are intended to provide context (such as "Loses to Deep Blue"), while others are tangents or jokes.<br />
*These references are listed below in order of appearance. If it is a dashed line or a starburst it will be mentioned:<br />
<br />
===Basketball===<br />
*{{W|Wilt Chamberlain}} – "Becomes the first and so far only player to score {{w|Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game|100 points in a game}}". (In 1962)<br />
*{{w|Jerry West}} – "The Guy in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NBALogo.svg The NBA logo]" from 1969: read 5th paragraph in this {{w|National Basketball Association#Celtics' dominance, league expansion, and competition|wiki section}}<br />
*{{w|Kareem Abdul-Jabbar}} – "{{w|Airplane (film)|Airplane}}": A comedy film from 1980 where he played the co-pilot Roger Murdock.<br />
*{{w|Magic Johnson}} – "{{w|Magic Johnson#HIV announcement and Olympics (1991–92)|HIV announcement}}". This part of his path is dashed. The line is dashed from 1991 to 1995 - where the fear of AIDS forced him to retire.<br />
**He {{w|Magic Johnson#Return to the Lakers as coach and player (1994, 1996)|returned to play once more}} in the season from 1995-1996<br />
*{{w|Michael Jordan}} – "{{w|Michael Jordan#First retirement and baseball career (1993–1994)|Baseball career}}". This part of his path is dashed. From 1993–1994 he played Baseball - i.e. his first retirement.<br />
*Michael Jordan – "{{w|Space Jam}}". (An animated comedy film from 1996 starring {{w|Bugs Bunny}} and Jordan - who was the only live character during most of the movie)<br />
*Michael Jordan – "{{w|Michael Jordan#Second retirement (1999–2001)|Second retirement}}". This part of his path is dashed. (He retired again from 1999–2001.)<br />
**He then {{w|Michael Jordan#Washington Wizards comeback (2001–2003)|came back}} to play two more years from 2001–2003.<br />
*{{w|LeBron James}} – "{{w|The Decision (TV special)|The Decision}}," a television special from 2010 about a heavily hyped decision as to which team he would play for the next season.<br />
<br />
===Chess===<br />
*{{w|José Raúl Capablanca|José Capablanca}} – "Terrifying chess God". An arrow points to the left of the panel with his name and the note beneath it. He was considered one of the greatest chess players of all time. As he died in 1942 this lies just outside of the chart. Anyway he had his best years all the way back in 1921-1927 where he was world chess champion<br />
*{{w|Alexander Alekhine}} – This is the first starburst. There is no text except his name. He {{w|Alexander Alekhine#His final year|died in 1946}} in Portugal.<br />
*{{w|Bobby Fischer}} – "Vanished..." The second Starburst. (He did not actually vanish, but he did {{w|Bobby Fischer#Sudden obscurity|stop playing competitively}} for about 20 years starting in 1972.) This is probably a reference to the 1993 film {{w|Searching for Bobby Fischer}}, which is not actually about Fischer, but about a player who partly models his career on Fischer's. The name ''Searching for Bobby Fischer'' may lead people to believe Fischer literally vanished, but that is not the case.<br />
*Bobby Fischer – "...Reappeared then vanished again. He had problems." This is written below a double starburst with a short line between. This is another reference to Fischer - there is no name or clear correlation, except the text that relates to the first reference. He {{w|Bobby Fischer#1992 Spassky rematch|resumed playing competitively}} in 1992 for a match. ''{{w|Bobby Fischer#Life as an émigré|He had problems}}'' is a simplistic description of issues and controversies in Fischer's later life, including an arrest warrant because he violated a U.S. embargo against Yugoslavia, unpaid taxes, controversy about his statements on {{w|Antisemitism|anti-semitism}}, and mental problems. The U.S. eventually revoked his passport, and he was jailed for eight months in Japan. He then received Icelandic citizenship, and lived out the rest of his life there.<br />
*{{w|Garry Kasparov}} – "Loses to {{w|Deep Blue (chess computer)|Deep Blue}}". In 1997 Deep Blue became the first computer to {{w|Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov#1997 rematch|beat the current chess world champion}}<br />
*{{w|Judit Polgar}} – "(see below)". The text in the brackets is written beneath her name. She is the strongest woman chess player ever and can be seen rising from the gender-defined ranks of women's chess (below). She is the only women shown on this part of the chart. Below in the womans chart, there are several notes - see below.<br />
<br />
===Chess (women)===<br />
*{{w|Vera Menchik}} – "Died in a missile attack on London". This is the Last starburst. She was killed in 1944 by an early guided missile - a {{w|V-1 flying bomb}} - launched by the Germans in {{w|World War II}}. For some reason her path does not seems to be dashed, as it should have been before 1970, but it may be simply because the dashes were obscured by her name. She is also mentioned in the title text, see above in the [[#Explanation|Explanation]].<br />
*{{w|Sonja Graf}} – "Rating particularly uncertain". This is written above her name, with an arrow pointing there. As a matter of fact, she was clearly the second best woman and her path should be parallel to Menchik's from 1930's. The path is already dashed indicating that it is a rough estimate, but there was probably very little data for woman chess players before 1960 explaining the note.<br />
*{{w|Kira Zvorykina}} – "Kira Zvorykina (born 1919) continued playing in tournaments into the 21st century". Zvorykina was never very high on the list, but can be seen twice centered on 1960 and 1980. She played her [http://ratings.fide.com/individual_calculations.phtml?idnumber=13500392&rating_period=2008-01-01&t=0 last game] rated by the {{w|World Chess Federation}} in October 2007 aged 88. She was still alive when this comic was released. Zvoryinka passed away in September 2014.<br />
**She is the only player in all three panels whose path falls below the panel only to enter again later. This second entry is labeled with her last name - Zvorykina - on top of the path. <br />
*Judit Polgar, {{w|Susan Polgar}} and {{w|Sofia Polgar}} – "Sisters". These three chess playing sisters are linked by a thin dashed line, snaking between their names on the chart. Judit is the youngest, Susan the oldest. Judit has now overtaken her sisters, Sofia never reaching the other two sisters level.<br />
*Judit Polgar – "{{w|Judit Polgar#Making history|Wins a game against Kasparov}}, making her the first woman to beat the world #1". It took some attempts and some {{w|Judit Polgar#Kasparov touch-move controversy|controversy}} before she managed to beat Kasparov in 2002, in a tournament that was played under rapid rules with 25 minutes per game and a 10-second bonus per move.<br />
*Judit Polgar – "Becomes first woman to rank in the overall top 10". She is so far the only woman to break into the top 10 in the {{w|FIDE World Rankings}}. She ranked as high as {{w|Judit Polgar#Combining family and chess|eighth in the world}} in 2005.<br />
<br />
==Scales of the axis==<br />
The '''x-axis''' is divided in decades from 1950 until 2010. In the Basketball section the curves begins to appear right after 1950. For both chess panels there are curves further back than 1950 (with even a reference to a player from before 1940). For all three panels the paths continue up till present day (2014).<br />
<br />
In all cases there is no scale on the '''y-axis''' with the rating, thus it is difficult to find the absolute scale. It is also difficult to compare between the two chess panels. The scale on the two chess panels are, however, the same, as can be seen by comparing the curve of Judit Polgar on each chart. This curve is exactly the same, with the same elevation between the point where her curve enters the Chess panel up to the top point. This also means that any women player whose curve rises above this entry point (around 1989) should also be visible in the Chess chart. See below for inclusion criteria.<br />
<br />
==Player inclusion criteria==<br />
In general not all possible players are included in these charts. For instance it is mentioned that Judit Polgar was the first woman ranked in the over all top 10. But only six players are shown on the over all chart around 2005, where she was ranked 8th. So some male players, better than her at that time, have not been included. This is a general trend for all three charts.<br />
<br />
From the Woman's panel below it is also clear that some of the other women would be ranked high enough to be visible on the upper chart as mentioned in the [[#Scales of the axis|Scales]] section above. But still only Judit is shown there. 9 out of 12 of the women that are on the chart after 1989 would be visible if included in the overall chart. However, none of them could be called dominant when comparing to the best men in the same time period. And thus they are not included. Maybe the same could be said about Judth, but then she is included for scale, and because she is so good that she can compete with, and sometimes beat, the best.<br />
<br />
Some NBA players (like {{w|Tim Duncan}}, {{w|Charles Barkley}}, {{w|Oscar Robertson}}, {{w|Kobe Bryant}}, and {{w|Chris Paul}}) have been left out of the chart in favor of players with lower career and yearly efficiency ratings.<br />
<br />
Similarly can be mentioned for instance the no. 1 ranked chess player {{w|Veselin Topalov}} from Bulgaria, who was ranked first both in 20062007 and in 2008-2010 for a total of less than two years. And there are likely several others ([[#Where is Viswanathan Anand|see below]]).<br />
<br />
An example of the above for Basketball would be the 2008–2009 season which was unique in that it was the only season in which more than one player posted an efficiency ratings of over 30.0 on the Player efficiency rating (see at the bottom of {{w|Player efficiency rating#Reference guide|this section}} on Wikipedia). In that season three players broke this barrier: LeBron James (31.76), {{w|Dwyane Wade}} (30.46), and Chris Paul (30.04). LeBron is shown to top that season, But Dwayne is far below (thus the scale does not fit?) and Chris is not on the list at all (i.e. he was not deemed to be a dominant player).<br />
<br />
So is this [[Randall|Randall's]] subjective list of players that he has deemed to be ''Dominant Players'' and not a full list of the best ranked players during the time period? Of course it is his choice which players he put into the list, but missing players (when worse has been included earlier) can be explained if the missing players never were among the most dominant player over a length of time. It is not a list of the best players of all time, or of a single season, but a chart of the dominant players over a longer time period.<br />
<br />
If a player only has had a very short time where their careers peaked - they should not be included. Also if there most of the time where at least two others that were more dominant than they ever where - they should not be included. To tell if this explains all the excluded players mentioned/referenced above, that would take some investigation. An investigation we can assume Randall has taken upon himself before posting this comic. This of course will still make it his subjective list.<br />
<br />
For basketball any given player will at least have been the 2nd best (of those included) at some (longer) period of their career. And to become selected for a red curve, they need to be the best for at least five years - the first players curve is no. 1 less than five year, but he could have been no. 1 also before 1951.<br />
<br />
The same is valid for the Chess players (again the first players curve is red, but stops just as it enters the panel). Only exception is Judit Polgar. She is never better than 3rd of those selected. And she was never better than 8th in the world. So her inclusion is a mentioned probably only to compare her with the men.<br />
<br />
For the woman chess players there are the same criteria for red, except that Sonja Graf is not red although she is the only chess player on the list for more than a decade. Maybe you need to be better than someone else to become red? There are also included several women who never reaches 2nd place on the chart. Three of these reaches 3rd place and two only 4th. One of these, Anna Muzychuk, is still on the rise, so she might be on the chart, because she could possibly become first or second if she can continue to improve. The other, Sofia Polgar, is included to show that all three Polgar sisters are chess masters.<br />
<br />
===Where is Viswanathan Anand===<br />
None of the above can explain why former World Champion Chess Grandmaster {{w|Viswanathan Anand}} has not been included in the Chess Chart. Anand is one of six players in history to break the 2800 mark on the FIDE rating list. He occupied the number one position in several rating lists between 2007 and 2011. The reason could possible be because Randall may be a huge fan of Magnus Carlsen, and thus biased against Anand - there is some evidence for this in [[1287: Puzzle]]. In the title text of that comic it seems that Randall makes fun of Anand in a match against Magnus. The interpretation of the comic and its comment, however, appear to be a double-edged matter of debate. However, since the release of [[1628: Magnus]], named after Magnus, there can be no doubt that Randall is a fan of Magnus.<br />
<br />
Anand can for instance be found in the {{w|Chessmetrics}} devised by statistician {{w|Jeff Sonas}}. In the [http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Summary.asp graph from 1995-2005] of Sonas famous research from 2005, Anand becomes the best during 2004. It can, however, also be seen that Randall does not agree with Sonas - this is very clear in this [http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Summary.asp?Params=194020SSSSS3S000000000000111000000000000010100 graph from 1940-1960]. Here Mikhail Botvinnik clearly plays way better than Alexander Alekhine in 1946, where Alexander dies. This is not shown like this in the comic. Maybe the death of Alexander becomes the more interesting in the comic, if you believed he was the best at the time. Note that all nine (male) names listed in the comics chart between the lines at 1950 and 2000 are included in this [http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Summary.asp?Params=195050SSSSS3S000000000000111000000000000010100 graph from 1950-2000]. In this chart it is clear that Bobby Fischer was by far the best in the years before he disappeared. However, he was caught by {{w|Anatoly Karpov}} just before which is not shown in the comic. On the other hand, he seems to have reached a significant higher rating than Kasparov ever did, which is also not the case in the comic.<br />
<br />
==Entwined career paths==<br />
Chess players {{w|Vladimir Kramnik}} and {{w|Levon Aronian}}, who have faced each other on multiple occasions in the 2010s, are shown as having their career paths entwined. It is a general trend observed every time two players paths cross each other more than once. The one on top the first time, will be below the second time and so forth. It is just more clear with these two than anywhere else. In two cases these crossing path occurs with so long time between the first appearance, that the names is written twice on the path. In the Chess panel it is {{w|Mikhail Tal}} and {{w|Boris Spassky}} and for the Chess (women) panel it is {{w|Pia Cramling}} and {{w|Xie Jun}}. This can make it difficult to get an overview of how few chess players there are compared to basketball players.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:'''Dominant players '''<br />
:over time<br />
:[Below this heading there are three panels with charts showing different players career paths - that is their rating a function of the year. Most of the paths are grey, but some are red (there will be a note for these). Some parts of several paths are dashed. Somewhere on each path the players name will be written curving along so it follows the path. Several places an event or some information is noted and points to a given time on the path. If it is not clear where it belongs an arrow will point to the correct place. Each chart has a heading and for the two last charts there is an explanation. There is no scale on the y-axis (rating) but the x-axis (time) has the years given in ten years interval. A thin line indicates these decades. The years are all written at the top, except the first for the first chart, which is written below, and this year is missing in the bottom chart.]<br />
:[Below the transcript for each chart will follow this order: Heading/sub heading, explanation, time scale, player names with any information for this player, in the order their name appear on the time scale.]<br />
:[Basketball chart:]<br />
:'''Basketball (NBA/ABA)'''<br />
:Player Efficiency Rating<br />
:1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010<br />
:[Red] George Mikan<br />
:[Red] Bob Pettit<br />
:Neal Johnston [Neil misspelled.]<br />
:Elgin Baylor<br />
:[Red] Wilt Chamberlain<br />
::Becomes the first and so far only player to score 100 points in a game<br />
:Jerry West<br />
::The Guy in the NBA logo<br />
:[Red] Kareem Abdul Jabbar [Missing hyphen between the two last names.]<br />
::Airplane<br />
:Bob Mcadoo<br />
:Julius Irving [Erving misspelled.]<br />
:Moses Malone<br />
:Magic Johnson<br />
::HIV announcement [A part of the path is dashed after this.]<br />
:[Red] Michael Jordan<br />
::Baseball career [A part of the path is dashed after this.]<br />
::Space Jam<br />
::Second retirement [A part of the path is dashed after this.]<br />
:Larry Bird<br />
:Karl Malone<br />
:David Robinson<br />
:[Red] Shaquille O'Neal<br />
:Kevin Gariett<br />
:[Red] LeBron James<br />
::The Decision<br />
:Dwyane Wade<br />
:Kevin Durant<br />
<br />
:[Chess chart.]<br />
:'''Chess'''<br />
:Elo Rating<br />
:The modern Elo rating system dates back to about 1970.<br />
:Computer analysis (like Kenneth Regan's) lets us rate historical players, but this has only been done rigorously for a few tournaments.<br />
:Dashed lines are rough estimates only.<br />
:[All paths are dashed up until the late nineteen sixties:]<br />
:1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010<br />
:[The first player has no path, as his time was before 1940. An arrow points toward the left to these earlier times:]<br />
:José Capablanca<br />
::Terrifying chess God<br />
:[Red] Alexander Alekhine [His path ends in a starburst.]<br />
:[Red] Mikhail Botvinnik<br />
:Tigran Petrosian<br />
:David Bronstein<br />
:Mikhail Tal<br />
::Mikhail Tal [his name is written twice on the path, the second time above Boris Spassky when their paths intertwine.]<br />
:[Red] Bobby Fischer<br />
::Vanished… [Text under a starburst.]<br />
::Reappeared then vanished again. He had problems. [Text under two starbursts connected with a path. This appears much later than the first starburst.]<br />
:Boris Spassky<br />
::Boris Spassky [his name is written twice on the path, the second time below Mikhail Tal when their paths intertwine.]<br />
:Victor Korchnoi<br />
:[Red] Anatoly Karpov<br />
:[Red] Garry Kasparov<br />
::Loses to Deep Blue<br />
:Judit Polgar<br />
::(See below) [The text is written beneath her name.]<br />
:Vladimir Kramnik<br />
:Levon Aronian<br />
:[Red] Magnus Carlsen<br />
<br />
:[Chess (women) chart:]<br />
:'''Chess (women)'''<br />
:Elo Rating<br />
:For a long time, sexism, a lack of role models, and institutional hostility largely kept women from pursuing serious chess careers.<br />
:With the expansion of women's tournaments and prizes starting in the 1970s, this has begun to change.<br />
:[All paths are dashed up until the late nineteen sixties.]<br />
:1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010<br />
:[Red] Vera Menchik<br />
::Died in a missile attack on London [next to a starburst.]<br />
:Sonja Graf<br />
::Rating particularly uncertain<br />
:Olga Rubtsova<br />
:Elisaveta Bykova<br />
:Kira Zvorykina<br />
::Kira Zvorykina (born 1919) continued playing in tournaments into the 21st century [Text above Elisvetas path, no arrows.]<br />
::Zvorykina [Written on top of the path when her path reappears much later.]<br />
:Alexander Nicolau<br />
:[Red] Nona Gaprindashvili<br />
:Alla Kushnir<br />
:[Red] Maia Chiburdanidze<br />
:Pia Cramling<br />
::Pia Cramling [her name is written twice on the path, the second time below the path of Xie Jun after their paths have intertwined.]<br />
:Xie Jun<br />
::Xie Jun [her name is written twice on the path, the second time above the path of Pia Cramling after their paths have intertwined.]<br />
:Susan Polgar<br />
:Sofia Polgar<br />
:[Red] Judit Polgar<br />
::Sisters [The three Polgars are linked by a thin dashed line, snaking between their names.]<br />
::Wins a game against Kasparov, making her the first woman to beat the world #1<br />
::Becomes first woman to rank in the overall top 10<br />
:Antoaneta Stefanova<br />
:Anna Muzychuk<br />
:Koneru Humpy [In western style the name should be Humpy Koneru, but the comics version is the native form.]<br />
:Hou Yifan<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*The [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/archive/4/45/20140710201235!dominant_players.png original comic] said about Kira Zvorykina "Continued playing in tournaments into the 20th century". The 20th century is the 1900s in which Zvorkina was born (on September 29, 1919 according to Wikipedia). Randall has corrected the notation to say "into the 21st century."<br />
*The names of three NBA players have been misspelled: {{w|Neil Johnston}} (misspelled as "Neal"), Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (missing hyphen), and {{w|Julius Erving}} (misspelled "Irving".)<br />
*The order of the names of an Indian chess playing woman has been given in the native version in the comic, where the western version would use the reverse as here: {{w|Humpy Koneru}}.<br />
===Data tables===<br />
*Below are three sortable tables, with the original order as the players name appear in the transcript i.e. chronological.<br />
*One of the objectives of the tables is to make it clear what is the criteria for a player obtaining a red path. Thus there is an x for red path and an x for being no. 1 on the charts. Also the number if years a player has been no. 1 is given.<br />
*All data in these tables are taken from the comic - except the names - they are taken from Wikipedia. See trivia items above.<br />
*The total years as no. 1 is not the same in each table, as those players entering the panels from outside (before 1942), do not get a length of time as being no. 1. For basketball the chart first begins in 1951 (together with the rating system?)<br />
**Since the years as no. 1 has been roughly estimated from the charts (with a ruler) the sum total can also not be expected to fit with the first entry and today (and they miss with at least a couple of years each), as all years have been rounded to the nearest whole year.<br />
*In the comments column, there is references to the relevant section in the explanation if there are any notes/references in the comic for the player. Also references are made to the trivia section for errors etc. Other comments are for special observations regarding said player.<br />
**So use the comments if you have any interesting but short note to add for a given player.<br />
**In case of longer info: If they are regarding the table, write them in bullets below the relevant table (and make a note on the players comments), or add it to the trivia section above.<br />
**More general things or info on [[#Player inclusion criteria|players missing from the comic]] should be added to the explanation above.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable"<br />
|+Dominant players in Basketball (NBA/ABA)<br />
!Player name<br />
!x if Red<br />
!x if no. 1<br />
!Years as no. 1<br />
!Best placement<br />
!Comments<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|George Mikan}}||x||x||3||1||His path begins in 1951 where the chart begins<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Bob Pettit}}||x||x||5||1||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Neil Johnston }}||||||0||2||His path begins in 1951 where the chart begins. [[#Trivia|Name misspelled]] in comic<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Elgin Baylor}}||||||0||2||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w| Wilt Chamberlain}}||x||x||11||1||[[#Basketball|There is a note]]<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Jerry West}}||||||0||2||[[#Basketball|There is a note]]<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Kareem Abdul-Jabbar}}||x||x||10||1||[[#Basketball|There is a note]]. Also the [[#Trivia|hyphen has been left out]] in the comic<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Bob McAdoo}}||||||0||2||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Julius Erving}}||||x||1||1||[[#Trivia|Name misspelled]] in comic<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Moses Malone}}||||x||3||1||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Magic Johnson}}||||||0||2||[[#Basketball|There is a note]]<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Michael Jordan}}||x||x||8||1||[[#Basketball|There are three notes]]<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Larry Bird}}||||x||2||1||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Karl Malone}}||||||0||2||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|David Robinson (basketball)|David Robinson}}||||x||4||1||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Shaquille O'Neal}}||x||x||6||1||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Kevin Garnett}}||||x||2||1||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|LeBron James}}||x||x||8||1||[[#Basketball|There is a note]]<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Dwyane Wade}}||||x||1||1||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Kevin Durant}}||||x||1||1||He became no 1 in 2013 and still is<br />
|-<br />
|20 players - Total: ||7||14||65||1-2||<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable"<br />
|+ Chess<br />
!Player name<br />
!x if Red<br />
!x if no. 1<br />
!Years as no. 1<br />
!Best placement<br />
!Comments<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|José Capablanca}}||||x||||1||[[#Chess|There is a note]]. He is outside the panel<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Alexander Alekhine}}||x||x||||1||Path begins outside panel and ends in a starburst<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Mikhail Botvinnik}}||x||x||17||1||No 1 over two separate periods<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Tigran Petrosian}}||||||0||2||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|David Bronstein}}||||x||2||1||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Mikhail Tal}}||||x||4||1||Name written twice on the path<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Bobby Fischer}}||x||x||8||1||[[#Chess|There are two notes]] in connection with three starbursts<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Boris Spassky}}||||||0||2||Name written twice on the path<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Victor Korchnoi}}||||||0||2||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Anatoly Karpov}}||x||x||11||1||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Garry Kasparov}}||x||x||23||1||[[#Chess|There is a note]]<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Judit Polgar}}||||||0||3||[[#Chess|There is a note]]. Only woman in this chart.<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Vladimir Kramnik}}||||x||2||1||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Levon Aronian}}||||||0||2||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Magnus Carlsen}}||x||x||6||1||He became no 1 in 2008 and still is<br />
|-<br />
|15 players - Total: ||6||10||73||1-3||Only with a 3rd place as the best is Judit from the women's chart<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable"<br />
|+ Chess (women)<br />
!Player name<br />
!x if Red<br />
!x if no. 1<br />
!Years as no. 1<br />
!Best placement<br />
!Comments<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Vera Menchik}}||x||x||||1||[[#Chess (women)|There is a note]]. Path begins outside panel and ends in a starburst. Note that she is also mentioned in the title text.<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Sonja Graf}}||||x||13||1||[[#Chess (women)|There is a note]]<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Olga Rubtsova}}||||x||1||1||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Elisaveta Bykova}}||||||0||2||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Kira Zvorykina}}||||||0||3||[[#Chess (women)|There are two notes]], see also [[#Trivia|Trivia]]<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Alexandra Nicolau}}||||||0||3||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Nona Gaprindashvili}}||x||x||19||1||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Alla Kushnir}}||||||0||2||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Maia Chiburdanidze}}||x||x||9||1||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Pia Cramling}}||||||0||2||Name written twice on the path<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Xie Jun}}||||||0||2||Name written twice on the path<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Susan Polgar}}||||||0||2||[[#Chess (women)|There is a note]]<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Sofia Polgar}}||||||0||4||[[#Chess (women)|There is a note]]<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Judit Polgar}}||x||x||26||1||[[#Chess (women)|There are three notes]]. She became no 1 in 1989 and still is<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Antoaneta Stefanova}}||||||0||3||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Anna Muzychuk}}||||||0||4||<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Humpy Koneru}}||||||0||2||[[#Trivia|Alternate version of name]] used in comic<br />
|-<br />
|{{w|Hou Yifan}}||||||0||2||<br />
|-<br />
|18 players - Total: ||4||6||68||1-4||One no. 4 is a sister the other is still active<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Large drawings]]<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Charts]]<br />
[[Category:Line graphs]]<br />
[[Category:Chess]]<br />
[[Category:Basketball]]<br />
[[Category:Baseball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]</div>162.158.74.33https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2002:_LeBron_James_and_Stephen_Curry&diff=1582682002: LeBron James and Stephen Curry2018-06-04T16:55:00Z<p>162.158.74.33: Added extra explanation about shots.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2002<br />
| date = June 4, 2018<br />
| title = LeBron James and Stephen Curry<br />
| image = lebron_james_and_stephen_curry.png<br />
| titletext = The 538TR attempts to capture a player's combined skill at basketball (either real-life or NBA 2K18) and election forecasting.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a Basketball - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
At the time of this comic, the {{w|2018 NBA Finals}} were going on, between the {{w|Cleveland Cavaliers}} and the {{w|Golden State Warriors}}. At first glance, the comic looks like an in-depth analysis of two of the star players on those teams, {{w|LeBron James}} and {{w|Stephen Curry}}. The joke is that while comprehensive, all the statistics are completely meaningless - many don't show any correlation, and if there is one, it's extremely unlikely there is any causal link in there. <br />
<br />
The first graph includes a nine-digit {{w|Social Security number}} issued for US citizens which is typically not considered a metric related to athletic ability. As Social Security numbers are essentially random numbers, the graph shows only the free-throw percentage of a large number of players, artificially spread vertically.<br />
<br />
The second graph looks at teammate's {{w|APGAR score}} which is used to quickly summarize the health of newborn children. APGAR scores of 7 and above indicate an infant has generally normal health. This graph indicates LeBron's teammates have an APGAR score of approximately 2.1. Scores of 3 and below are generally regarded as critically low and possibly requiring medical attention. Low APGAR scores can also be associated with increased risk of neurological disorders such as cerebral palsey. The joke appears to be that LeBron is a star player carrying a sub average team while their opponents the Warriors are perhaps a more well rounded team.<br />
<br />
The shot map shows from what position Curry's shots were scored compared to other NBA players. It shows that he scored several times from outside the playing field, including twice from the {{w|bleacher}}s (which isn't a legal play), and once from the locker room (which is physically impossible due to multiple walls in between). This may be a reference to Curry's "tunnel-shot", which he performs before every home game.[https://www.sfchronicle.com/warriors/article/Stephen-Curry-s-long-tunnel-shot-has-become-10949145.php] . Additionally, it could be a pun on the word "shot," possibly referencing taking (potentially illegal) drugs as in {{w|Injection (medicine)}}, or referencing alcohol as in {{w|Shooter (drink)}}, given the presence in the locker room.<br />
<br />
In the "2018 total points" table, the highlighted {{w|Golden State Warriors}} and {{w|Cleveland Cavaliers}} represent the teams of Stephen Curry and LeBron James respectively.<br />
<br />
The note about the alignment with Magnetic North is likely a reference to Foxes. Artic and Red Foxes both have a distinctive hunting method, called 'mousing', involving tracking prey that is hiding under the snow, then leaping into the air and diving into the snow head-first, to try to catch the prey. A study found that they are more likely (to a statistically significant degree) to catch their prey when mousing, when they start facing approximately 20 degrees east of Magnetic North. (link: [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/01/11/foxes-use-the-earths-magnetic-field-as-a-targeting-system/])<br />
<br />
The table at the bottom includes more unrelated comparisons, for example both "lebronjames" and "stephencurry" are worth 22 points in {{w|Scrabble}}.<br />
<br />
{{w|Nate Silver}} is a political commentator and founder of the website {{w|FiveThirtyEight}}, which uses and promotes statistical approaches in explaining the world. The site's two major areas of focus are in politics (especially on elections - it became famous for correctly predicting for whom 49 of 50 of the 2008 and every US state would vote for in the 2012 US presidential elections, and though it wasn't as accurate in 2016 it had given Donald Trump a larger chance of Electoral College victory than other mainstream media sources) and sports (Silver first got into statistical analysis via baseball). The presence of both sports-related and politics-related topics in the comic, however related they are (or not) with each other, seems to be a nod towards FiveThirtyEight's content.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
:'''NBA Playoffs ''DataDive'' '''<br />
:'''LeBron James and Stephen Curry'''<br />
:'''What makes these superstars so extraordinary?'''<br />
<br />
:[The comic consists of several plots and tables, listed here in western reading order.]<br />
<br />
:'''Scatter plot of Social Security number vs Free throw percentage'''<br />
:The Social Security numbers range from 000-00-0000 to 999-99-9999. No pattern discrenable, aside from points being a bit denser in the middle of the plot. Steven Curry is marked as a point on the right edge of the plot with a high free throw percentage.<br />
<br />
:'''Scatter plot of 2018 points per game vs Average teammate APGAR score'''<br />
:The APGAR scores range from 0 to 10. Pattern suggests a somewhat positive link between the two factors. LeBron James is marked as having a lot of points, but a low teammate APGAR score of approximately 2.1.<br />
<br />
:'''Shot map'''<br />
:A map of a basketball field is shown with dots placed where players have taken shots at the goal. Steven Curry has dots in a separate color. For the all players category the dots generally cluster next to the goal basket and in front of the three point line. Steven has no dots next to the basket, but does cluster next to the three point line. He also has several dots off the side of the playing field, including three in the bleachers and one in the locker room.<br />
<br />
:'''Sandwiches eaten during play vs Win %'''<br />
:A plot that suggests no relation between the factors because practically all dots are in the zero sandwiches column. 2018 Warriors have one dot marked as a high win % and 4 sandwiches.<br />
<br />
:'''2018 total points'''<br />
:A table listing teams and their total scores with an extra column labeled "When net is within 15° of magnetic north". The row for the Cleveland Cavaliers is highlighted and shows an abnormally high score in the magnetic north column.<br />
<br />
:{| class = "wikitable"<br />
! 2018 total points<br />
! Overall <br />
! When net is within 15° of magnetic north<br />
|-<br />
|'''Golden State Warriors'''<br />
|'''9304'''<br />
|'''330'''<br />
|-<br />
|Houston Rockets<br />
|9213<br />
|268<br />
|-<br />
|New Orleans Pelicans<br />
|9161<br />
|219<br />
|-<br />
|Toronto Raptors<br />
|9156<br />
|341<br />
|-<br />
|'''Cleveland Cavaliers'''<br />
|'''9091'''<br />
|'''1644'''<br />
|-<br />
|Denver Nuggets<br />
|9020<br />
|280<br />
|}<br />
<br />
:[A table at the bottom:]<br />
<br />
:{| class = "wikitable"<br />
!<br />
! Stephen Curry<br />
! LeBron James<br />
|-<br />
|Have you heard of him<br />
|Probably<br />
|Yes<br />
|-<br />
|President during most recent game 7 loss<br />
|Obama<br />
|Bush<br />
|-<br />
|Pog collection<br />
|Large<br />
|Staggeringly large<br />
|-<br />
|Career average Fed interest rate<br />
|3.42%<br />
|4.41%<br />
|-<br />
|Name Scrabble score<br />
|22<br />
|22<br />
|-<br />
|Best sport<br />
|Basketball<br />
|Basketball<br />
|-<br />
|Height<br />
|Over 6'<br />
|Over 6'<br />
|-<br />
|Retirement year<br />
|2027<br />
|Unknown<br />
!Nate Silver<br />
|-<br />
|FiveThirtyEight total rating<br>(devised by Nate Silver to combine all metrics into a single stat)<br />
|'''37.4'''<br />
|'''31.8'''<br />
|'''86.6'''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
This comic was posted the day after the second game in the 2018 NBA Finals between the Golden State Warriors (Stephen Curry's team) and the Cleveland Cavaliers (LeBron James' team). It is the fourth consecutive time the two teams faced each other at the finals, which is unprecedented in major sports leagues in North America. The Warriors won in 2015 and 2017, the Cavaliers won in 2016, and the Warriors are leading the current series 2-0.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Sport]]<br />
[[Category:Basketball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Nate Silver]]<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>162.158.74.33https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1913:_A_%3F&diff=147622Talk:1913: A ?2017-11-09T21:09:17Z<p>162.158.74.33: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
"no update can never" is logically equivalent to "any update can". Not sure if this is intentional. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.60|162.158.106.60]] 16:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
: Isn't it logically equivalent to "any update can ''sometimes''"? Linguistically, of course, it can be equivalent either to this, or to "no update can".[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.198|141.101.105.198]] 16:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
:: I think it's actually equivalent to "ALL updates can" (because if even a single update could not, the statement would be false). [[User:Jedi.jesse|Jedi.jesse]] ([[User talk:Jedi.jesse|talk]]) 05:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
::: But "all updates can" could imply that only applying all updates would take it away. It also doesn't deal with the temporality - "no update can never" only implies that for each update there is a point in time when it could take it away, not necessarily that any update can always take it away, nor that there is any time at which all updates could take it away. Or to summarise, trying to reduce language to terms of logic is a fool's errand. ;o)[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.198|141.101.105.198]] 09:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
: Or did Randall mean to type "no update can ever take this away" which makes more sense to me? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.76|172.68.54.76]] 19:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
: Due to the linked Wikipedia article "some dialects of English are examples of negative-concord languages", i.e. double negatives intensifies eauch other. From my experience, it isn't only some dialects but most (of American English). Same Wikipedia article also states that negative-concord are more common. (we need more mathematicians in the world.) Imho, the relevant sentence on the comic page should be deleted or strongly modified, since it's common usage. [[User:Derda17|Derda17]] ([[User talk:Derda17|talk]]) 07:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is this a comment on all those moral panics about 'the youth of today can't read or write because they're only learning to speak in emojis'? And/or about developers using 'undocumented features' in their applications, so that when they're fixed it breaks those applications?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.198|141.101.105.198]] 16:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
More like on how Randall appears to have strange habits. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.141.52|172.68.141.52]] 16:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hopefully somebody will make a full tutorial on how to accomplish the title text thing.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.241|162.158.89.241]] 19:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
:I could do this easily on the computer with AutoHotKey (which might be overkill), but I'm not sure about iPhones, which are likely the target for the idea. iPhones have built-in text replacement, but I think you have to follow the word to be replaced with a space for it to work, rather than it working instantly (as "mapping a key on your keyboard" implies). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.41|172.68.26.41]] 19:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The correct url for this comic would be something like [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1913:_A_%EF%BF%BD 1913:_A_%EF%BF%BD], but that is an invalid title. It would still probably be better to change it to "A ?" with a note instead of "A_%C3%AF%C2%BF%C2%BD". —[[User:Artyer|Artyer]] <sup><big>([[User Talk:Artyer|talk]]<big>'''&#124;'''</big><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Artyer|ctb]]</sub>)</big></sup> 21:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
: I suggest using ⍰ (U+2370) instead, as it better approximates the original iOS display. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.52|172.68.54.52]] 21:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Interesting to note that the name of the posted image is i.png, which I guess DOES match the name of the comic? [[User:Alanbbent|Alanbbent]] ([[User talk:Alanbbent|talk]]) 22:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Perhaps, change the strange symbol to its HTML entity, &#65533; [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.154|108.162.249.154]] 23:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A lowercase i represents the square root of negative one, so let's just say that this comic is imaginary and resolve the problem that way :-)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.59.238|162.158.59.238]] 05:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It is not possible to make a wiki page with &#65533; in the name so I have changed to title to "A ?" and moved both the explanation and the comment here. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Strange that I was the first to comment on the fact that it was I not i that was changed in the comic, which acording to the current explanation is what happens with the Apple bug... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
: The expected autocorrection on typing "i" would be replacing it by "I". So usually there's no need to type "I", it should be enough to type "i" (saves you one click). --[[User:YMS|YMS]] ([[User talk:YMS|talk]]) 16:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
:: OK. But what about the other i in the text. Would they not trigger the error because it is inside a word? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)<br />
::: No they wouldn't, because the autocorrect is triggered by hitting space. If you use "i" in the middle of a word, the next button is a letter, not the space button, and it recognizes the rest of the word. (I don't know what it would do if you found a word ending with "i".) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 21:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)</div>162.158.74.33https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1858:_4th_of_July&diff=142249Talk:1858: 4th of July2017-07-03T15:46:55Z<p>162.158.74.33: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and not delete this comment.--><br />
<br />
Hmm. I would personally switch 2017 goal with 2018. But in the meantime, I'm going to practice my armor-polishing skills so that my future master will treat me well. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 15:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC) SiliconWolf</div>162.158.74.33https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1822:_Existential_Bug_Reports&diff=1386061822: Existential Bug Reports2017-04-10T22:32:54Z<p>162.158.74.33: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1822<br />
| date = April 10, 2017<br />
| title = Existential Bug Reports<br />
| image = existential_bug_reports.png<br />
| titletext = ISSUE: If we wait long enough, eventually the Earth will be consumed by the Sun. WORKAROUND: None.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[[Megan]] is sitting at her desk, writing an error report. Her description of the issue is fairly standard, albeit somewhat vague: A recent software update has broken the support for hardware she needs for her job. Most likely, she is saying that her OS is now reporting a piece of hardware is no longer supported. This is very problematic for her, as it could prevent her from doing important work which in the end could cause her to lose her job. <br />
<br />
The humor in this strip comes from her own suggested {{w|workaround}} (a short-term method of working despite the problem), which is absurd as she proposes simply waiting for the {{w|Sun}} to consume the {{w|Earth}} when it turns into a {{w|red giant}} towards the end of its lifetime approximately {{w|Sun#After_core_hydrogen_exhaustion|5 billion years}} from now.<br />
<br />
While this would eliminate the issue, as both the hardware and software as well as Megan and her job would all cease to exist, this would not be helpful to Megan as it does not address the underlying problem of her being unable to work in the present. It would also be impossible to wait the 5 billion years until this occurs, and thus in no way represents a short-term (or long term) fix. <br />
<br />
Megan and all other humans will almost certainly have died billions of years before this happens. It is expected that the constantly increasing output from the Sun, will cause Earth to {{w|Future_of_Earth#Loss_of_oceans|lose its oceans}} in about 1.1 billion years from now. Note, that albeit likely, it is not {{w|Future_of_Earth#Red_giant_stage|certain that Earth will be consumed}} by the red giant Sun.<br />
<br />
In the title text, [[Randall]] asks for a workaround from Megan's "workaround". He writes it down as another bug report, as though it were a software problem. The answer is that there is '''none'''. Randall in his crisis see no way to prevent Earth from being consumed by the Sun. However, one possible workaround could be evacuation of the Solar System, as if humanity still exists by the time the Earth's destruction occurs, we will likely have highly advanced technology. Maybe at that time it would even be [https://qntm.org/moving possible to move the Earth], first further out to prevent both the engulfment and also the earlier evaporation of the oceans and later it could then be moved back in when the sun turns into a {{w|white dwarf}}.<br />
<br />
Megan appears to be having an {{w|Existential_crisis|existential crisis}}, hence the title of the comic, questioning the purpose of her work if everything will eventually be destroyed anyway, albeit first in 5 billion years. And Randall continues that in the title text. Also the title text for the comic preceding this one, [[1821: Incinerator]], references existential crises, suggesting perhaps that Randall is feeling particularly existential at the moment, see more regarding this [[I'm_With_Her#Sad_comics|here]].<br />
<br />
Megan has previously expressed such existential problems in [[220: Philosophy]], where Randall presented a solution for it. Similar she was depressed in [[1111: Premiere]], where it was the boiling away of the oceans, mentioned above, that was her concern.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Megan is sitting in an office chair at her desk typing on her laptop. Above her are two light-gray frames with text. Above each frame is a bold header:]<br />
:'''Issue:''' <br />
:Recent update broke support for hardware I need for my job.<br />
<br />
:'''Workaround:''' <br />
:If we wait long enough, the Earth will eventually be consumed by the Sun.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Philosophy]]<br />
[[Category:Computers]]<br />
[[Category:Astronomy]]<br />
[[Category:Time]]</div>162.158.74.33https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1815:_Flag&diff=1378551815: Flag2017-03-24T19:46:10Z<p>162.158.74.33: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1815<br />
| date = March 24, 2017<br />
| title = Flag<br />
| image = flag.png<br />
| titletext = There's a compromise bill to keep the notification bar but at least charge the battery.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Needs more detail on how flags and images in general are designed/edited using computers, and why what Randall did was wrong.}}<br />
<br />
<br />
Randall was hired to propose a new flag for an unspecified new country. The process of him editing the flag into its final draft was done on a laptop or mobile device, and involved taking a screenshot of the product (possibly a shortcut to avoid actually exporting it) which produced the notification bar at the top of the flag. He did not catch his error, and sent it to the committee with the notification bar intact. The design committee also missed the phone bar and approved the design. Although not said, it is implied that the committee then ordered actual flags from the manufacturer. Once the problem was pointed out, the design committee placed the blame on Randall. <br />
<br />
The elements of the flag's intended design, the colors red white and blue, the stripes, and the stars, are present in several existing flags for real countries (America, the UK, North Korea, etc.) Flags are often minimalist and involve geometric shapes and solid colors. A notification bar at the top of the flag would clash with these design elements as well as looking unprofessional.<br />
<br />
The title text mentions a compromise bill that will change the flag, not removing the notification bar at the top to create the originally intended flag, but instead keeping the notification bar and changing the amount of battery displayed (39%) to 100%. The low battery status might imply that the country is low on resources. Randall has mentioned before that he cannot take screenshots seriously if the battery of the device is low in [[1373: Screenshot]].<br />
<br />
This comic is a joke on "vexillology". The comic incorrectly refers to a status bar as "notification bar".<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
<br />
:[A picture is shown of a flag for a currently nonexistent country. The left and rightmost parts of the flag are dark blue, and the center is red. These parts of the flag are separated by white vertical stripes. In the center of each colored section of the flag is a large, white star. At the top of the flag, there is a conspicuous off-white notification bar like one you would find at the top of a laptop or phone. On the left it is displaying the strength of a 3G connection (3/5 dots), in the center it is displaying the time (5:43 PM) and on the right, it is displaying battery charge (39%)]<br />
:The design committee fired me once they realized that my editing process involved a screenshot, but it was too late.<br />
:Until they change it, our new country has the only national flag to include a phone notification bar.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]</div>162.158.74.33https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:293:_RTFM&diff=137045Talk:293: RTFM2017-03-12T15:32:11Z<p>162.158.74.33: </p>
<hr />
<div>In this writer's opinion, expecting anyone to read a manual that is more than a page or two long, in this Internet-speed era, is unreasonable. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.52|173.245.54.52]] 18:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Not reading a manual is punishable by being stabbed in the face...I think we can all blame the customer service people for this one. Speaking from their point of view, though, it's definitely a great feature![[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 15:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)</div>162.158.74.33https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:496:_Secretary:_Part_3&diff=137032Talk:496: Secretary: Part 32017-03-12T03:29:36Z<p>162.158.74.33: </p>
<hr />
<div>Could "Pleading the 3rd" be a form of the {{w|Chewbacca defense}}? --[[User:Bpothier|B. P.]] ([[User talk:Bpothier|talk]]) 22:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I did some research on {{w|Ruth Bader Ginsburg}} and her confirmation hearing, but couldn't quite see why she has a criminal record similar to Black Hat's - can anybody help there? [[User:Bobidou23|Bobidou23]] ([[User talk:Bobidou23|talk]]) 20:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Maybe because people assume that if you are rectinent,you are probably hiding something?[[Special:Contributions/117.194.203.236|117.194.203.236]] 15:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Black hat is right. RadioShack never gets many visitors to the electronics parts aisles. [[User:Xyz|Xyz]] ([[User talk:Xyz|talk]]) 12:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Why would US submariners been on the sub he stole? I got the impression it was a Russian submarine. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 22:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Or it was a US sub and he "parked" it in Russian territory, something the Russion goverment wouldn't be fond of either. But yeah I thought it was a Russian sub as well. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 15:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is the auto-troll shuffle a reference to something? [[User:Seanybabes|Seanybabes]] ([[User talk:Seanybabes|talk]]) 02:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I got the impression that it was in reference to the "Kansas City shuffle" from the movie "Lucky Number Sleven". It was the first move in a very complicated revenge scheme. {{unsigned ip|108.162.246.224}}<br />
<br />
I went in and cleaned up the submarine explainations. It seems like they were put there by someone who hadn't actually read Journal 3.<br />
[[User:Reywas|Reywas]] ([[User talk:Reywas|talk]]) 20:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I love the 'citation needed' on the "It's unclear how feeding a squirrel through a fax machine can help win an argument. Whoever did that should be promoted. :) --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|'''JayRules''XKCD''' ]]<sup>[[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|what's up?]]</sup> 12:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I wonder if he chose to plead the third because he stole the submarine in Secretary 3 and it was seen in Journal 3...[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 03:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)</div>162.158.74.33https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:290:_Fucking_Blue_Shells&diff=137030Talk:290: Fucking Blue Shells2017-03-12T03:15:41Z<p>162.158.74.33: </p>
<hr />
<div>I see Randall has yet to master the art of snaking. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 00:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
As an aside, in my case at least, stubbed toes result in more swearing than broken bones. Having broken seven, I'm somewhat of an authority on the matter. [[Special:Contributions/74.125.183.194|74.125.183.194]] 15:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
That's odd, to my recollection the use of the term "Deep Magic" in programming was a reference to the Narnia novels, as in "deep magic from the dawn of time". This isn't specified in the Jargon File? I'm quite certain that's how I heard it explained, circa 1986. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.91}}<br />
<br />
I believe that the proper way to play mkart at 200 ccs is to swear nonstop while you race and your kart refuses to turn, and then watching the highlight reel and laughing at your complete failure. [[User:RedHatGuy68|RedHatGuy68]] ([[User talk:RedHatGuy68|talk]]) 02:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actual transcript of my first I've seconds on Rainbow Road: Shit. Shit. Shit. Shit. Shit. Shit. FUUUUUUUUUK. Shit. Shit. Shit. Shiii-iii-iii-iiit! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.35|108.162.246.35]] 19:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Fuck.This is completely true, as I play Mario Kart 7, and I swear every time 1 of those Blue Shells hit me.I never get them, but everybody else gets them.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.49.6|162.158.49.6]] 14:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Note: The blue shell dodge with mushroom is (supposedly) possible in Mario Kart 8 as well.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 03:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)</div>162.158.74.33https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1507:_Metaball&diff=137022Talk:1507: Metaball2017-03-12T02:44:02Z<p>162.158.74.33: </p>
<hr />
<div>This... looks amazing! I wonder if this is going to be a case of xkcd influencing real life, like geohashing, the "citation needed" on speeches or cory doctorow cosplaying... cory doctorow. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.29|173.245.48.29]] 08:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I sure hope so!! [[User:Luc|Luc]] ([[User talk:Luc|talk]]) 03:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Perhaps this is how you play [https://xkcd.com/1480/Sportsball]? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.64.11|141.101.64.11]] 11:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Indigofenix<br />
<br />
:Have you seen the [https://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/aWTjaTaTib5jIi7ZoHC9yzrx8xk4RSIo videogame version]?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 02:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Over here in Rightpondia (UK), "Hockey" means "Field Hockey" (I'm sure I've never actually heard "ball hockey" as a term before, ''ever'', although must be the same)... although it's mostly popularised as a (often very vicious!) girl's sport; see the St. Trinians cartoons/films. Although we understand Leftpondians (and especially Upper-Leftpondians) mean Ice Hockey when they miss off the qualifier. Just as vicious, of course (except now that everyone wears armour... also c.f. usual comments regarding Rugby League/Union vs 'American Football'/Gridiron). But none of these have anything on the near-variant of these games (mainly in Ireland) that is Hurling..! (As to Field Hockey as Aussie Rules Football is to Association Football?)[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 16:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Some Canadian input: ball hockey /= field hockey. Field hockey is played on a field and has stick that looks like a 'J'. Ball hockey on the other hand is played on a hard surface (with an ice hockey stick). In organized leagues the arena is often just like an ice hockey rink without the ice; boards and all. Ball hockey can be played on foot or on roller-blades. Often when kids play street hockey it will be ball hockey, though just as likely to be with a specific street hockey puck that is designed to slide on pavement. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.75|199.27.133.75]] 20:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC) ce_nedra32<br />
<br />
<br />
Suspiciously similar to Calvinball. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.100|108.162.221.100]] 21:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)A Martin<br />
: I agree, but there seem to be preset rules (the sheet that Ponytail is holding), suggesting that it isn't made up as they go along [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.33|141.101.98.33]] 09:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
Indeed, my first thought on seeing this was this is exactly the opposite of CalvinBall. Which may well be thr point.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.40|141.101.99.40]] 12:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC) <br />
<br />
I see influences of Hofstadter's ''Godel,Escher,Bach'', which has <br />
1) the idea of how the play-by-play of a football game would be altered if it were baseball (among other counterfactuals), and<br />
2) the idea of a boardgame whose rules change according to where pieces are on the board. [[User:Fewmet|Fewmet]] ([[User talk:Fewmet|talk]]) 22:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I wonder how the concept of 'out' (as opposed to 'in') would be dealt with as the ball passes into (and eventually out of) the volleyball zone.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.216|173.245.54.216]] 05:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Baseball zone... ;-) Although I'm sure there is a volleyball zone somewhere... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
OK I guess this is not a complaint since the explanation seems to make sense. But I'm still confused about something. In the third panel the invocation of the infield fly rule is entirely wrong, The infielder must either catch and drop the ball or appear to deliberately refuse to catch the ball. The panel shows the ball still in the air when the call is made. As an athletophobe I just spent 20 minutes of my life researching the infield fly rule (http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5322&context=penn_law_review) (!!!) so... well... I get it but how do you make the leap?[[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 09:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:The comic explanation had it wrong. It is Megan (the batter/kicker) who is Out when Ponytail yells. A high ball in Baseball can be called infield fly before anyone even tries to catch it. So it is of no consequence weather Cueball tries to catch it, or actually tries to dunk the ball. I have corrected the explanation acordingly. And also added the fact that the rule is hard to understand to outsiders of baseball. {{unsigned|Kynde}}<br />
::TY! I've done some thinking and it's starting to dawn on me that the strategy the runners take interacts with the infielders actions. On the plus side this has prompted me to make a new life rule: You should always distinguish between strategy and cheating, but you should never be too picky about it! :¬D <br />
::[[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 21:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
A quick comment about hockey: there a variation, hockey cosom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoor_field_hockey). It is played normally indoor and with a ball. But it is also a cheap variant that school in Quebec use in winter in PE, as skating equipment with proper gears for rink hockey is both expensive and require skill that kids might not have. It would better fit with the Metaball title.--[[User:Labreck|Labreck]] ([[User talk:Labreck|talk]]) 10:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:No problem playing golf with a football? Then why anyproblem playing Ice hockey with such a ball? It is easier to get a foot ball into a ice hockey goal than to it into a golf hole. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The title reminds me of J H Conway's paradoxical "Metagame", whose rules are: the first player (L) names a finite game (e.g. Nim), and then the two players (L and R) play that game. Is Metagame a finite game? If it is, then each player in turn can name Metagame, and the process never ends, so it isn't finite. But if it isn't finite, L must name another finite game, so the game does end. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.216|141.101.98.216]] 10:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Reminds me of Hich-Hiker's "Brockian_Ultra-Cricket" http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Brockian_Ultra-Cricket|title=Brockian Ultra-Cricket - Hitchhikers :<br />
<br />
''"Rule Four: Throw lots of assorted items of sporting equipment over the wall for the players. Anything will do – cricket bats, basecube bats, tennis guns, skis, anything you can get a good swing with.<br />
<br />
Rule Five: The players should now lay about themselves for all they are worth with whatever they find to hand. Whenever a player scores a “hit” on another player, he should immediately run away as fast as he can and apologize from a safe distance. Apologies should be concise, sincere, and, for maximum clarity and points, delivered through a megaphone.<br />
<br />
Rule Six: The winning team shall be the first team that wins."'' [[User:Briantist|Briantist]] ([[User talk:Briantist|talk]]) 13:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
Who is the female with her hair in a bun?--[[User:17jiangz1|17jiangz1]] ([[User talk:17jiangz1|talk]]) 14:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Not anyone in particular but she was also in [[1504]] and I have found 7 appereance of [[Hair Bun Girl]] with hair in a bun. So I have added her as a minor character. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 16:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Not sure where to post this but paragraphs following an external links are in separate boxes to the rest of the text. I looked at a few other comics and it's the same. It had better not be deliberate as it really breaks the flow of the explanation when it is cut off mid sentence--[[User:Figvh|Figvh]] ([[User talk:Figvh|talk]]) 03:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
nevermind it's fixed now--[[User:Figvh|Figvh]] ([[User talk:Figvh|talk]]) 03:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned actual [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaballs Metaballs] yet. [[User:Daedalus|Daedalus]] ([[User talk:Daedalus|talk]]) 20:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Ponytail has a feynman diagram on her rule sheet :) {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.75}}<br />
<br />
I know I am not the only person who once tried to play Calvinball. At least I hope I'm not. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|The Goyim speaks]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 12:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Am I the only one who misread the title of this comic as "Meatball"? [[User:Jevicci|Jevicci]] ([[User talk:Jevicci|talk]]) 14:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)</div>162.158.74.33https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1773:_Negativity&diff=1328531773: Negativity2016-12-23T02:20:55Z<p>162.158.74.33: I know a mushroom is a fungus, but this is the only way to blanket both of them.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1773<br />
| date = December 16, 2016<br />
| title = Negativity<br />
| image = negativity.png<br />
| titletext = [Google search] how do I block my lawn<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Could probably be tuned up.}}<br />
[[Cueball]] is going outside for some fresh air because he wants to escape the {{w|Internet Troll|trolls}} of the {{w|Internet}}, which is known for hosting several hostile and unpleasant ideas and people. However, as he walks, some grass speaks up to insult him, and Cueball is upset to find that he hasn't escaped the negativity at all. <br />
<br />
The title text expands on this, with him searching {{w|Google}} for how to "block the lawn". Blocking someone refers to a standard setting on websites and online services that can prevent certain users from communicating with you, but it is as yet unknown how this would work for a lawn insulting you.{{Citation needed}} This is made ironic by the fact he is using the Internet to find an Internet technique (blocking) on a non-Internet object, while at the start of the comic, he just wanted to escape the Internet. (Wait, what?)<br />
<br />
The term "blocking" is actually used in lawn-care [https://www.bayeradvanced.com/articles/how-to-tell-if-your-lawn-needs-dethatching] to refer to techniques where sunlight is restricted from reaching the lower parts of the grass stems and to persuade the root system to grow deeper into the soil.<br />
<br />
Comic [[1749]] also involves an unusual occurrence of vocalizing flora.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
[Cueball walking on grass]<br />
<br />
Cueball: It's nice to get outside, away from the pain and negativity of the internet,<br />
<br />
[Cueball stops walking]<br />
<br />
Cueball: And just enjoy the cool breeze and the grass under my feet.<br />
<br />
[Cueball stands there, hands to his hips, looking to the cloudy sky]<br />
<br />
[Cueball looks surprised to the grass]<br />
<br />
Grass: You ''suuuuck''<br />
<br />
Cueball: ''HEY!''<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]</div>162.158.74.33https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1769:_Never_Seen_Star_Wars&diff=1322371769: Never Seen Star Wars2016-12-07T14:24:20Z<p>162.158.74.33: /* Explanation */ Changed 1000 million to 1 billion</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1769<br />
| date = December 7, 2016<br />
| title = Never Seen Star Wars<br />
| image = never_seen_star_wars.png<br />
| titletext = If anyone calls you on any weird detail, just say it's from the Jedi Prince book series, which contains so much random incongruous stuff that even most Expanded Universe/Legends fans collectively agreed to forget about it decades ago.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
[[White Hat]] tries to start a conversation with [[Cueball]] about the [[wikipedia:Star Wars|''Star Wars'']] sci-fi film franchise, which Cueball cuts short by stating that he has never seen the movies. This deeply astonishes White Hat. Because the movies are known worldwide and are ingrained into American pop culture, White Hat considers seeing ''Star Wars'' a universal experience.<br />
<br />
Cueball reasons that not having watched the films is the "default option". In other words, humans are not born with intrinsic knowledge of the series. In fact, ''Star Wars'' was started very recently on the scale of human existence, so the majority of people ever to exist were never able to watch it. As for why he has not watched ''Star Wars'' despite being fully able to do so, Cueball goes on to say that ''not'' doing most given things is easy, appealing to his own apparent laziness. Another possible reason is that, while it is hard to find information about how many have seen Star Wars (especially given home video releases), one estimate is about 1 billion people have seen at least one of the Star Wars movies. This amounts to 10% of the current world population, so 9/10 will not have seen it. In the US and the rest of the Western world, the fraction of people having seen at least one of the movies may be above 50%, which makes Cueballs factoid incorrect from a statistical point of view, even if he is still right about "not doing something" being the default option. In addition, the Star Wars mythology is so frequently referenced in American popular culture that it's difficult to consume a normal media diet in the US without being exposed to enough quotes, clips, references, parodies and analogies to piece together most of the plot and major scenes of the films, even having taken no action to see. Even without having watched it, it's reasonable that White Hat would expect Cueball to know something about the series.<br />
<br />
Another word play here is that "default" means "failure to do something required by duty or law : neglect" according to dictionaries, so it is _literally_ the default option.<br />
<br />
When White Hat finally begins to grasp that Cueball has indeed not seen ''Star Wars'', he declares that they must see it very soon or even immediately. When Cueball's response is one of uninterest again, White Hat seemingly calls in social reinforcements to agree with him that watching ''Star Wars'' is the norm. Cueball feels threatened by his friend's unreasonable behavior and quickly removes himself from the situation.<br />
<br />
Later, [[Ponytail]] likewise wishes to start a conversation about ''Star Wars'', this time about a new movie coming out. Based on his previous experience, Cueball reconsiders admitting to not having seen the past movies, and instead pretends to be looking forward to the new one. Ponytail then tries to continue the conversation, so Cueball bluffs with an incorrect declaration that Darth Vader eats Jedi, likely constructed from other mentions of the ''Star Wars'' characters that he has overheard throughout his life. Cueball carefully chooses his words to make it seem as if he knows what he is talking about.<br />
<br />
However, Ponytail doesn't call him out on this error, instead agreeing with it. Cueball is relieved&mdash;expressed as his thinking an onomatopoetic sigh of relief&mdash;as he believes he has guessed at an accurate piece of information and has avoided entering a similar situation to the previous one. The punchline of this part of the comic is Ponytail's identical feeling of relief, showing that she likewise hasn't seen ''Star Wars'', is also hiding this fact, and is also glad to not be caught. It may be inferred that Ponytail thinks not starting a conversation about ''Star Wars'' might expose her as someone who doesn't follow the series closely.<br />
<br />
The title text is a tip for people like Cueball, to help them hide deception when roped into conversations about the films. It argues that since the ''Jedi Prince'' series of novels established so many strange concepts that don't mesh with most other canon information, it makes for an excellent scapegoat to blame ill-fitting declarations on, seeing as even the most devoted, well informed fan has agreed to forget the entire series. Casually bringing up such a forgotten series might also make the bluffer out to be extremely knowledgeable about the ''Star Wars'' franchise as a whole.<br />
<br />
This comic is most likely motivated by a new ''Star Wars'' movie, ''Rogue One'', which will release into American theaters 9 days after the publishing of the strip on December 16, 2016 (exactly a week before the Belgian release of December 14), or ''The Force Awakens'', which had been out for a while at the time. <br />
<br />
The huge pop cultural success of Star Wars means it is genuinely surprising to encounter an individual who has not seen it (at least amongst the typical audience of XKCD). The TV series "How I Met Your Mother" had an episode based around this premise, and there is a radio comedy chat show on [[wikipedia:BBC Radio 4|BBC Radio 4]] in the UK titled [[wikipedia:I've Never Seen Star Wars (radio series)|I've Never Seen Star Wars]], in which celebrity guests try out experiences that are common to others, but new to them, as well as a television version.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
[White Hat is facing Cueball while talking to him]<br />
:White Hat: You know the scene on the Death Star where&mdash;<br />
:Cueball: Nah, I've never seen ''Star Wars''.<br />
<br />
[Close-up of White Hat in a smaller panel]<br />
:White Hat: <big style="background:#000;color:#fff;">''WHAT.''</big><br />
<br />
[White Hat and Cueball are still facing each other]<br />
:White Hat: ''&hellip;How?!''<br />
:Cueball: Uh, it was easy?<br />
:Cueball: It was literally the default option.<br />
<br />
[Close up of Cueball, White Hat is speaking off-panel]<br />
:White Hat: But&hellip; How did you&mdash;<br />
:Cueball: Not doing things is my superpower. I'm not doing an infinite number of things ''as we speak!''<br />
<br />
[White Hat and Cueball are still facing each other]<br />
:White Hat: We ''have'' to watch it!<br />
:Cueball: Nah, I'm good.<br />
<br />
[White Hat has turned away from Cueball and has his hands to his mouth to shout to people off-panel. Cueball has likewise turned away as he walks away and is speaking back over his shoulder]<br />
:White Hat: ''Hey everyone! This guy's never seen Star Wars!''<br />
:Cueball: Listen, I gotta go.<br />
<br />
{|class="wikitable"<br />
|Later&hellip;<br />
|}<br />
[Ponytail is looking down at her phone in her left hand while Cueball is facing her]<br />
:Ponytail: Wait, there's a new ''Star Wars''?<br />
:Cueball: Oh, I've nev&mdash;<br />
:Cueball: &hellip;Yeah! Excited for it! Big fan.<br />
<br />
[Ponytail holds her phone to her side, transferred to her right hand, as she and Cueball face each other]<br />
:Ponytail: What'd you think of the last one?<br />
:Cueball: Uh&hellip; That Darth Vader, man.<br />
:Cueball: Sure does love eating Jedi.<br />
<br />
[Ponytail and Cueball continue facing each other]<br />
:Ponytail: Haha, he sure does!<br />
:Cueball [thinking]: Phew!<br />
:Ponytail [thinking]: Phew!<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Star Wars]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]</div>162.158.74.33https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1752:_Interplanetary_Experience&diff=1295791752: Interplanetary Experience2016-10-28T21:00:59Z<p>162.158.74.33: Removed the strange tangent on Earth not being survivable long term.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1752<br />
| date = October 28, 2016<br />
| title = Interplanetary Experience<br />
| image = interplanetary_experience.png<br />
| titletext = But instead of hitting the ocean, you should land in an overheating hot tub on a sinking cruise ship, sending it crashing through the floor into the burning engine room as the ship goes under.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|More details?}}<br />
This comic list ten {{w|celestial bodies}}, all the other seven {{w|planets}} (than {{w|Earth}}), the {{w|dwarf planet}} {{w|Pluto}} and two {{w|moons}}; the Earth's {{w|Moon}} and {{w|Titan (moon)|Titan}}, the largest moon of {{w|Saturn}}. And then it asks what places on Earth people could go to, to try and have a real '''Interplanetary Experience''', as if they were explorers on these planets. It turns out that none of these ten other worlds are very nice to visit...<br />
<br />
This is a parody on organizations that in preparation for future planetary exploration organize half-realistic experiments in human behavior on other planets, trying to emulate or mock-up - often on low budget - the conditions in which future explorers are to live and work. For this purpose, they build mock-up bases, habitats etc. in places that ''look like'' other planets or have the environmental conditions ''somewhat'' similar to other celestial bodies' surfaces. They seek out desolate places like deserts or polar regions for this purpose.<br />
<br />
In this comic [[Randall]] tries to identify places on Earth that ''actually'' have environmental conditions as close to these other worlds' as can be possible on the surface of the Earth. Some of the places suggested by Randall are borderline-survivable for a human, but most will kill you extremely quickly without a lot of high-tech gear - whether through {{w|hypothermia#severe|severe hypothermia}}, {{w|conflagration}}, crushing, or whiplash from violent winds. <br />
<br />
Basically nowhere in the {{w|solar system}} is even close to survivable (except Earth). There is no planet or moon with a breathable atmosphere, or where the temperature stays within the human -tolerable range of roughly −20°C to 40°C (−5°F to 105°F, 250-310 K). The only place humans have so far ventured off-world is the Moon, and only during lunar morning while wearing thick pressurized spacesuits. Some celestial bodies, like {{w|Venus}} and {{w|Jupiter}}, may ''never'' be visitable by humans without either huge advances in {{w|material science}} or full-scale {{w|terraforming}}. Some places, like the centers of any planet (for example, the {{w|gas giants}} or even Earth itself), will probably never be visited, even by robots. (The title text suggests what happens when falling towards the center of a gas giant).<br />
<br />
Below is a [[#Table of celestial bodies|table]] going through the seven suggested places on Earth. Due to the low pressure and temperature on the top of {{w|Mount Everest}} it is mentioned no less than three times, but using different time of day to represent different celestial bodies. In the first entry it even takes care of three in one go. Two of those are the Moon and Mercury, but for both only on their night side facing away from the sun. They are thus each mentioned twice, as there is a huge difference in environmental conditions between the sunlit faces of these two and their night sides. On the other end of the temperature scale are mentions of {{w|lava}} and a {{w|blast furnace}}; also high pressure environments are suggested to simulate other planets. The last goes for the gas giants, which are all mentioned together in the last entry. <br />
<br />
The two groupings explains why there are only seven places mentioned for ten celestial bodies. The reason that the Moon is mentioned is of course that it is the closest companion to Earth and that we have actually visited. That the only other moon mentioned is likely because it is the only really cold celestial body that actually has an atmosphere as well as a surface humans could stand on. But there are many other large moons that would be interesting to visit, like the {{w|Galilean moons}} especially {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}}. But that could probably be compared to being on Pluto, except the sun is a bit larger. That Pluto is included as the only dwarf planet is probably because it was still a planet when Randall was a kid (see [[473: Still Raw]]) and is the most recent (new) celestial body visited by a space probe at the time of release of this comic. This was celebrated by Randall in [[1551: Pluto]].<br />
<br />
The title text is just a continuation of the last entry about falling down through the atmosphere of a gas giant, and it is also explained in the table below. This was also explored in the [[what if?]] {{what if|138|Jupiter Submarine}}.<br />
<br />
==Table of celestial bodies==<br />
<br />
{|class="wikitable" <br />
! Celestial bodies<br />
! Place on Earth<br />
! Explanation<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Pluto}},&nbsp;{{w|Moon}}&nbsp;(night)<br>{{w|Mercury (planet)|Mercury}} (night) || Mt. Everest at night || The {{w|dwarf planet}} Pluto is a small icy rock so far away from the {{w|Sun}} that it practically makes no difference if it is day or night, the Sun is just the brightest star in the sky of Pluto's "day" side . But for both the {{w|Earth|Earth's}} Moon and Mercury (the innermost and smallest {{w|planet}} of the {{w|solar system}}) it makes a huge difference, which is why there is both a day and a night experience mentioned for these two celestial bodies (see below). Although they are very much closer to the Sun than Pluto this makes no difference during their night time (when they face away from Sun). They are both relatively small, rocky bodies with practically no atmosphere and relatively slow rotation. Therefore their surfaces not illuminated by the Sun will cool down to very low temperatures (around -170 °C, -290 °F, 100 K), making their nighttime hemispheres desolate, dark and cold places. Randall proposes the summit of {{w|Mount Everest}} (the tallest mountain on Earth) as the place that will emulate the conditions most closely. It is a rocky, desolate and cold place. Even though it is not the coldest place on Earth, it is the highest point on land, therefore it has the lowest atmospheric pressure. It cannot be compared to the near-zero pressure and 100 Kelvins conditions on the aforementioned bodies, but it is as close as you can get on Earth. The top of Mt. Everest has an air pressure just 1/3 of what it is at sea level, and the oxygen levels are so low that they are barely survivable although a few people have [http://adventureblog.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/21/how-climbing-everest-without-oxygen-can-go-very-wrong/ reached the top without oxygen tanks], but others have died after losing their supply, making it as close as you can get on Earth to the near-vacuum found on these worlds.<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Moon}} (day)|| Mt. Everest at noon under a tanning lamp || As explained above, Mount Everest is as good emulation of the Moon surface at night as you can get. During the Moon's day, its surface gets about as much Sun's radiation as Earth at noon, because both bodies' distance from the Sun is almost the same. The Earth's atmosphere, however, stops most of the Sun's {{w|ultraviolet radiation}}. A {{w|tanning lamp}} is a device emitting mostly ultraviolet radiation for the purpose of artificial {{w|tanning}}; here it is used to augment the filtered Sun's radiation in an attempt to emulate Moon's daytime conditions better. Since the Moon does not have any atmosphere it is hard to discuss the temperature experienced on the Moon, but still the [http://planetfacts.org/temperature-on-the-moon/ surface of the Moon reaches temperatures] above waters boiling point (100°C or 212 °F) during the day with an average daytime temperature of the Moon at 107°C (224.6 °F). This effect will not be very well emulated on the tip of Mount Everest or even in the hottest (non volcanic) place on Earth's surface that reaches 53.9°C (129°F) - see the [[what if?]] ''{{what if|152|Flood Death Valley}}''.<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Mercury (planet)|Mercury}} (day) || A lava flow at a volcano at noon || Mercury's surface never quite reaches {{w|lava}} temperatures (if it did, it would be molten), but it gets close. At noon, Mercury's equator reaches 420°C (800°F, 700 K). Lava is a liquid usually at temperatures from 700 to 1,200 °C (1,292 to 2,192 °F, 970 K to 1470 K) but depending on what type of rock it's formed from, [http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2003/03_04_17.html lava can erupt] at temperatures as low as 500°C-600°C (930°F-1100°F, 770-870 K). Standing on a {{w|volcano}} on a partially solidified lava flow (which, it goes without saying, is incredibly dangerous) would expose you to similar temperatures. <br>Near the poles, Mercury's surface temperature is always very low as the axial tilt is almost zero meaning that the poles do not get much direct sunlight and their temperature is constantly below −93 °C (−136 °F, 180 K).<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Venus}} || A heat-shrink wetsuit in a blast furnace || The average surface temperature on Venus is around 470°C (870°F, 740 K) (enough to melt {{w|lead}} at 327 °C (620°F, 600 K), which is the {{w|Atmosphere_of_Venus#Troposphere|usual comparison}}), and the pressure is 92 bar (by comparison, pressure on earth is only about 1 bar). A {{w|blast furnace}} is a bit too hot - the blast itself is 900 °C to 1300 °C (1600 °F to 2300 °F, 1170 K to 1570 K), and they can reach 2000 °C - but either temperature is enough to kill you in seconds. As the blast furnace would emulate Venus temperature but not pressure, Randall proposes a daring volunteer shall wear a hypothetical heat-shrink wetsuit. A {{w|wetsuit}} is an elastic garment worn mostly over the whole body by swimmers, divers etc. {{w|Heat-shrink tubing}} is an elastic tube made of a material that shrinks when heated, used to provide extra insulation and mechanical or environmental protection in electrical and electronics work - you put a length of tubing over your wire, connector, or a joint and heat it with a hot air gun, making it shrink and crimp over your device. A hypothetical heat-shrink wetsuit worn while sitting in a blast furnace supposedly would shrink rapidly in the extreme temperature, extorting great pressure on your body, thus emulating Venus surface atmospheric pressure. In other words, do not go to Venus!<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Mars}} || Mt. Everest at sunset || Again use Mount Everest's thin atmosphere and very cold temperatures to emulate the planet, but Mars's dusty, greenhouse-gas-containing atmosphere means it's not as cold as Mercury at night, nor as hot as the Moon during the day. Also the sun is much farther from Mars than from the Earth/Moon system, but much much closer than Pluto, so it should be colder than on the day side of the Moon. But the Sun still looks like a sun rather than a star from Mars, unlike on Pluto. The sunset will also make the sky reddish-purple, similar to [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PIA17944-MarsCuriosityRover-AfterCrossingDingoGapSanddune-20140209.jpg the way the Martian sky often looks].<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Titan (moon)|Titan}} || Waist-deep in an outgassing Siberian swamp || Titan, the largest of {{w|Saturn}} moons (and one of the largest moons in the solar system) is one of the promising worlds for life - given that its surface temperature is −180°C (−290°F, 95 K), that says a lot about how inhospitable the rest of the solar system is. The chemistry of the planet is interesting - there are lots of nitrogen compounds and hydrocarbons and the atmosphere is mostly nitrogen and methane. It has been confirmed that methane lakes exist on Titan's surface. It thus follows that there is likely also some precipitation of methane "snow", similarly to how water forms lakes and falls down as sleet on Earth. Similar compounds are produced by rotting material in {{w|swamps}}, hence the comparison to a cold {{w|Siberian}} swamp. Due to the global warming large area of the {{w|tundra}} in Siberia that used to be permanently locked in {{w|permafrost}} are now heating up enough to {{w|Arctic methane emissions|release these gases}}. It might thus be possible to end up waist deep in one of these "heated" swamp areas due to the resulting {{w|outgassing}}. Sadly for the global temperature this outgassing just increases the release of greenhouse gasses, making the global warming increase even faster. This may very well be the reason Randall chooses to mention it here, as another call back to recurring theme of [[:Category:Climate change|Climate change]] and to the recent comic [[1732: Earth Temperature Timeline]]. One key difference though is that on Earth, swamps are mostly water. On Titan - if they exist at all - they're liquid methane. Siberia also has some of the most extreme temperature differences on Earth, while Titan is just consistently cold. The coldest place in Siberia is the {{w|Pole of Cold}}, the coldest point in the {{w|Northern hemisphere}} having reached −71.2 °C (−96.2 °F, 202 K). Not quite Titan levels of cold, but certainly deadly enough. But in such cold places there would be no outgassing, so on Earth it is not possible to have both the cold and the outgassing.<br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Jupiter}}-{{w|Neptune}} || Jumping from a high-altitude balloon over an Antarctic Ocean winter storm || Note that it is Jupiter to Neptune thus including also {{w|Saturn}} and {{w|Uranus}}. They are under one called {{w|gas giants}} for a reason. All the planets are very cold and have stormy weather (Uranus is the least active, and Neptune is the most active) and a very dramatic temperature and pressure gradient. On the edge of the atmosphere, conditions aren't much different to space, but as you fall in, the temperature and pressure rapidly increases past freezing point (allowing clouds of ice and water). This environment is simulated by jumping out from a {{w|high-altitude balloon}} (low pressure and cold) and then falling down into an {{w|Antarctic Ocean}} winter storm, a very cold and violently windy place to fall through. Of course the storms on the gas planets can be much more violent than any storm on Earth. On Neptune the storms can reach 2,100 km/h (580 m/s, 1,300 mph), whereas the {{w|Great Red Spot}} of Jupiter only goes at 430 km/h (120 m/s, 268 mph). The {{w|Wind_speed#Highest_speed|highest wind speed}} on Earth (outside {{w|tornadoes}}) has been measured at 408 km/h (113 m/s, 253 mph), and that was only the gusts. This last entry's description of the place on Earth continues in the title text, see below. <br />
|-<br />
| {{w|Jupiter}}-{{w|Neptune}} (continued from above in '''title text''')|| But instead of hitting the ocean, you should land in an overheating hot tub on a sinking cruise ship, sending it crashing through the floor into the burning engine room as the ship goes under. || The title text continues the last entry in the main comic. So this explanation is also a direct continuation of the above entry. The very dramatic temperature and pressure gradients mentioned does not stop when the atmosphere temperature and pressure increases past freezing point. But soon the temperature reaches past boiling point, and up to thousands of degrees and unimaginable high pressures increasing further until the central core. The cores of Neptune and Uranus most likely consist of rock (superheated silicates, iron and nickel) or in the case of Saturn and Jupiter of liquid {{w|metallic hydrogen}}, where the extreme high-pressure and temperature causes {{w|hydrogen}} to behave like a metal. This is a theory as it is not something our technology is currently able to reproduce. The suggested simulation of this environment is to fall into a super hot bath tub that falls into the burning engine room of a ship that is sinking, and thus is about be become crushed by the water pressure of the deep ocean. This is the closest imaginable representation of the pressure and temperature conditions of the inner parts of the gas giants that can be imagined on Earth, but of course the cores of these planets are far, far more inhospitable than that as mentioned above. Descending into Jupiter was also explored in the [[what if?]] {{what if|138|Jupiter Submarine}}.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Caption above the panel:]<br />
:<big>Where to go on Earth to get the Interplanetary Explorer Experience</big><br />
<br />
:[A chart with seven rows with celestial bodies on the left side of seven lines and a description on the right side. The first entry has three celestial bodies in two rows, the rest are in one row, although the last entry encompasses a list of planets. Four times the day/night side of the celestial bodies is mentioned in brackets.]<br />
:{|class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
| Pluto, Moon (night)<br />
|rowspan="2" | Mt. Everest at night<br />
|-<br />
| Mercury (night) <br />
|-<br />
| Moon (day) || Mt. Everest at noon under a tanning lamp<br />
|-<br />
| Mercury (day) || A lava flow on a volcano at noon<br />
|-<br />
| Venus || A heat-shrink wetsuit in a blast furnace<br />
|-<br />
| Mars || Mt. Everest at sunset<br />
|-<br />
| Titan || Waist-deep in an outgassing Siberian swamp<br />
|-<br />
| Jupiter-Neptune || Jumping from a high-altitude balloon over an Antarctic Ocean winter storm<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Charts]]<br />
[[Category:Space]]</div>162.158.74.33https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1721:_Business_Idea&diff=125479Talk:1721: Business Idea2016-08-18T14:19:55Z<p>162.158.74.33: /* Explanation for us users from countries with different fueling systems */</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--><br />
<br />
Fixed as of 11:35 UTC, the old comic is now named "'''My''' Business Idea" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.141|162.158.203.141]] 11:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
:Same person, just want to note the forum is a little behind. It was 11:35 according to Google, and the timestamp on the signature said 11:32. Posting this at 11:39 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.141|162.158.203.141]] 11:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
::ExplainXKCD is still showing the image for 827. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.62|173.245.52.62]] 14:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
:::As far as I can tell, everything's been fixed now. I removed the warning in the incomplete tag. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.107|108.162.218.107]] 15:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure there's been a naming overlap or something because https://xkcd.com/827/ and http://xkcd.com/1721/ are showing the same image<br />
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.157|108.162.250.157]] 04:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Randall done goofed ==<br />
<br />
He accidentally named TWO comics "Business Idea". This one and comic 827 (https://xkcd.com/827/). Because his comics are stored by name, not id, he has two "business_idea.png"s. The newer replaced the older one, but explain-xkcd has the original, probably due to the way either one is stored.<br />
:I'm honestly surprised Randall would make a mistake like this. Like shouldn't he have a list and a script that automatically checks wether a title was already used? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.133.66|162.158.133.66]] 09:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
::Or simply append/prepend the comic number to the image name, that way you can't have duplicates.<br />
<br />
What should we do? Contact Randall? {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.10}}<br />
:Check the fora. Let him know he broke 827(http://i.imgur.com/0LTTpmJ.png) if he doesn't know already. I'm too lazy. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.110|108.162.245.110]] 04:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
:Store it on the wiki as a jpeg and differentiate that way. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.89|173.245.48.89]] 04:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The older comic has now been renamed as "My Business Idea", and is back up again. [[User:Zorlax the Mighty|Zorlax the Mighty&#39;); DROP TABLE users;--]] ([[User talk:Zorlax the Mighty|talk]]) 11:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Great. I tried to fix the issue by renaming the old comic (both page and file), but it now has the old version cached and shows it on both comics' pages... --[[User:SlashMe|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe|talk]]) 14:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Explanation for us users from countries with different fueling systems ==<br />
In Germany and many other countries, the gas pumps actually have a separate hose per fuel type, so many fans of xkcd might not be able to understand this comic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.83.162|162.158.83.162]] 05:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
: Yes, because many of us use Diesel, and you should not mix diesel and petrol. But it's no problem to mix small quantities of regular into premium or vice versa. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.161|162.158.86.161]] 09:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
:: Not just diesel and petrol - every kind of fuel sold (usually 4 per pump - petrol/diesel x premium/regular, sometimes fast diesel pump for trucks instead of diesel premium) has a separate hose and pistol in Poland. You choose the fuel by choosing the pistol. I'm guessing it's the same in a large part of Europe at least. It didn't even occur to me that it could be done differently. I honestly thought it was part of the joke - that Cueball doesn't even know that. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.119|162.158.86.119]] 10:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
::: I'm really surprised, too. How DOES a system work where the customer can presumably switch between the kinds of gas he fills in his tank? And where is such a system installed? The States, I suppose, but where else? For international readers, this should definitely be part of the explanation. Is there a convenient weblink that shows the differences between countries' gas stations, or a weblink that shows this unique setup that Randall takes for granted here? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.83.72|162.158.83.72]] 10:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
:::: American here. There's a button for each type of gas. You have to hit a button before you start fueling and then that's the kind that comes out. I'm surprised that other countries use multiple-hose systems. It sounds inefficient. Diesel is still separate here, though. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.123|108.162.246.123]] 23:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
::::: It might be inefficient but at least you get what you pay for. ;) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
:::::: The point of Elektrizitätswerk is the most important in Germany. We have very strict laws concerning precision of amount/quality of sale.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.69|162.158.85.69]] 09:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
::::::: Here is a photo from France: [[File:http://i.imgur.com/xIFbRAMm.jpg|thumb|right|alt=French petrol pump]]. I'm surprised it's not like that in the country that gave us warnings on plastic bags and paper cups :-) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.121|108.162.229.121]] 13:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
::::: We use both in the US. Some gas stations have one hose with multiple buttons to select the grade of fuel, other gas stations do have a separate hose for each fuel grade.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 14:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Beret Guy? ==<br />
Is this Cueball, or Beret Guy with his hat off? [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 08:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
: Unlikely. Wasn't Beret Guy's hat stapled? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.119|162.158.86.119]] 10:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
: If it was Beret Guy he most likely would have had (inexplicable) success with this idea. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== "Pay it forward" at Starbucks ==<br />
<br />
This is actually about Starbucks, where customers - depending on the place, of course, as I've never seen it in Switzerland - are asked to pay some bucks for the next customer. You are expected to pay something "forward".<br />
<br />
This idea originates from Italy, where you can buy a "caffè sospeso", a "suspended café". Somebody in need can walk up to the bar tender and ask for a free coffee. And yes, it disgusts me that this good idea was taken over by hipsters.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.228|162.158.150.228]] 11:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I think you may be seeing something that is not in the comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.119|108.162.246.119]] 13:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I know what you're talking about, and it usually happens with one spontaneous and kind person starting a chain reaction, not corporate encouragement. This would both go against your statement and the comic itself (as they both suggest the company intervening). {{unsigned|Papayaman1000}}<br />
<br />
== Fuel mixture quality ==<br />
<br />
Knowing about the oil industry myself and how oil is transported... different qualities of oil are separated by having different densities, however, some mixture where the two products are touching is unavoidable.<br />
<br />
This is relevant because the non-premium gas actually has a certain amount of premium mixed in, and that's why the octane rating is a minimum.<br />
<br />
In other words, oil companies already account for the mixing of qualities. {{unsigned ip|108.162.220.221}}</div>162.158.74.33