https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=172.68.78.10&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T08:11:11ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2127:_Panama_Canal&diff=1745472127: Panama Canal2019-05-26T16:45:35Z<p>172.68.78.10: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2127<br />
| date = March 22, 2019<br />
| title = Panama Canal<br />
| image = panama_canal.png<br />
| titletext = Once they selected the other proposal, we could have kept shopping ours around, but we would had to modify it include an aqueduct over their canal, which would be totally unreasonable.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a Panamax vessel. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Article misses links or explanations for terms that may be unfamiliar to average reader. View of at-grade crossing as normal could be misleading given reference in trivia to another navigable aqueduct. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
The {{w|Panama Canal}} is, as the name suggests, a canal through the country of Panama. It is important for bridging the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and is an important trade route. The canal is in Panama because this is the narrowest piece of land for crossing between the two oceans. The When the Panama Canal was being proposed, several alternate routes were suggested such as the recently-revived {{w|Nicaragua Canal|Nicaragua Route}}.<br />
<br />
Cueball says that when the Panama Canal connecting the Caribbean Sea to the Pacific Ocean was being planned, he proposed an alternate route that connects the Arctic Ocean to the Great Southern Ocean. At the time, the northern terminus would have been inaccessible, because the Arctic Ocean was almost completely covered by ice. His suggested route runs somewhat to the east of the continental divide and has a total length of slightly over ten thousand miles, in contrast to the real-life canal which is only fifty miles long. The extra length and more-rugged terrain make his proposal much more difficult to build and maintain, unlike the real-life Panama Canal {{Citation needed}}.<br />
<br />
Moreover, while the real-life canal significantly shortens the travel distance between major cities on the east and west coasts of the Americas, his alternative offers little benefit over traveling north or south in either the Atlantic or Pacific oceans. In fact, with the lack of currents that can aid travel and the slow speed required to traverse canal locks, it would be significantly slower. In addition, ships would have to wait approximately 100 years for global warming to melt the ice in the Arctic Ocean along the northern coast of North America sufficiently for them to enter or exit the northern end of the canal. (However, since construction of this canal might take even longer, the ice might not be a problem by the time it was completed.)<br />
<br />
The title text references the now-existing Panama Canal, and the fact that Randall's canal would need to cross it at some point. The title text suggests that crossing two canals would have to be done via aqueduct, instead of the more useful at-grade crossing, most likely at {{w|Gatun Lake}}, which would allow boats to travel between the two canals by simply connecting them. The humor here is that this canal would be one of the most ambitious construction projects in history; an aqueduct being added to the costs is an expense on the same scale of needing an extra screw to hold something in on Apollo 11. The route depicted appears to cross the Mackenzie, Missouri, Rio Grande, and Amazon rivers anyway, so only this additional crossing is apparently "unreasonable."<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Cueball is standing in front of a poster with two maps showing the Americas. He is pointing to the right one with a stick he is holding in his hand. Specifically to the red line going through the Americas from the Arctic sea above Canada near Alaska, down through North America, through the middle of Central America down through the middle of South America to end up in the Antarctic sea below the tip of South America. On the map to the left there is a similar red line indicating the Panama Canal crossing the thinnest part of Central America from the Pacific Oceanto the Atlantic Ocean. Both lines end in small dots on either "side" of the continent. The two maps have labels above them:]<br />
:Atlantic-Pacific option<br />
:Arctic-Antarctic option<br />
<br />
:[Caption below the panel:]<br />
:I still don't understand why the Panama Canal planners rejected my proposal.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*The Panama Canal was the main theme in [[1632: Palindrome]] and there is a scene in [[1608: Hoverboard]] where a [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/0/0d/1608_1026x1073y_Ruins_with_Cueball_singing_of_Spiders_and_Panama.png song that Cueball sings] references the canal. {{w|Panamax}} is referenced in the title text of [[1865: Wifi vs Cellular]].<br />
*If Cueball had proposed an alternative Panama Canal when the original was being built, he would have to have been alive in the early 1900s. Assuming he was at least 18 when the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty was signed to authorize the canal (a very generously low estimate), this version of Cueball would been born no later than 1885.<br />
*The second comic in a row with a [[:Category:Maps|map based theme]]. Randall likes maps. <ref>https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?search=map&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go</ref><br />
*A canal crossing a canal occurs at several places. One of the more famous ones is the {{w|Magdeburg Water Bridge}} in Germany. It also features some locks nearby, so ships can change from the canal to the Elbe river, and vice versa.<br />
*Another canal crossing a canal is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkirk_Wheel Falkirk Wheel] in Scotland.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Maps]]</div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2153:_Effects_of_High_Altitude&diff=1744342153: Effects of High Altitude2019-05-22T19:23:01Z<p>172.68.78.10: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2153<br />
| date = May 22, 2019<br />
| title = Effects of High Altitude<br />
| image = effects_of_high_altitude.png<br />
| titletext = If she'd lived in Flagstaff (elevation 6,903 feet), Cruella de Vil would only have needed 89 dalmatians for her coat.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a HIGH BOT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
This comic starts out with a three effects of high altitude related to the air getting "thinner" and the lower air pressure. {{w|Denver}} is one mile (1609 meters) above sea-level (as marked on the steps of the State Capitol). At this elevation, the [http://www.altitude.org/air_pressure.php average atmospheric pressure] is about 83% of sea level pressure, or about 840 mBar, and [https://www.vcalc.com/wiki/KurtHeckman/Gravity+Acceleration+by+Altitude gravity] is 99.94% normal, or 9.801 m/s<sup>2</sup> instead of 9.806 m/s<sup>2</sup>. This has a number of effects:<br />
<br />
* Water {{w|boiling|boils}} at 202 degrees F (94 degrees C), slightly lower than the baseline 212 degrees F (100 degrees C) it takes at sea level.<br />
* Baseballs and golf balls fly slightly farther.<br />
* {{w|Sunburn}} develops faster because there less atmosphere above to filter out harmful ultraviolet rays.<br />
<br />
As usual for xkcd, the effects of high altitude are extended in a comically absurd manner, applying this "slightly less" rule to things that have nothing to do with altitude:<br />
<br />
* {{w|Scrabble}} is a board game where each letter is assigned a point value based on its frequency of use in the edition's language. The comic claims all letters are worth 16% more. When applied to the {{w|Scrabble_letter_distributions#English|normal values for the Scrabble tiles in English}}<br />
** Q is worth 12 instead of 10<br />
** X is worth 9 instead of 8<br />
** Y is worth 5 instead of 4<br />
* A common {{w|superstition}} states that breaking a mirror causes 7 years of bad luck. The comic claims that at higher altitudes, only 5&frac12; years are caused. It is unclear whether this implies that people living at higher altitudes have more or less luck.<br />
* Marketing campaigns will often state "X is the new Y" to draw the audience of Y in toward the newer X. When used with age, usually at 10 year intervals ("40 is the new 30" is the slogan referenced), it is an attempt to convince an older audience that they can share in an experience commonly associated with a younger audience. At higher elevations, the comic claims, people can use or do things designated for an even younger audience<br />
* German band {{w|Nena (band)|Nena}}'s hit ''99 Red Balloons'' (an English adaptation of the original song called ''{{w|99 Luftballons}}'') is a song about a global (not necessarily nuclear) war started by a large clump of balloons mistaken for UFOs (the original German song refers to "ÜFO's aus dem All", the lyrics of the English-language song say "There's something here from somewhere else" which implies UFOs). The comic affirms that, if launched from a higher altitude, 94 balloons would have sufficed.<br />
* {{w|420 (cannabis culture)|4:20}} is a code word for {{w|cannabis}} and has evolved in some circles to be the socially acceptable hour to consume cannabis. This has in turn evolved into a joke that when checking the time and finding it is exactly 4:20, people will add "blaze it" as a reference. The comic claims that, at higher altitudes, the socially acceptable time decreases, so if there is an elevation of one mile, the socially acceptable time would be 4:17 and therefore, marijuana jokes are made earlier. This joke is probably related to the {{w|Cannabis in Colorado|legalization of recreational marijuana use in Colorado}}.<br />
<br />
* Referenced in the title text, ''{{w|One Hundred and One Dalmatians (franchise)|One Hundred and One Dalmatians}}'' is a children's book and Disney franchise based on it, where the villain, {{w|Cruella de Vil}}, aims to capture and kill 99 Dalmatian puppies to have the perfect spotted fur coat (the title comes from adding to them the two that try to save them). The comic claims that, at a higher altitude, she would only have needed 89 Dalmatians, possibly implying that puppies at higher altitudes are bigger, or that Cruella de Vil at high altitudes is smaller.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]</div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2151:_A/B&diff=1742612151: A/B2019-05-17T22:46:08Z<p>172.68.78.10: Undo revision 174259 by Massimo (talk)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2151<br />
| date = May 17, 2019<br />
| title = A/B<br />
| image = a_b.png<br />
| titletext = We wrote our site in Linear A rather than Askara Kawi because browser testing showed that Crete script rendered faster than Java script.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Written in MYCENEAN GREEK. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
{{w|A/B testing}} is a form of {{w|Scientific control|controlled experiment}} in which test subjects are randomly split into two groups, A and B, and each group is shown a slightly different version of the same thing. This is most often used for market research, as it allows researchers to discover which of two options are received more favorably by consumers. For example, a website might employ A/B testing by randomly showing 50% of visitors a version with a different font. By checking their site traffic analytics afterward, the site operators can see which version of the site received the most user engagement, which might tell them that the alternate font is a better choice.<br />
<br />
{{w|Linear A}}, on the other hand, is an as-of-yet undeciphered writing system of the ancient Minoan civilization (a civilization based on the island of Crete). It appears similar to the deciphered Linear B writing system, but if the pronunciation rules of Linear B are applied to Linear A, it produces a language unrelated to any known language. <br />
<br />
{{w|Linear B}} is a syllabic script that was used for writing Mycenaean Greek, the earliest attested form of Greek.<br />
<br />
The comic jokingly suggests that the choice of writing system could be decided through A/B testing. The test subject apparently can read Linear B (which encodes Mycenaean Greek), but not Linear A (which produces what's seemingly gibberish when read through the rules of Linear B). It is also a pun on the common phrase "[it's] {{w|Greek to me}}", which people use to refer to something as gibberish, but here, it is the Greek text which is comprehensible to [[Cueball]].<br />
<br />
{{w|Kawi script|Askara Kawi}} is a writing system used on the island of Java (today part of Indonesia). As per the title text, Linear A is not being used to encode the information presented to the user (i.e. {{w|natural language}}), but rather the code which defines how or what is presented to the user (i.e. {{w|programming language}}). That is to say, Askara Kawi is a script (i.e. a writing system) from the island of Java, and thus being humorously presented as equivalent to {{w|JavaScript}}, which is a common way to encode dynamic content on webpages. <br />
<br />
Linear A and Linear B are also script engines used in early versions of the Opera web browser, thus further equivalence is presented between them and the writing systems.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
:[Cueball is sitting behind a computer desk, facing to the right, gesturing at the screen. Ponytail stands behind him and Hairy stands in front of him, both taking notes in a pad.]<br />
:Cueball: I like this one more because it encodes Mycenaean Greek. The other one just looks like gibberish.<br />
<br />
:[Caption below the panel:] <br />
:Linear A/B testing<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]</div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=771:_Period_Speech&diff=170522771: Period Speech2019-03-05T01:58:16Z<p>172.68.78.10: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 771<br />
| date = July 26, 2010<br />
| title = Period Speech<br />
| image = period_speech.png<br />
| titletext = The same people who spend their weekends at the Blogger Reenactment Festivals will whine about the anachronisms in historical movies, but no one else will care.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
The actors on this stage are using language and technology from wildly differing time periods. * "Forsooth" is from {{w|Elizabethan era|Elizabethan times}}<br />
* "{{w|Grok}}" is a word from the 1961 Robert Heinlein novel Stranger in a Strange Land<br />
* "Jive" is African American slang from the 1940s to the 70s<br />
* "Me Hearties" is popular 'pirate speak'<br />
* "Ten-Four" was popular during the 1970s CB radio craze.<br />
Put together, the exchange roughly translates to "Do you truly understand what I'm saying, my friends?"/"We understand!".) The characters also combine archaic weapons like a spear and a sword with a presumably modern handgun and a laptop, adding to the growing heap of anachronisms.<br />
<br />
[[Randall]]'s contention is that hundreds of years from now, people will make similar errors that we do today when depicting historical items and language. Modern movies, fiction and other forms of media that depict history often confuse terms, items and equipment that were in one place and time period and place them in another, but few people notice because to them, all of it fits under the very broad category of "old, historical things" - only those with an interest in history really notice or seem to care. Thus following this trend, in the future, things like laptop computers and "grok my jive" will seem just as historical and "old-timey" as a spear or the saying "Forsooth!", except to those who participate in such things like "Blogger Reenactment Festivals", as mentioned in the title text.<br />
<br />
For instance, take a suit of full plate armor. To most people, plate armor is a "Medieval thing". So thus, when depicting King Arthur, a figure from 500 to 800 AD (if he even existed at all), one would (and has) put him in a suit of full plate because he is "medieval" and that is the stereotypical equipment of a Medieval figure. In actual fact, plate armor only came about after 1350, many centuries after King Arthur would have lived, and it coexisted alongside firearms for a very long time. King Arthur would have worn chainmail, but all of this would be lost on an average person watching a movie about King Arthur, to whom chainmail and full plate are interchangeable under the label of "historical armor" in their minds. It is not much of a jump from a span of 500 to 800 years of equipment being considered interchangeable to 1500 years of equipment and language being interchangeable.<br />
<br />
The title text likely refers to [[239: Blagofaire]], which features the said "Blogger Reenactment Festivals".<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[A sword-wielding Cueball on a stage addresses three others; one has a spear, another a handgun and a knife, and the third a laptop.]<br />
:Cueball: Forsooth, do you grok my jive, me hearties?<br />
:Actors: Ten-four!<br />
:A few centuries from now, all the English of the past 400 years will sound equally old-timey and interchangeable.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]</div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2105:_Modern_OSI_Model&diff=1688892105: Modern OSI Model2019-01-30T16:43:58Z<p>172.68.78.10: /* Explanation */ fixed link</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2105<br />
| date = January 30, 2019<br />
| title = Modern OSI Model<br />
| image = modern_osi_model.png<br />
| titletext = In retrospect, I shouldn't have used each layer of the OSI model as one of my horcruxes.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a seven-layered BOT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
The {{w|OSI Model}} is a computing model for network communications that abstracts a communication between two services like a Facebook client and Facebook servers all the way from physical to user interaction layers. As Facebook is one of the most used websites in the world with more than a billion users, Randall claims that the "application" layer (what the client sees and uses) is mostly {{w|Facebook}}.<br />
<br />
A light gray shape labeled "Google & Amazon" surrounds all seven layers of the model in an irregular shape indicating that Google and Amazon, by dint of their size and dominance at multiple layers of the model influence the entire structure. An example of Google's influence would be their introduction of new protocols like {{w|QUIC}} and {{w|SPDY}} as replacements for the existing HTTP protocol that was a foundation of the web.<br />
<br />
The significance of the irregular pattern of the "Google & Amazon" blob isn't clear. It is likely that it is in reference to the irregular way in which their modifications to the OSI stack have evolved. However, it is also notable that the irregular structure of the stack is arranged so as to resemble a {{w|Jenga}} tower. Jenga, for those unfamiliar, is a game in which blocks are added and removed from a vertical pile until the whole collapses. This may be a commentary on the instability of the stack in general, or on how Google and Amazon's additions and changes to it have destabilized the networking protocols.<br />
<br />
The title text refers to {{w|Magical_objects_in_Harry_Potter#Horcruxes|Horcruxes}} used by {{w|Lord Voldemort|Voldemort}} in the ''{{w|Harry Potter}}'' book series. A Horcrux is a magical artifact used to house a wizard's soul, preventing them from dying if their body is destroyed. Since they can only be created by murdering other people, they are heavily forbidden, and before Voldemort it was unheard of for a wizard to use more than one. Voldemort used seven -- the same number of layers Randall uses in the OSI model. However, while Voldemort hid his seven Horcruxes in different places to make himself that much harder to kill, Randall has stashed all seven in the same place, defeating the purpose of using more than one. Alternatively, transforming each layer of the OSI model into a horcrux may be regarded as a strategy to prevent them from being destroyed since doing so would destroy networking. This strategy would fail in the modern world, since some of the envisioned layers were rarely used and in the case of cloud infrastructure potential exists to provide even more shortcuts.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
:'''Modern OSI Model'''<br />
<br />
::Application (Facebook)<br />
<br />
::Presentation<br />
<br />
::Session<br />
<br />
::Transport<br />
<br />
::Network<br />
<br />
:Google & Amazon<br />
<br />
::Data link<br />
<br />
::Physical<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2105:_Modern_OSI_Model&diff=1688882105: Modern OSI Model2019-01-30T16:42:53Z<p>172.68.78.10: /* Explanation */ speculation on the shape of the "Google & Amazon" blob</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2105<br />
| date = January 30, 2019<br />
| title = Modern OSI Model<br />
| image = modern_osi_model.png<br />
| titletext = In retrospect, I shouldn't have used each layer of the OSI model as one of my horcruxes.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Created by a seven-layered BOT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
The {{w|OSI Model}} is a computing model for network communications that abstracts a communication between two services like a Facebook client and Facebook servers all the way from physical to user interaction layers. As Facebook is one of the most used websites in the world with more than a billion users, Randall claims that the "application" layer (what the client sees and uses) is mostly {{w|Facebook}}.<br />
<br />
A light gray shape labeled "Google & Amazon" surrounds all seven layers of the model in an irregular shape indicating that Google and Amazon, by dint of their size and dominance at multiple layers of the model influence the entire structure. An example of Google's influence would be their introduction of new protocols like {{w|QUIC}} and {{w|SPDY}} as replacements for the existing HTTP protocol that was a foundation of the web.<br />
<br />
The significance of the irregular pattern of the "Google & Amazon" blob isn't clear. It is likely that it is in reference to the irregular way in which their modifications to the OSI stack have evolved. However, it is also notable that the irregular structure of the stack is arranged so as to resemble a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenga Jenga] tower. Jenga, for those unfamiliar, is a game in which blocks are added and removed from a vertical pile until the whole collapses. This may be a commentary on the instability of the stack in general, or on how Google and Amazon's additions and changes to it have destabilized the networking protocols.<br />
<br />
The title text refers to {{w|Magical_objects_in_Harry_Potter#Horcruxes|Horcruxes}} used by {{w|Lord Voldemort|Voldemort}} in the ''{{w|Harry Potter}}'' book series. A Horcrux is a magical artifact used to house a wizard's soul, preventing them from dying if their body is destroyed. Since they can only be created by murdering other people, they are heavily forbidden, and before Voldemort it was unheard of for a wizard to use more than one. Voldemort used seven -- the same number of layers Randall uses in the OSI model. However, while Voldemort hid his seven Horcruxes in different places to make himself that much harder to kill, Randall has stashed all seven in the same place, defeating the purpose of using more than one. Alternatively, transforming each layer of the OSI model into a horcrux may be regarded as a strategy to prevent them from being destroyed since doing so would destroy networking. This strategy would fail in the modern world, since some of the envisioned layers were rarely used and in the case of cloud infrastructure potential exists to provide even more shortcuts.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
:'''Modern OSI Model'''<br />
<br />
::Application (Facebook)<br />
<br />
::Presentation<br />
<br />
::Session<br />
<br />
::Transport<br />
<br />
::Network<br />
<br />
:Google & Amazon<br />
<br />
::Data link<br />
<br />
::Physical<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2105:_Modern_OSI_Model&diff=168887Talk:2105: Modern OSI Model2019-01-30T16:41:03Z<p>172.68.78.10: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Randall seems to be saying that a startup doesn't need to create a new computer system to service their customers, all they have to do is put up a Facebook page which uses Google to find products and then has Amazon deliver them. The middle layer "Transport" is a joke because Amazon literally ships physical boxes, but the OSI model is not about actual boxes; it's about information and the way the information is presented to the user vs what goes on behind the scenes.<br />
But I don't get the part about the horcruxes. Is it just the fact that there are seven of them? Or is there some subtle connection I'm missing here? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.180|162.158.106.180]] 05:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
: 'Transport' has nothing to do with Amazon, in this case, though the juxtaposition is amusing; also, the networking model has nothing to do with the user interface. The seven layers are from the 'standard' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model OSI networking model], which was introduced in the late 1970s to describe how networking systems work (or were expected to at the time). In practice, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite#Key_architectural_principles Internet Protocol Suite] model is used, which has more or less the same ideas despite evolving separately, though with only four formal layers (Link, Internet, Transport, and Application) instead of seven (Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport, Session, Presentation, and Application). <br />
:In the OSI model, the Transport layer is Layer 4 (going up from the lowest level, Physical) and represents the part responsible for checking the consistency of data delivery - that is to say, it decides whether or not to check for dropped packets, and whether to resend dropped ones. In the actual Internet model, the rough equivalent is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol Transmission Control Protocol] (for 'connected' transmissions which do check and resend) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Datagram_Protocol User Datagram Protocol] (for 'connectionless' ones which don't). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 16:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:(Spoilers alert) Voldemort uses signifying objects of his life, heritage and his school's founders as horcruces. When the OSI layers are used as horcruces, one problem would be that Google/Amazon would have taken control of two horcruces, the other that some of the layers are frayed at the sides. Randall should not have put his horcruces in living standards - that was a very dangerous move. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is there a meaning of the widths of the layers - not a block or a triangle/pyramid? Are there more layers than the named ones? Or the named ones multiple times? This would correspond to the design of ever more layers, virtualizations, abstractions and overall complexity of computer systems as time moved forward. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:It looks like a jenga tower to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.223|162.158.89.223]] 12:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:: Could some reference to this, or at least some speculation on the irregularity of the tower on general, be added? I would propose something like the following:<br />
::: ''The significance of the irregular pattern of the Google/Amazon blob isn't clear. It is likely that it is in reference to the irregular way in which their modifications to the OSI stack have evolved. However, it is also notable that the irregular structure of the stack is arranged so as to resemble a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenga Jenga] tower. Jenga, for those unfamiliar, is a game in which blocks are added and removed from a vertical pile until the whole collapses. This may be a commentary on the instability of the stack in general, or on how Google and Amazon's additions and changes to it have destabilized the networking protocols.'' -- [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 16:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think Google & Amazon are the grey blob that is slowly absorbing all of the layers [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 07:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
: Excellent remark! Google & Amazon are inserted between the Data Link and Network layers, and while it seems like an eight layer from the shape profile, they do not sit in their own bordered rectangle. Another view point is maybe Randall tried to display the fight between the Infrastructure providers to capture a new layer in gestation. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 08:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. There is no way that Randall wanted the label for the gray blob to just apply to a couple of layers. It's clearly labeling the entire gray blob as "Google and Amazon". Otherwise, he would have put in another dividing line or two. So all the glue between the layers is being described as "Google and Amazon". Meaning that the layers wouldn't even be able to talk to each other and function correctly without G+A glue between them. Maybe this is "glue" in the technical sense of trivial code which converts from one API to another. The basic point here is that Google lays cable in some places and writes Chrome and owns You Tube, so it's definitely at both ends. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to say if it owns/writes stuff in the middle. And I'd be surprised if this was true of Amazon. But it's not my place to comment on the veracity of Randall's remarks, I'm just trying to sort out what he's saying.<br />
<br />
: That's how I understood it as well. By having there hands in *everything* G+A defeat the whole purpose of having a layered (ie. divided) model, making the 'modern model' just bits and pieces added to G+A code.<br />
<br />
Trivia: (Major Spoiler alert) Voldemort originally intended to create six horcruces to divide his soul into 7 (including his own body) pieces. The 6th unintended horcrux is Harry Potter by Voldemort killing his parents. Later on after his revival Voldemort made the snake Nagini to his seemingly 6th horcrux, which was actually his 7th. Does that mean Randall embodies one of the OSI layers from the beginning of his existence? :-) Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 08:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Just a point of contention with the current explanation. Right now, Google and Facebook are two of the major players in cloud-based computing: I have seen tutorials on leveraging Google's cloud services to home-brew your own proxy service.<br />
As such, a lot of internet services are running ON Google or Amazon, so Google and Amazon DO effectively own, or at least manage, several layers.<br />
I do not know if Facebook is one of those, and I would tend to doubt it, considering its size.<br />
<br />
Why does the bot have seven layers???<br />
<br />
PRESENTATION, SESSION, and NETWORK are not contained within GOOGLE & AMAZON the way the rest of the layers are; there are openings to the outside for those three.</div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2105:_Modern_OSI_Model&diff=168885Talk:2105: Modern OSI Model2019-01-30T16:36:37Z<p>172.68.78.10: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Randall seems to be saying that a startup doesn't need to create a new computer system to service their customers, all they have to do is put up a Facebook page which uses Google to find products and then has Amazon deliver them. The middle layer "Transport" is a joke because Amazon literally ships physical boxes, but the OSI model is not about actual boxes; it's about information and the way the information is presented to the user vs what goes on behind the scenes.<br />
But I don't get the part about the horcruxes. Is it just the fact that there are seven of them? Or is there some subtle connection I'm missing here? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.180|162.158.106.180]] 05:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
: 'Transport' has nothing to do with Amazon, in this case, though the juxtaposition is amusing. The seven layers are from the 'standard' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model OSI networking model], which was introduced in the late 1970s to describe how networking systems work (or were expected to at the time). In practice, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite#Key_architectural_principles Internet Protocol Suite] model is used, which has more or less the same ideas despite evolving separately, though with only four formal layers (Link, Internet, Transport, and Application) instead of seven (Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport, Session, Presentation, and Application). <br />
:In the OSI model, the Transport layer is Layer 4 (going up from the lowest level, Physical) and represents the part responsible for checking the consistency of data delivery - that is to say, it decides whether or not to check for dropped packets, and whether to resend dropped ones. In the actual Internet model, the rough equivalent is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol Transmission Control Protocol] (for 'connected' transmissions which do check and resend) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Datagram_Protocol User Datagram Protocol] (for 'connectionless' ones which don't). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 16:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:(Spoilers alert) Voldemort uses signifying objects of his life, heritage and his school's founders as horcruces. When the OSI layers are used as horcruces, one problem would be that Google/Amazon would have taken control of two horcruces, the other that some of the layers are frayed at the sides. Randall should not have put his horcruces in living standards - that was a very dangerous move. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is there a meaning of the widths of the layers - not a block or a triangle/pyramid? Are there more layers than the named ones? Or the named ones multiple times? This would correspond to the design of ever more layers, virtualizations, abstractions and overall complexity of computer systems as time moved forward. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:It looks like a jenga tower to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.223|162.158.89.223]] 12:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:: Could some reference to this, or at least some speculation on the irregularity of the tower on general, be added? I would propose something like the following:<br />
::: ''The significance of the irregular pattern of the Google/Amazon blob isn't clear. It is likely that it is in reference to the irregular way in which their modifications to the OSI stack have evolved. However, it is also notable that the irregular structure of the stack is arranged so as to resemble a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenga Jenga] tower. Jenga, for those unfamiliar, is a game in which blocks are added and removed from a vertical pile until the whole collapses. This may be a commentary on the instability of the stack in general, or on how Google and Amazon's additions and changes to it have destabilized the networking protocols.'' -- [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 16:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think Google & Amazon are the grey blob that is slowly absorbing all of the layers [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 07:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
: Excellent remark! Google & Amazon are inserted between the Data Link and Network layers, and while it seems like an eight layer from the shape profile, they do not sit in their own bordered rectangle. Another view point is maybe Randall tried to display the fight between the Infrastructure providers to capture a new layer in gestation. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 08:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. There is no way that Randall wanted the label for the gray blob to just apply to a couple of layers. It's clearly labeling the entire gray blob as "Google and Amazon". Otherwise, he would have put in another dividing line or two. So all the glue between the layers is being described as "Google and Amazon". Meaning that the layers wouldn't even be able to talk to each other and function correctly without G+A glue between them. Maybe this is "glue" in the technical sense of trivial code which converts from one API to another. The basic point here is that Google lays cable in some places and writes Chrome and owns You Tube, so it's definitely at both ends. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to say if it owns/writes stuff in the middle. And I'd be surprised if this was true of Amazon. But it's not my place to comment on the veracity of Randall's remarks, I'm just trying to sort out what he's saying.<br />
<br />
: That's how I understood it as well. By having there hands in *everything* G+A defeat the whole purpose of having a layered (ie. divided) model, making the 'modern model' just bits and pieces added to G+A code.<br />
<br />
Trivia: (Major Spoiler alert) Voldemort originally intended to create six horcruces to divide his soul into 7 (including his own body) pieces. The 6th unintended horcrux is Harry Potter by Voldemort killing his parents. Later on after his revival Voldemort made the snake Nagini to his seemingly 6th horcrux, which was actually his 7th. Does that mean Randall embodies one of the OSI layers from the beginning of his existence? :-) Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 08:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Just a point of contention with the current explanation. Right now, Google and Facebook are two of the major players in cloud-based computing: I have seen tutorials on leveraging Google's cloud services to home-brew your own proxy service.<br />
As such, a lot of internet services are running ON Google or Amazon, so Google and Amazon DO effectively own, or at least manage, several layers.<br />
I do not know if Facebook is one of those, and I would tend to doubt it, considering its size.<br />
<br />
Why does the bot have seven layers???<br />
<br />
PRESENTATION, SESSION, and NETWORK are not contained within GOOGLE & AMAZON the way the rest of the layers are; there are openings to the outside for those three.</div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2105:_Modern_OSI_Model&diff=168884Talk:2105: Modern OSI Model2019-01-30T16:30:25Z<p>172.68.78.10: Oops</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Randall seems to be saying that a startup doesn't need to create a new computer system to service their customers, all they have to do is put up a Facebook page which uses Google to find products and then has Amazon deliver them. The middle layer "Transport" is a joke because Amazon literally ships physical boxes, but the OSI model is not about actual boxes; it's about information and the way the information is presented to the user vs what goes on behind the scenes.<br />
But I don't get the part about the horcruxes. Is it just the fact that there are seven of them? Or is there some subtle connection I'm missing here? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.180|162.158.106.180]] 05:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
: 'Transport' has nothing to do with Amazon, in this case. The seven layers are from the 'standard' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model OSI networking model], which was introduced in the late 1970s to describe how networking systems work (or were expected to at the time). In practice, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite#Key_architectural_principles Internet Protocol Suite] model is used, which has more or less the same ideas despite evolving separately, though with only four formal layers (Link, Internet, Transport, and Application) instead of seven (Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport, Session, Presentation, and Application). <br />
:In the OSI model, the Transport layer is Layer 4 (going up from the lowest level, Physical) and represents the part responsible for checking the consistency of data delivery - that is to say, it decides whether or not to check for dropped packets, and whether to resend dropped ones. In the actual Internet model, the rough equivalent is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol Transmission Control Protocol] (for 'connected' transmissions which do check and resend) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Datagram_Protocol User Datagram Protocol] (for 'connectionless' ones which don't). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 16:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:(Spoilers alert) Voldemort uses signifying objects of his life, heritage and his school's founders as horcruces. When the OSI layers are used as horcruces, one problem would be that Google/Amazon would have taken control of two horcruces, the other that some of the layers are frayed at the sides. Randall should not have put his horcruces in living standards - that was a very dangerous move. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is there a meaning of the widths of the layers - not a block or a triangle/pyramid? Are there more layers than the named ones? Or the named ones multiple times? This would correspond to the design of ever more layers, virtualizations, abstractions and overall complexity of computer systems as time moved forward. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:It looks like a jenga tower to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.223|162.158.89.223]] 12:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:: Could some reference to this, or at least some speculation on the irregularity of the tower on general, be added? I would propose something like the following:<br />
::: ''The significance of the irregular pattern of the Google/Amazon blob isn't clear. It is likely that it is in reference to the irregular way in which their modifications to the OSI stack have evolved. However, it is also notable that the irregular structure of the stack is arranged so as to resemble a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenga Jenga] tower. Jenga, for those unfamiliar, is a game in which blocks are added and removed from a vertical pile until the whole collapses. This may be a commentary on the instability of the stack in general, or on how Google and Amazon's additions and changes to it have destabilized the networking protocols.'' -- [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 16:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think Google & Amazon are the grey blob that is slowly absorbing all of the layers [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 07:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
: Excellent remark! Google & Amazon are inserted between the Data Link and Network layers, and while it seems like an eight layer from the shape profile, they do not sit in their own bordered rectangle. Another view point is maybe Randall tried to display the fight between the Infrastructure providers to capture a new layer in gestation. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 08:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. There is no way that Randall wanted the label for the gray blob to just apply to a couple of layers. It's clearly labeling the entire gray blob as "Google and Amazon". Otherwise, he would have put in another dividing line or two. So all the glue between the layers is being described as "Google and Amazon". Meaning that the layers wouldn't even be able to talk to each other and function correctly without G+A glue between them. Maybe this is "glue" in the technical sense of trivial code which converts from one API to another. The basic point here is that Google lays cable in some places and writes Chrome and owns You Tube, so it's definitely at both ends. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to say if it owns/writes stuff in the middle. And I'd be surprised if this was true of Amazon. But it's not my place to comment on the veracity of Randall's remarks, I'm just trying to sort out what he's saying.<br />
<br />
: That's how I understood it as well. By having there hands in *everything* G+A defeat the whole purpose of having a layered (ie. divided) model, making the 'modern model' just bits and pieces added to G+A code.<br />
<br />
Trivia: (Major Spoiler alert) Voldemort originally intended to create six horcruces to divide his soul into 7 (including his own body) pieces. The 6th unintended horcrux is Harry Potter by Voldemort killing his parents. Later on after his revival Voldemort made the snake Nagini to his seemingly 6th horcrux, which was actually his 7th. Does that mean Randall embodies one of the OSI layers from the beginning of his existence? :-) Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 08:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Just a point of contention with the current explanation. Right now, Google and Facebook are two of the major players in cloud-based computing: I have seen tutorials on leveraging Google's cloud services to home-brew your own proxy service.<br />
As such, a lot of internet services are running ON Google or Amazon, so Google and Amazon DO effectively own, or at least manage, several layers.<br />
I do not know if Facebook is one of those, and I would tend to doubt it, considering its size.<br />
<br />
Why does the bot have seven layers???<br />
<br />
PRESENTATION, SESSION, and NETWORK are not contained within GOOGLE & AMAZON the way the rest of the layers are; there are openings to the outside for those three.</div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2105:_Modern_OSI_Model&diff=168883Talk:2105: Modern OSI Model2019-01-30T16:29:43Z<p>172.68.78.10: Explanation for the seven layers and the Transport layer in particular.</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Randall seems to be saying that a startup doesn't need to create a new computer system to service their customers, all they have to do is put up a Facebook page which uses Google to find products and then has Amazon deliver them. The middle layer "Transport" is a joke because Amazon literally ships physical boxes, but the OSI model is not about actual boxes; it's about information and the way the information is presented to the user vs what goes on behind the scenes.<br />
But I don't get the part about the horcruxes. Is it just the fact that there are seven of them? Or is there some subtle connection I'm missing here? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.180|162.158.106.180]] 05:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
: 'Transport' has nothing to do with Amazon, in this case. The seven layers are from the 'standard' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model OSI networking model], which was introduced in the late 1970s to describe how networking systems work (or were expected to at the time). In practice, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite#Key_architectural_principles Internet Protocol Suite] model is used, which has more or less the same ideas despite evolving separately, though with only four formal layers (Link, Internet, Transport, and Application) instead of seven (Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport, Session, Presentation, and Application). <br />
::In the OSI model, the Transport layer is Layer 4 (going up from the lowest level, Physical) and represents the part responsible for checking the consistency of data delivery - that is to say, it decides whether or not to check for dropped packets, and whether to resend dropped ones. In the actual Internet model, the rough equivalent is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol Transmission Control Protocol] (for 'connected' transmissions which do check and resend) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Datagram_Protocol User Datagram Protocol] (for 'connectionless' ones which don't). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 16:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:(Spoilers alert) Voldemort uses signifying objects of his life, heritage and his school's founders as horcruces. When the OSI layers are used as horcruces, one problem would be that Google/Amazon would have taken control of two horcruces, the other that some of the layers are frayed at the sides. Randall should not have put his horcruces in living standards - that was a very dangerous move. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is there a meaning of the widths of the layers - not a block or a triangle/pyramid? Are there more layers than the named ones? Or the named ones multiple times? This would correspond to the design of ever more layers, virtualizations, abstractions and overall complexity of computer systems as time moved forward. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:It looks like a jenga tower to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.223|162.158.89.223]] 12:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:: Could some reference to this, or at least some speculation on the irregularity of the tower on general, be added? I would propose something like the following:<br />
::: ''The significance of the irregular pattern of the Google/Amazon blob isn't clear. It is likely that it is in reference to the irregular way in which their modifications to the OSI stack have evolved. However, it is also notable that the irregular structure of the stack is arranged so as to resemble a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenga Jenga] tower. Jenga, for those unfamiliar, is a game in which blocks are added and removed from a vertical pile until the whole collapses. This may be a commentary on the instability of the stack in general, or on how Google and Amazon's additions and changes to it have destabilized the networking protocols.'' -- [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 16:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think Google & Amazon are the grey blob that is slowly absorbing all of the layers [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 07:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
: Excellent remark! Google & Amazon are inserted between the Data Link and Network layers, and while it seems like an eight layer from the shape profile, they do not sit in their own bordered rectangle. Another view point is maybe Randall tried to display the fight between the Infrastructure providers to capture a new layer in gestation. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 08:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. There is no way that Randall wanted the label for the gray blob to just apply to a couple of layers. It's clearly labeling the entire gray blob as "Google and Amazon". Otherwise, he would have put in another dividing line or two. So all the glue between the layers is being described as "Google and Amazon". Meaning that the layers wouldn't even be able to talk to each other and function correctly without G+A glue between them. Maybe this is "glue" in the technical sense of trivial code which converts from one API to another. The basic point here is that Google lays cable in some places and writes Chrome and owns You Tube, so it's definitely at both ends. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to say if it owns/writes stuff in the middle. And I'd be surprised if this was true of Amazon. But it's not my place to comment on the veracity of Randall's remarks, I'm just trying to sort out what he's saying.<br />
<br />
: That's how I understood it as well. By having there hands in *everything* G+A defeat the whole purpose of having a layered (ie. divided) model, making the 'modern model' just bits and pieces added to G+A code.<br />
<br />
Trivia: (Major Spoiler alert) Voldemort originally intended to create six horcruces to divide his soul into 7 (including his own body) pieces. The 6th unintended horcrux is Harry Potter by Voldemort killing his parents. Later on after his revival Voldemort made the snake Nagini to his seemingly 6th horcrux, which was actually his 7th. Does that mean Randall embodies one of the OSI layers from the beginning of his existence? :-) Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 08:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Just a point of contention with the current explanation. Right now, Google and Facebook are two of the major players in cloud-based computing: I have seen tutorials on leveraging Google's cloud services to home-brew your own proxy service.<br />
As such, a lot of internet services are running ON Google or Amazon, so Google and Amazon DO effectively own, or at least manage, several layers.<br />
I do not know if Facebook is one of those, and I would tend to doubt it, considering its size.<br />
<br />
Why does the bot have seven layers???<br />
<br />
PRESENTATION, SESSION, and NETWORK are not contained within GOOGLE & AMAZON the way the rest of the layers are; there are openings to the outside for those three.</div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2105:_Modern_OSI_Model&diff=168880Talk:2105: Modern OSI Model2019-01-30T16:05:07Z<p>172.68.78.10: removing extraneous brackets in previous edit (oops), clarified some text.</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Randall seems to be saying that a startup doesn't need to create a new computer system to service their customers, all they have to do is put up a Facebook page which uses Google to find products and then has Amazon deliver them. The middle layer "Transport" is a joke because Amazon literally ships physical boxes, but the OSI model is not about actual boxes; it's about information and the way the information is presented to the user vs what goes on behind the scenes.<br />
But I don't get the part about the horcruxes. Is it just the fact that there are seven of them? Or is there some subtle connection I'm missing here? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.180|162.158.106.180]] 05:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:(Spoilers alert) Voldemort uses signifying objects of his life, heritage and his school's founders as horcruces. When the OSI layers are used as horcruces, one problem would be that Google/Amazon would have taken control of two horcruces, the other that some of the layers are frayed at the sides. Randall should not have put his horcruces in living standards - that was a very dangerous move. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is there a meaning of the widths of the layers - not a block or a triangle/pyramid? Are there more layers than the named ones? Or the named ones multiple times? This would correspond to the design of ever more layers, virtualizations, abstractions and overall complexity of computer systems as time moved forward. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:It looks like a jenga tower to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.223|162.158.89.223]] 12:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:: Could some reference to this, or at least some speculation on the irregularity of the tower on general, be added? I would propose something like the following:<br />
::: ''The significance of the irregular pattern of the Google/Amazon blob isn't clear. It is likely that it is in reference to the irregular way in which their modifications to the OSI stack have evolved. However, it is also notable that the irregular structure of the stack is arranged so as to resemble a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenga Jenga] tower. Jenga, for those unfamiliar, is a game in which blocks are added and removed from a vertical pile until the whole collapses. This may be a commentary on the instability of the stack in general, or on how Google and Amazon's additions and changes to it have destabilized the networking protocols.'' [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 16:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think Google & Amazon are the grey blob that is slowly absorbing all of the layers [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 07:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
: Excellent remark! Google & Amazon are inserted between the Data Link and Network layers, and while it seems like an eight layer from the shape profile, they do not sit in their own bordered rectangle. Another view point is maybe Randall tried to display the fight between the Infrastructure providers to capture a new layer in gestation. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 08:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. There is no way that Randall wanted the label for the gray blob to just apply to a couple of layers. It's clearly labeling the entire gray blob as "Google and Amazon". Otherwise, he would have put in another dividing line or two. So all the glue between the layers is being described as "Google and Amazon". Meaning that the layers wouldn't even be able to talk to each other and function correctly without G+A glue between them. Maybe this is "glue" in the technical sense of trivial code which converts from one API to another. The basic point here is that Google lays cable in some places and writes Chrome and owns You Tube, so it's definitely at both ends. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to say if it owns/writes stuff in the middle. And I'd be surprised if this was true of Amazon. But it's not my place to comment on the veracity of Randall's remarks, I'm just trying to sort out what he's saying.<br />
<br />
: That's how I understood it as well. By having there hands in *everything* G+A defeat the whole purpose of having a layered (ie. divided) model, making the 'modern model' just bits and pieces added to G+A code.<br />
<br />
Trivia: (Major Spoiler alert) Voldemort originally intended to create six horcruces to divide his soul into 7 (including his own body) pieces. The 6th unintended horcrux is Harry Potter by Voldemort killing his parents. Later on after his revival Voldemort made the snake Nagini to his seemingly 6th horcrux, which was actually his 7th. Does that mean Randall embodies one of the OSI layers from the beginning of his existence? :-) Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 08:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Just a point of contention with the current explanation. Right now, Google and Facebook are two of the major players in cloud-based computing: I have seen tutorials on leveraging Google's cloud services to home-brew your own proxy service.<br />
As such, a lot of internet services are running ON Google or Amazon, so Google and Amazon DO effectively own, or at least manage, several layers.<br />
I do not know if Facebook is one of those, and I would tend to doubt it, considering its size.<br />
<br />
Why does the bot have seven layers???</div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2105:_Modern_OSI_Model&diff=168878Talk:2105: Modern OSI Model2019-01-30T16:02:18Z<p>172.68.78.10: Added Wikipedia link for 'Jenga'</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Randall seems to be saying that a startup doesn't need to create a new computer system to service their customers, all they have to do is put up a Facebook page which uses Google to find products and then has Amazon deliver them. The middle layer "Transport" is a joke because Amazon literally ships physical boxes, but the OSI model is not about actual boxes; it's about information and the way the information is presented to the user vs what goes on behind the scenes.<br />
But I don't get the part about the horcruxes. Is it just the fact that there are seven of them? Or is there some subtle connection I'm missing here? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.180|162.158.106.180]] 05:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:(Spoilers alert) Voldemort uses signifying objects of his life, heritage and his school's founders as horcruces. When the OSI layers are used as horcruces, one problem would be that Google/Amazon would have taken control of two horcruces, the other that some of the layers are frayed at the sides. Randall should not have put his horcruces in living standards - that was a very dangerous move. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is there a meaning of the widths of the layers - not a block or a triangle/pyramid? Are there more layers than the named ones? Or the named ones multiple times? This would correspond to the design of ever more layers, virtualizations, abstractions and overall complexity of computer systems as time moved forward. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:It looks like a jenga tower to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.223|162.158.89.223]] 12:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:: Could some reference to this, or at least some speculation on the irregularity of the tower on general, be added? I would propose something like the following:<br />
::: ''The significance of the irregular pattern of the Google/Amazon blob isn't clear. It is likely that it is in reference to the irregular way in which their modifications to the OSI stack have evolved. However, it is also notable that the irregular structure of the stack is arranged so as to resemble a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenga Jenga]] tower. Jenga, for those unfamiliar, is a game in which blocks are added and removed from a vertical pile until the whole collapses. This may be a commentary on the instability of the stack in general, or on how Google and Amazon's additions and changes to it have destabilized networking.''' [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 16:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think Google & Amazon are the grey blob that is slowly absorbing all of the layers [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 07:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
: Excellent remark! Google & Amazon are inserted between the Data Link and Network layers, and while it seems like an eight layer from the shape profile, they do not sit in their own bordered rectangle. Another view point is maybe Randall tried to display the fight between the Infrastructure providers to capture a new layer in gestation. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 08:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. There is no way that Randall wanted the label for the gray blob to just apply to a couple of layers. It's clearly labeling the entire gray blob as "Google and Amazon". Otherwise, he would have put in another dividing line or two. So all the glue between the layers is being described as "Google and Amazon". Meaning that the layers wouldn't even be able to talk to each other and function correctly without G+A glue between them. Maybe this is "glue" in the technical sense of trivial code which converts from one API to another. The basic point here is that Google lays cable in some places and writes Chrome and owns You Tube, so it's definitely at both ends. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to say if it owns/writes stuff in the middle. And I'd be surprised if this was true of Amazon. But it's not my place to comment on the veracity of Randall's remarks, I'm just trying to sort out what he's saying.<br />
<br />
: That's how I understood it as well. By having there hands in *everything* G+A defeat the whole purpose of having a layered (ie. divided) model, making the 'modern model' just bits and pieces added to G+A code.<br />
<br />
Trivia: (Major Spoiler alert) Voldemort originally intended to create six horcruces to divide his soul into 7 (including his own body) pieces. The 6th unintended horcrux is Harry Potter by Voldemort killing his parents. Later on after his revival Voldemort made the snake Nagini to his seemingly 6th horcrux, which was actually his 7th. Does that mean Randall embodies one of the OSI layers from the beginning of his existence? :-) Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 08:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Just a point of contention with the current explanation. Right now, Google and Facebook are two of the major players in cloud-based computing: I have seen tutorials on leveraging Google's cloud services to home-brew your own proxy service.<br />
As such, a lot of internet services are running ON Google or Amazon, so Google and Amazon DO effectively own, or at least manage, several layers.<br />
I do not know if Facebook is one of those, and I would tend to doubt it, considering its size.<br />
<br />
Why does the bot have seven layers???</div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2105:_Modern_OSI_Model&diff=168877Talk:2105: Modern OSI Model2019-01-30T16:00:23Z<p>172.68.78.10: Proposed addition relating to irregular shape of the stack.</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Randall seems to be saying that a startup doesn't need to create a new computer system to service their customers, all they have to do is put up a Facebook page which uses Google to find products and then has Amazon deliver them. The middle layer "Transport" is a joke because Amazon literally ships physical boxes, but the OSI model is not about actual boxes; it's about information and the way the information is presented to the user vs what goes on behind the scenes.<br />
But I don't get the part about the horcruxes. Is it just the fact that there are seven of them? Or is there some subtle connection I'm missing here? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.180|162.158.106.180]] 05:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:(Spoilers alert) Voldemort uses signifying objects of his life, heritage and his school's founders as horcruces. When the OSI layers are used as horcruces, one problem would be that Google/Amazon would have taken control of two horcruces, the other that some of the layers are frayed at the sides. Randall should not have put his horcruces in living standards - that was a very dangerous move. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is there a meaning of the widths of the layers - not a block or a triangle/pyramid? Are there more layers than the named ones? Or the named ones multiple times? This would correspond to the design of ever more layers, virtualizations, abstractions and overall complexity of computer systems as time moved forward. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 07:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:It looks like a jenga tower to me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.223|162.158.89.223]] 12:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:: Could some reference to this, or at least some speculation on the irregularity of the tower on general, be added? I would propose something like the following:<br />
::: ''The significance of the irregular pattern of the Google/Amazon blob isn't clear. It is likely that it is in reference to the irregular way in which their modifications to the OSI stack have evolved. However, it is also notable that the irregular structure of the stack is arranged so as to resemble a [[Jenga]] tower. Jenga, for those unfamiliar, is a game in which blocks are added and removed from a vertical pile until the whole collapses. This may be a commentary on the instability of the stack in general, or on how Google and Amazon's additions and changes to it have destabilized networking.''' [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 16:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think Google & Amazon are the grey blob that is slowly absorbing all of the layers [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 07:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
: Excellent remark! Google & Amazon are inserted between the Data Link and Network layers, and while it seems like an eight layer from the shape profile, they do not sit in their own bordered rectangle. Another view point is maybe Randall tried to display the fight between the Infrastructure providers to capture a new layer in gestation. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.114|141.101.107.114]] 08:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Agreed. There is no way that Randall wanted the label for the gray blob to just apply to a couple of layers. It's clearly labeling the entire gray blob as "Google and Amazon". Otherwise, he would have put in another dividing line or two. So all the glue between the layers is being described as "Google and Amazon". Meaning that the layers wouldn't even be able to talk to each other and function correctly without G+A glue between them. Maybe this is "glue" in the technical sense of trivial code which converts from one API to another. The basic point here is that Google lays cable in some places and writes Chrome and owns You Tube, so it's definitely at both ends. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to say if it owns/writes stuff in the middle. And I'd be surprised if this was true of Amazon. But it's not my place to comment on the veracity of Randall's remarks, I'm just trying to sort out what he's saying.<br />
<br />
: That's how I understood it as well. By having there hands in *everything* G+A defeat the whole purpose of having a layered (ie. divided) model, making the 'modern model' just bits and pieces added to G+A code.<br />
<br />
Trivia: (Major Spoiler alert) Voldemort originally intended to create six horcruces to divide his soul into 7 (including his own body) pieces. The 6th unintended horcrux is Harry Potter by Voldemort killing his parents. Later on after his revival Voldemort made the snake Nagini to his seemingly 6th horcrux, which was actually his 7th. Does that mean Randall embodies one of the OSI layers from the beginning of his existence? :-) Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.46|172.68.110.46]] 08:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Just a point of contention with the current explanation. Right now, Google and Facebook are two of the major players in cloud-based computing: I have seen tutorials on leveraging Google's cloud services to home-brew your own proxy service.<br />
As such, a lot of internet services are running ON Google or Amazon, so Google and Amazon DO effectively own, or at least manage, several layers.<br />
I do not know if Facebook is one of those, and I would tend to doubt it, considering its size.<br />
<br />
Why does the bot have seven layers???</div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1576:_I_Could_Care_Less&diff=137521Talk:1576: I Could Care Less2017-03-18T13:53:27Z<p>172.68.78.10: </p>
<hr />
<div>Another excellent comic by Randall. In case of interest to anyone a different perspective, David Mitchell did a wonder rant on this... "Dear America... | David Mitchell's SoapBox" <br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.100}}<br />
<br />
The only people who complain about this phrase are pedantic morons who have never heard such things as "head over heels". <br />
<br />
Here, I've composed a list of common vernacular/slang idioms which are valid, clear, and diametrically opposed to their original meaning:<br />
* "Head over heels"<br />
* "Break a leg"<br />
* "It's the shit"<br />
* "That's bad"<br />
* "She's phat"<br />
* "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"<br />
* "Irregardless"{{unsigned|Cwallenpoole}}<br />
: "Diametrically opposed" is redundant. The words mean the same thing. Sorry, when the topic of conversation is pedanticism I couldn't resist :P [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.170|108.162.221.170]] 22:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
:The reason I dislike "I could care less" is because it just grates me. It disrupts the flow of parsing language in my brain, throwing up a "wait, what?" exception that I have to expend far more mental energy than usual to correctly interpret the meaning of something in my head. I'm not being pedantic for the sake of uptight rule adherence and feeling superior (I play around with language and use it in non-standard forms all the time), I'm pedantic because it causes my brain real difficulties in processing the meaning of what a person's said. I mean I'm a woman with Asperger's (and a British one at that) so maybe things are a little different for me, but that's just why I personally strongly dislike this usage. The things on your list though are all different in some way to "I could care less", at least for me, for example:<br />
:* "Head over heels" - How is this an opposite meaning, exactly? Doesn't it give a rather nice metaphor for being giddy about something? Being hyperbolic and metaphorical doesn't make it an opposite meaning.<br />
::*Because your head is ''normally'' over your heels. Nothing special about it. Heels over head would be much more interesting...[[User:Silverpie|Silverpie]] ([[User talk:Silverpie|talk]]) 17:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::*Personally I always think of it as your head being bowled over your heels - not the sort of "over" as in "higher gravitational potential energy", but in the same "around" sense of being "turned over" or "starting over". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.47|108.162.218.47]] 03:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
:* "Break a leg" - This is closer to being an opposite, but the exact opposite to wishing an actor good luck would be to wish them bad luck. The mutation to a slightly absurdist statement marks it out as having a different meaning, especially as "break a leg" isn't really used in any other context than to wish a person good luck. While it may be the case that "I could care less" is rarely (if at all) used in its literal form, there's still nothing to mutate it and obviously mark it out as a linguistic special usage case. It's also still how I'd expect someone to phrase it if they were actually telling me they could care less about something.<br />
::: The "Vaudeville theory" on this page is where I got my understanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break_a_leg --EE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.135|108.162.216.135]] 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
:* "It's the shit" - Again, this is mutated. People aren't saying "it's shit", the word "the" handily tags it for my brain parser to handle differently.<br />
:* "That's bad" - Well, you've got me here actually. I mean, context (and tone) makes the meaning obvious but I can't objectively understand why this phrase doesn't cause me the same sort of difficulties at all. Perhaps because I grew up in the 80s, and a big part of my musical upbringing was Michael Jackson. ''♬ A-hee-hee! Hoo! ♬''<br />
:* "She's phat" - This is completely literal, "phat" is a slang term meaning excellent or attractive. It may be a mutation of the word "fat" or not, its etymology is uncertain, but it is indisputably a very different word now (much like how "orchids" means a species of flower rather than testicles, and "sinister" hasn't meant left in centuries).<br />
::: I understand it's an acronym: Pretty Hot And Tempting. --EE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.135|108.162.216.135]] 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
:* "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" - This is also completely literal, Freud meant that while he believed many things ''could'' have hidden, psychosexual meanings... that while sometimes a person might be puffing on a cigar due to some suppressed phallic desires... they could also just be puffing on a cigar because they're enjoying a nice cigar. That is to say, not everything has a hidden subconscious meaning, and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, not a substitute object to fellate.<br />
:* "Irregardless" - Well yes, the suffix added to "regardless" here would usually invert its meaning, but "irregardless" isn't actually a word that existed before it came into use with its current meaning so it's not like saying a previously established and defined word (or phrase).<br />
: Anyway, while I do believe language is flexible and mutable, this particular phrase fails the easily interpretable test for my brain. I try not to be too uptight about it, but it really does irritate me in a way I can't help. Obviously my opinion is not the only one, so that's just my 1.29587 British pence on the matter :D [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.195|141.101.98.195]] 12:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
::(In response to Cwallenpoole, not 141.101.98.195, who makes good points that I didn't actually read first!) "Head over heels" is of course "head over (and down), heels (upwards) (...and continue this rotation to its logical conclusion)"; "Break a leg" has {{w|Break_a_leg|a number of possible origins}} (I always assumed wishing luck was unlucky, thus the inverse, but several "the leg not being yours" versions also ring true); "It's the shit" is using a somewhat unfortunate object (certainly if you miss out the "the") that is a short-cut off-colour superlative like "the dog's bollocks"; "bad==good" I always assumed was "what's bad to the establishment is good for our own clique"; "phat" is far too modern for me, but probably arises a similar positive superlative with some counter-culture anti-standard spelling; Cigars being cigars don't sound diametrically opposed, to me, although who knows ''what'' went on in Freud's head!; "Irregardless" is an obvious portmanteau/malapropism blend that is so easy to create. - Or so I would personally explain these.<br />
:: Here's an additional one, though, if you care for it: "Cheap at half the price". It sounds wrong if you dig deep and work out that it must mean "It is not more than or equal to twice the actually fair price you should have been asking" (i.e. it's less than double the price). But I've always internally rationalised it as really saying "If this figure you mention actually were only half of the full price you are ''truly'' asking for, the real price would still be considered cheap" (i.e. it's less than half price). Or it could just be obfuscated salesman patter, i.e. telling the truth (still making a profit, but less than a 100% mark-up) but using weasel-words and terminology that create misleading imagery in the listener's mind. i.e. No crime, no foul, should Trading Standards happen to come-a-visiting, one day... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.32|141.101.98.32]] 13:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
:::''Actually'', to follow-up on myself: "It's cheap(, it being in this instance) at half the price (I would normally charge)" works best. Why has that only just occured to me? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.32|141.101.98.32]] 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Attempting to interpret "head over heels" to somehow mean "head down, heels up" isn't etymologically accurate; it's simply a reversal of the original expression, which was "heels over head." There's a similar expression in German ("Hals über Kopf") and Scandinavian (Norwegian "hals over hode", Swedish "hals över huvud") literally "neck over head," which means "in great hurry or disarray, without thinking" and is also sometimes (particularly in Norwegian) reversed for no particular reason: perhaps it's just the "mouth feel" that makes it tempting. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.19|162.158.92.19]] 10:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
'I couldn't care less' is the standard formulation in the UK, for one. I always assumed that the US version was originally a variant on this which was later contracted, eg 'I could care less, but not much'.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.106|141.101.99.106]] 07:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Given that xkcd is so pro-science, I don't think the analysis here should endorse the peeve that there's anything wrong with "I could care less" (or use of "literally" as an intensifier), since most actual linguists, experts on how language works, think it's fine. See for example the list of posts dealing with the question here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=21170#more-21170 And of course, the comic itself points out how petty an besides the point this kind of "correction" is. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.19|162.158.92.19]] 07:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: As a linguist, regarding the claim that most actual linguists think it's fine, I'd have to respectfully say HELL NO! There is a difference between acknowledging the pragmatic implementation of the phrase, that is, its use in common parlance and the general acceptance and understanding of it, and the question wether or not it is "fine". The comic exemplifies a rather extreme version of the idea "Whatever people use is proper language" - in other words, as long as everybody involved in a conversation gets what is meant, there is no point in arguing semantics, grammer, etc. This is, however, neither the only, nor the dominant approach to language and linguistics. For exapmle, it doesn't answer the question how such an ostensibly paradox use of this phrase came to happen, where (geographically, socially, etc.) the phrase might have originated, and other puzzless regarding the origin of the phrase; this attitude also dismisses any inquiry into how humans process (or ignore) such discrepancies between literal meaning and actual use, and in general, how humans organise, structure, and conecptualise language. Additionally, this comic adds a radical deconstructional (and maybe existential) twist to this perspective by basically saying, "We're all alone, and can never really know or understand anybody else".<br />
: Such an attitude of total relativism ("Every experience ist entirely subjective and unique") makes my skin crawl. It is by far more presumptious than being a little pedantic about grammar and the use of expressions.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.176|162.158.114.176]] 11:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
:: Agreed. Words have meanings and reducing the amount of trust you can place in those meanings decreases the value of the language. "You could never understand me, so I might as well not even try to make myself understood" is a cop-out. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.23|108.162.219.23]] 15:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I stand by my comment that most linguists would argue that the phrase does not warrant censure, on the grounds that it is (1) in very common use, probably about 5 times as common as "couldn't care less" in American speech, including educated speech, and about half as common in writing, (2) long established, with the OED's first reference back in 1966, only twenty years after it first notes "I couldn't care less" (and with Google Book Search, we can push this back to the 1940s: it occurs repeatedly in the official transcript of a House Congressional Hearing in 1947, for example), (3) idiomatic, so that logical analysis of its strict literal content is not helpful, and (4) analogous to other constructions (in English and other languages) that don't raise any eyebrows or hackles. That does not mean that they don't consider it interesting and worthy of explanation, of course. Indeed, almost all the work of actually trying to explain how "could care less" arose has been done by people who are at pain to point out that they find the phrase unobjectionable (while those who disapprove of it don't seem to get much further than calling it "an ignorant substitution" or a result of "sloppy speech and sloppy writing"). It's of course hard to prove that this is the majority view in academic circles, but I refer to Lawler, Liberman, Pullum, Okrent [http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/03/18/why_i_could_care_less_is_not_as_irrational_or_ungrammatical_as_you_might.html], Pinker, the various dictionaries that list it without deprecation (e.g. RH Webster's: "usage: could care less, the apparent opposite of couldn't care less, is actually used interchangeably with it to express indifference. Both versions occur mainly in informal speech."), and linguistic popularizers such as Grammarist [http://grammarist.com/usage/could-care-less/]. This clearly reflects the descriptivist paradigm that seeks to understand language as it actually occurs, and looks skeptically on attempts to impose "rules" that are often demonstrably wrong. In other words, treating linguistics as an empirical science. The version of this position that Megan argues in the comic is obviously heightened for comic effect (she's also using a sort of mock-Gricean analysis to impute a possible helpful intent to Ponytail). You can find most of these points endorsed in a very reasonable [http://blog.dictionary.com/could-care-less/ blog post by dictionary.com]. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.152|141.101.105.152]] 09:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'<br />
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'<br />
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'<br />
[[http://www.linkedin.com/in/Comet Comet]] 23:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
As it's currently written, the explanation seems to suggest that "I could care less" is the American form and "I couldn't care less" British. In fact, both forms are in use in the US, and it wouldn't surprise me if "I could care less" occurs occasionally in British English as well. There are also other English-speaking countries in the world. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.19|162.158.92.19]] 07:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
:As a Brit, I can't think of any time I've heard a fellow Briton say "I could care less", it's always seemed very much an American phenomenon. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.195|141.101.98.195]] 12:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Another American chiming in here to say that I never, ever, ever say "I could care less" when I mean "I couldn't care less". Characterizing it as "*the* American form" is incorrect. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.167|173.245.56.167]] 15:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
As for the title text, I'd disagree with "The sentence is also ambiguous, as it may mean that literally or figuratively, the speaker could or couldn't care less." I think that Randall is pretty clear here: he ''should'' ('could' as in polite request) care less about irrational idioms instead of wasting time drawing comics about it. But he just can't resist. And without him doing so, we wouldn't be here. So in fact, it is nonsense for Randall to care less, and this contradiction is the point of the title text joke. But then again, I'm not native English speaker, and even less of a thought reader to understand what was on his mind. -- kavol, [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.224|141.101.96.224]] 08:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
:I had an alternate take on the title text. Since I could care less literally means I care some but could stand not to care as much, I took it to mean that for all the comic says about the true spirit and nature of communication and the evils of forcing linguistic absolutism onto other people, at the end of the day Randall still does care about people using correct phraseology. Yes, language is so much more than words and sounds but without clear grammatical usage rules communication could descend into chaos. This is actually one of the pivotal points in Jet Li's movie Hero which is a great commentary on this comic's profundity. The deep resonating pools of meaning that communication stores is only useful for peace and coexistence if we can all understand each other and come together as one. --[[User:R0hrshach|R0hrshach]] ([[User talk:R0hrshach|talk]]) 15:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
::I'm solidly with the IP. Randall is saying that, evidently, this is something which is important to him, and something he's put a lot of thought into. [[User:FourViolas|FourViolas]] ([[User talk:FourViolas|talk]]) 17:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think "I could care less" is completely unheard of in Britain - I had to come here to find out what this was all about! In the UK the correction wouldn't be seen as pedantic, but rather that you had said something really rather odd, possibly for effect. I'm guessing in the US this doesn't stand out, and the phrase is "familiar" so the brain will run with it, but it just sounds really weird and jarring to me. That's not being pedantic, we toss double negatives around all over the place. Randall's point is that it how you interpret the words, rather than exact rules. So if ponytail is British then she is genuinely just trying to check that it wasn't a slip of the tongue and not meant for effect. To experience how odd it sounds its like a similar phrase "I don't give a s**t", but someone saying "I do give a s**t" (unless you guy's say that as well?!). {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.205}}<br />
<br />
: You're right, the British National Corpus has essentially no hits for "could care less" [http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/]. However, Ponytail's "correction" doesn't sound like she's unfamiliar with the expression, but more like the common pedantic objection to it, so I doubt that she's intended to be British, or that it's anything other than "showing off how well she knows some mental checklist." The Lawler link above ([http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/giveadamn.html]) discusses the example "They could give a damn about Whitewater" (as in they '''don't''' actually give a damn about it). I think you could get away with "I give a shit?" or "[Like] I give a shit!" (with the "like" elided) as implicitly negative, but no, you can't put in an affirmative "do." [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.19|162.158.92.19]] 10:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm fighting a long lost battle, I know, but can I mention my fight against the (long-standing) misuse of Decimation when the speaker/writer probably means Devastation? These days it's often assumed to be its own mathematical complement (around ~10% survival, rather than the intended ~10% depletion). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.32|141.101.98.32]] 13:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I am right with you on this one. Although I don't think the users are mistaking the Dev- for the Dec-, they have just forgotten or never learned that "decimate" had anything to with percentages. Heck, many English speakers don't grasp that percent has anything to do with percentages. [[User:NoniMausa|NoniMausa]] ([[User talk:NoniMausa|talk]]) 15:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Either one works, depending on how the sentence is finished:<br />
* I could care less...about this than other things.<br />
* I couldn't care less...about this than I already do.<br />
--EE [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.135|108.162.216.135]] 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Indeed, but "I could..." also begs the question "...but will I?" and so does not actually affirms that "I ''will'' care less (than with other things)", whilst "I couldn't..." is more imperative as in "...and therefore I wouldn't". (Unless you want to read the latter as "I couldn't care less because I actually care quite a lot already and I know that this will never change", I suppose! Oh dear, we uregently need to start using one of those totally-umambiguous ConLangs based upon predicate logic!) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.32|141.101.98.32]] 15:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
On a different note: The way the panels are set up is pretty interesting. Anyone a idea, why he set it up like that? Does he want to tell us something? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.196|162.158.92.196]] 17:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
:The panels seem to form a logical story progression: introduction / development / conclusion, each on 3 lines. The panel on solitude and darkness is inverted -- it's literally dark -- which is a common comics idiom to emphasize a specific panel and break monotony {{Citation needed}}. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 20:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This is starting to feel like the [http://english.stackexchange.com/ English Language & Usage Stack Exchange] :-)<br />
<br />
It's quite amusing as most of the discussion here is about the pedantic usage solely focused on how the listener perceives the expression irregardless (;-p) of what the speaker tried to express, which is is exactly what the comic is ranting about.<br />
If we want to be all pedantic, I'd offer the alternative that "I could care less" is a literally (;-p) perfectly sound form in itself. It's all about expressing the emotional value that someone attaches to a concept or thing -- think of it as an emotional energy or charge. Since everything is inter-dependent, there is no such thing as an absolute zero, it's the relation to other things that matters. The expression "I don't care" would imply the speaker devotes a neutral emotional energy value to the subject. Since it's a relative value, there are no boundaries in either direction and consequently "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" are perfectly valid. It's all relative, as used to say Frank. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 20:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'I know what you're thinking about,' said Tweedledum; 'but it isn't so, nohow.'<br />
'Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'<br />
[[http://www.linkedin.com/in/Comet Comet]] 23:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"I could care less, but I would have to try" is the phrase as I have always known it (shortened to "I could care less...). I always took this to mean that someone was indifferent to a thing. It is a bit of an oxymoron since to try would mean you care more when your goal is to care less. My assumption has always been that the way someone feels about something generally exists on a scale from love to hate with the dead center being indifference. To care more from an indifferent standpoint is too move towards one of the poles (love or hate) and thus the oxymoron.--[[User:The elusive pickle|The elusive pickle]] ([[User talk:The elusive pickle|talk]]) 22:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
Is it proper to use citations or should we just link to the source? {{User:17jiangz1/signature|10:44, 12 September 2015}}<br />
<br />
;Negation by association in French<br />
<br />
The [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/giveadamn.html assertion] that ''could care less'', or ''give a damn'', is "negative in its own right" in the same way as ''pas'' in French sounds dubious to me to say the least, if not downright bovine excrement. In French, the original word for negation is ''ne'', it came to be associated with ''pas'', so that there was a perceived redundancy. Dropping ''ne'' when ''pas'' is used clearly conserves the negative meaning (it is only usual in oral French though, and frowned upon in written French). The same applies with adverbs that have a negative meaning, like ''jamais'' (never). But this is a very generic process, and thus completely different from very specific cases like ''could care less''. [[User:Zoyd|Zoyd]] ([[User talk:Zoyd|talk]]) 17:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Absolutely off-topic: there's a fairly good overview of the evolution leading to ''ne... pas'' in French [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A9gation_en_fran%C3%A7ais#.C3.89volution_de_l.27expression_de_la_n.C3.A9gation over there in The Other Wiki]. The link (or lack thereof) with ''could care less'' would definitely qualify as ''capilotracté''. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 00:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I've heard people say they ''couldn't'' give a damn. Never heard someone say they ''could''. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.195|141.101.98.195]] 13:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's a shame we don't know Ponytail's name. If we did, this would pass the Bechdel test. Out of interest, are there any xkcds which pass the Bechdel test? {{unsigned ip|108.162.249.183}}<br />
<br />
I could care more. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.33|198.41.238.33]] 00:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This was done on [http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2015/08/03 Pearls Before Swine] a couple of weeks ago. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.118|173.245.54.118]] 13:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Perhaps she's saying she could care a lot about the correction if it's intended to help her, but she could care less than that if the correction stems from the desire to complete a mental checklist.<br />
In other words, there are two interpretations of the significance of Ponytail's correction. If the first interpretation is correct, she will care a lot. If the second interpretation is correct, she will care less. But she's not sure which is the case right now, so she could either care a lot or care less.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 13:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)</div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:992:_Mnemonics&diff=134551Talk:992: Mnemonics2017-01-31T02:15:21Z<p>172.68.78.10: </p>
<hr />
<div>The most memorable resistor code mnemonics I know are not...politically correct, shall we say. But they are memorable. [[User:Blaisepascal|Blaisepascal]] ([[User talk:Blaisepascal|talk]]) 19:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)<br />
:tell pls [[User:SuperSupermario24|<span style="color: #c21aff;">Just some random derp</span>]] 23:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I feel like he got lazy at the end and didn't provide an "or" to the Jesus one mnemonic. Also, why is mnemonic often pronounced "new-monic" ?<br />
<br />
Mnemonic is supposed to be pronounced "nim-monic"; "new-monic" is rather a malapropism, given that is a correct pronunciation of "pneumonic" (meaning related to lungs or to pneumonia"), similar to how some people pronounce "nuclear" as "nu-kyoo-lar" (reminiscent of "-cular"-ending words, such as: perpendicular, particular, jocular, etc.).<br />
:I pronounce it as written, same for "gnome" - keeps those muscles going. (Try it with "knight", you'll get an approximation of Chaucer. Seriously.) --[[User:Qwach|Qwach]] ([[User talk:Qwach|talk]]) 02:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)<br />
:My dictionary says it's a schwa sound. Both "nim" and "new" are putting too much emphasis on the first syllable. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.202|108.162.219.202]] 06:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, it should be nuh-MAHN-ic (n'monic) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 02:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Mnemonics are actually counter-productive. They claim to help you remember something but, in actuality, they replace what you're supposed to remember with something useless, thus causing you to FAIL to remember.[[Special:Contributions/76.29.225.28|76.29.225.28]] 03:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"Mnemonics are actually counter-productive." I disagree. They provide the '''order''' to the list of already known, or mostly known, words. They provide a little extra help.--DrMath 20:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The only one I ever learned:<br />
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.<br />
Fucking stupid brain! (It HAS been useful, although I don't recall why at the moment. (Fucking stupid brain.))<br />
[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 07:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
Big Brother Reptilian Overlors. This aren't Raptors or Tyranosaurs?? I remmeber any 'fear' from Monroe to they -- {{unsigned ip|108.162.210.252}}<br />
:"It's the most remarkable word I've ever seen!"[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.174|173.245.50.174]] 05:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Has anyone noticed the Order of Operations is Out of Order? Please Email Dad & Mum A Shark? - Apostrophyx ([[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.221|108.162.249.221]] 03:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC))<br />
:It's not out of order, multiplication and division are one tier together. 6 x 5 / 2 and 6 / 2 x 5 have the same result. [[User:Cflare|Cflare]] ([[User talk:Cflare|talk]]) 14:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I learned "Kahn's Hot Dogs Use Dead Cow Meat" as a mnemonic for SI prefixes. Covers all the common ones, but leaves out extreme ones like Giga or Zepto.--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.64|173.245.55.64]] 20:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My favorite is for SOHCAHTOA: "Some Old Hippie Caught Another Hippie Tripping On Acid." [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.228|199.27.128.228]] 05:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
And this, fundamentally, is why people don't like Pluto not being a planet. Sure, it's logical, but you took away our nine pizzas and gave us only nachos in return. Who wouldn't be mad about that?[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.174|173.245.50.174]] 05:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)<br />
:Not to mention the self-referential "My very educated mother just showed us nine planets." [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 02:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My personal favorite for taxonomy is "Dumb kids playing catch on freeways get squashed."[[User:RedHatGuy68|RedHatGuy68]] ([[User talk:RedHatGuy68|talk]]) 01:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Marx didn't "invent" either socialism or communism. Both terms predated him. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 17:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)</div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=145:_Parody_Week:_Dinosaur_Comics&diff=132879145: Parody Week: Dinosaur Comics2016-12-23T16:34:20Z<p>172.68.78.10: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 145<br />
| date = August 18, 2006<br />
| title = Parody Week: Dinosaur Comics<br />
| image = dinosaur_comics.png<br />
| titletext = Guys: while I was writing this, I accidentally swallowed a table-size slab of drywall. I know! Wacky.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic is a part of the [[:Category:Parody Week|Parody Week]], just joking about other {{w|webcomics}}. This series was released on 5 consecutive days (Monday-Friday) and not over the usual Monday/Wednesday/Friday schedule and is comprised of the following five {{w|parodies}}:<br />
*[[141: Parody Week: Achewood]]<br />
*[[142: Parody Week: Megatokyo]]<br />
*[[143: Parody Week: TFD and Natalie Dee]]<br />
*[[144: Parody Week: A Softer World]]<br />
*[[145: Parody Week: Dinosaur Comics]]<br />
<br />
{{w|Dinosaur Comics}} is a webcomic by {{w|Ryan North}}. The artwork never changes, save a few rare exceptions, and only the dialogue is different. [[Randall]] traced the comic's usual artwork, though the drawing of the house about to be squashed in panel 3 is a more rudimentary rendition, and the person about the be squashed in panel 4 has been changed into [[Cueball]] rather than a woman in bright yellow and pink clothes.<br />
<br />
For those who haven't read it, this is a [http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1387 typical strip], and [http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2079 here's] a strip dealing with the same subject as this comic (but posted five years after it). See also [http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2420 this particular example] where the title text actually refer to Randall and xkcd.<br />
<br />
Randall makes several shots at recurring themes in Dinosaur Comics. T-Rex, the green {{w|Tyrannosaurus}}, is bold and enthusiastic, discussing various topics, a favorite of which appears to be linguistics (North got his degree in computational linguistics). This time, he is talking about {{w|Singular_they|they}} being used as a {{w|Grammatical_person|third person}} singular {{w|Gender-specific_and_gender-neutral_pronouns|gender-free pronoun}} and how it should be more widely used, even though its acceptance varies. {{w|Dromiceiomimus}}, the white dinosaur in the third panel, usually responds calmly to T-Rex's discussions. T-Rex then elaborates on how "they" has been used for centuries (specifically, since the fourteenth century), with the change in convention being relatively recent (the singular "they" fell out of "fashion" in the nineteenth century); as well as how using "they" would avoid "ridiculous" constructs like "he/she", "s/he", "xe" or "hirs", which (according to the comic) were specifically created to avoid the singular they. In fact, while "he/she" and "s/he" are commonly used as a gender-neutral pronoun when gender is unknown, {{Citation needed}} "xe" and "hirs" are typically used for {{w|genderqueer}} individuals. Genderqueer persons do not subscribe to a "binary" definition of gender, where the only genders are male and female, and may identify as having (for example) a gender between male and female, a combination of both male and female genders, no gender (terms for this include "genderless," "agender", and "neutrois"), a {{w|Third_Gender|separate gender}} from male and female, an unnameable gender, or a "fluid" gender identity that shifts between multiple genders (the term for this is "genderfluid"). (See http://gender.wikia.com/wiki/Genderqueer.) For this reason, genderqueer pronouns such as "xe" and "hirs" are different from gender-neutral pronouns such as the singular they, "he/she", or "s/he"; while gender-neutral pronouns are used in situations where gender is unknown or irrelevant, genderqueer pronouns are used for a person who chooses to use these pronouns rather than "he" or "she" (note that "they" is also frequently used as a genderqueer pronoun due to its gender-neutral status). This improper analogy between genderqueer and gender-neutral pronouns may suggest the characters' or Randall's unfamiliarity with the usage of genderqueer pronouns at the time this comic was written.<br />
<br />
{{w|Utahraptor}}, the orange dinosaur, typically contradicts T-Rex, but Randall subverts this pattern and has him agree. The comic suggests that the perpetual disagreement stems from a 'rift' in the author's mind, which would be healed if only he lived in a world where there were a land bridge between Asia and North America.<br />
<br />
In the last panel, the narrator starts with "In a world…", a phrase made famous by {{w|Don LaFontaine}} in movie trailers. It remains unclear what is meant by the reference to Dinosaur Comics being set in a world where the land bridge between Asia and North American still exists, as all the dinosaurs in this and therefore all Dinosaur Comics lived in North America in real life (see the wiki links for the three dinosaurs above). It could be understood as it would only be in such a world that the author (Ryan Norths) mind has healed from it's rift, and and the war with self-doubt in his subconscious has ended. "In a world..." is also likely a reference to the recurring gag of the comic suddenly jumping to alternate worlds or time periods that have whatever conditions T-Rex and his friends have been discussing, to humorous effect.<br />
<br />
The last sentence suggest that in this other world everyone is {{w|bi-curious}}. This is a phenomenon in which people of a {{w|heterosexual}} or {{w|homosexual}} identity who, while showing some curiosity for a relationship or sexual activity with a person of the sex they do not favor, distinguish themselves from the {{w|bisexual}} label. Bi-curious has been used as the word of the day two days in a row on [http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=311 May 11th] and [http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=312 May 12th] 2004. So no wonder Randall put the word in here. The suggestion that "everyone is bi-curious" could be a reference to {{w|Arthur C. Clarke|Arthur C. Clarke's}} book {{w|Imperial Earth}}, where bisexuality is the norm. Deliberately trite and awkward explorations of this subject matter are also a recurring theme in Dinosaur Comics.<br />
<br />
Like [[xkcd]], Dinosaur Comics has [[title text|title texts]]. Ryan's title texts tend to be bizarre non-sequiturs, and the title text in this parody fits this pattern. It sounds like it was T-Rex who said this, since only a T-rex could swallow a table sized slab of anything, let alone a slab made of {{w|drywall}}.<br />
<br />
T-Rex from ''Dinosaur Comics'' later appeared in [[1350: Lorenz]] (see this [http://xkcd.com/1350/#p:f2b12f1e-bbae-11e3-801c-002590d77bdd example story line] and also the Dinosaur section under [[1350:_Lorenz#Themes|Lorenz themes]]), where the actual images from the first three panels of Ryan's comic are used, rather than like here where Randall copied them himself and in [[1452: Jurassic World]], where it was the last image from the actual comic that was used.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[T-Rex, a large green Tyrannosaurus, holds out his small arms to each side and the tail pointing up while speaking with wide open pink mouth showing all his teeth. All the text is written like on a typewriter with both caps and lowercase letters, which is not normal in xkcd.]<br />
:T-Rex: THINGS I AM UPPITY ABOUT: "They" as a third-person singular gender-free pronoun.<br />
<br />
:[Zoom in on T-Rex head holding his hands up under his mouth, and mouth even wider open so also the red tongue can be seen.]<br />
:T-Rex: I'm all for it!<br />
<br />
:[Zoom out to show T-Rex to the left, mouth almost closed, arms in normal position, the tail pointing up and lifting his left leg ready to smash his foot down through the roof of a brown log cabin with chimney and porch with a blue car holding in front of the house to the right. Further right is a smaller white/yellow dinosaur, Dromiceiomimus, standing away from T-Rex, but turning itøs long neck toward him.]<br />
:Dromiceiomimus: But isn't that terrible grammar?<br />
:T-Rex: Only by recent convention! It's been in use that way for centuries, and its use is widely accepted! ALSO: This lets us avoid ridiculous constructs like "he/she", "s/he", "xe" or "hirs"!<br />
<br />
:[T-Rex is moving left, so part of his head and his lifted right foot is outside the panels frame, pink mouth again partly open so tongue can be seen, but no teeth are drawn. Arms are still in normal position and the tail is pointing up. Beneath the part of his right foot visible, there is Cueball about to be squashed. Behind him am orange dinosaur, Utahraptor, has appeared. It looks like a smaller version of T-Rex but with longer arms and very large claws on it's rear legs. It has it's pink mouth wide open to show it's red tongue and teeth, also holding arm in front of it and the tail pointing up. It is moving forward standing only on one leg, the other lifted high up.]<br />
:Utahraptor: T-Rex, I . . . agree.<br />
:T-Rex: What?<br />
:Utahraptor: That sounds good to me!<br />
<br />
:[T-Rex stand with both legs down, but wide spread out. The tails is almost down to the ground, only the tip pointing up. The arms are still in front of it towards left, but it has turned it's head, mouth almost closed, toward right looking at Utahraptor which now stands on both legs, but like it is leaning forward on it's toes, stretching up with arms held high, mouth less open, but tongue and teeth visible.]<br />
:Utahraptor: Normally I'd jump in with an objection, but I think your point makes sense.<br />
:T-Rex: Could it be that the rift in our author's mind has finally healed? Is he no longer locked in perpetual war with the self-doubt that lurks in his subc-<br />
<br />
:[The final part of the final words from T-Rex is interrupted in the previous panel and first finishes here after a narrator "speaks" before T-Rex with bold capital letters to the top right, and after to the bottom left. T-Rex is seen in full figure standing with wide open mouth, teeth and tongue visible, arms and tail up.]<br />
:Narrator: '''IN A WORLD WHERE THERE IS STILL A LAND BRIDGE BETWEEN ASIA AND NORTH AMERICA FOR SOME REASON:'''<br />
:T-Rex: -onscious?<br />
:Narrator: '''ALSO HOW ABOUT IN THIS WORLD EVERYONE IS BICURIOUS'''<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*This was the [http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=830 Dinosaur Comics strip] released the day before this comic<br />
**Dinosaur Comics released MTWT, so there where no release on the Friday of this comics release.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Parody Week]]<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]] <!-- being stepped on in panel 4 --><br />
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]<br />
[[Category:Language]]<br />
[[Category:Sex]] <!--Bi-curious--></div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1776:_Reindeer&diff=132867Talk:1776: Reindeer2016-12-23T14:42:26Z<p>172.68.78.10: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--><br />
Captcha does not work on mobile browser. (Android Firefox) Had to switch over to laptop to make edit. Also, it's two words, not one as the thing above implies ("To help protect against automated edit spam, please type the word you see in the box below:") ~Dartania [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.141|162.158.74.141]] 14:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: This post was made with Firefox on Android. Are you sure you didn’t just get a difficult CAPTCHA? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.214|108.162.216.214]] 14:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
Title text could be a parody of "When what to my wondering eyes should appear/but a miniature sleigh, and eight tiny reindeer" from "A Visit from St. Nicholas" ('Twas the Night Before Christmas) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus's_reindeer#Eight_reindeer<br />
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.10|172.68.78.10]] 14:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)</div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1775:_Things_You_Learn&diff=1327901775: Things You Learn2016-12-21T16:58:26Z<p>172.68.78.10: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1775<br />
| date = December 21, 2016<br />
| title = Things You Learn<br />
| image = things_you_learn.png<br />
| titletext = Guess who has two thumbs and spent the night in an ER after trying to rescue a kitten that ran under his car at a stoplight and climbed up into the engine compartment? And, thanks to antibiotics, will continue having two thumbs? THIS GUY. (P.S. kitten is safe!)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Title text, fill table.}}<br />
This graph shows various items of information plotted by two criteria: a horizontal "How Bad Is It If You Don't Know [THING]" axis and a vertical "How Easy It Is To Grow Up Without Learning [THING]" axis.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable sortable"<br />
! Ignorance is Bad !! Ignorance is Easy !! Information !! Comments<br />
|-<br />
| not bad || (very, very) easy || 100 digits of pi || Most people don't know more than a few digits of pi, and don't need to.<br />
|-<br />
| not bad || (very) easy || Lyrics to "We Didn't Start The Fire" || The average person is more likely to know the lyrics to a popular song than 100 digits of pi, but not knowing them doesn't really have any serious consequences. <br />
|-<br />
| (very) bad || (very) easy || That cat bites are really serious and if bitten you need to wash the bite and call a doctor immediately || Most people assume that a cat bite is just a minor injury. In fact, it carries a fairly high risk of infection, which can be dangerous if not treated (by cleaning the bite to reduce the risk, and having a doctor examine the bite victim and apply additional treatments such as antibiotics if needed).<br />
|-<br />
| (very) bad || (very) easy || The red flags for an abusive relationship || It is fairly easy for someone to fall into a pattern of accepting abuse (particularly if the abuser is skilled at emotional manipulation) without realizing it, and the consequences can be mentally and physically devastating.<br />
|-<br />
| (very, very) bad || easy || The signs of a stroke || The symptoms of a stroke are somewhat variable, depending on what areas of the brain are affected, and can be mistaken for other conditions. Identifying a stroke quickly and seeking treatment can make the difference between life and death, or between full recovery and permanent impairment.<br />
|-<br />
| bad || easy || Cough into your elbow, not your hand || Covering a cough with the inside of your elbow helps prevent spreading airborne germs and is generally recommended by medical organizations. Coughing into your hand deposits them onto your hand, where they are much more likely to be spread to another person (via handshake, food preparation, shared objects, etc)<br />
|-<br />
| not (too) bad || hard || How to ride a bike || Most children, especially in the United States, learn to ride a bike at a fairly young age. While this is a useful skill to know for both entertainment and transportation, it would generally not be terrible to not learn this skill.<br />
|-<br />
| not bad (at all) || hard || How to escape movie quicksand || Quicksand in movies is a common trope, and while its physics often differ from real quicksand, escaping from it is commonly done using similar methods (eg, not struggling, which increases the quicksand's viscosity). Knowing how to escape from quicksand is important if you sink into it, which is a situation most people are very unlikely to encounter.<br />
|-<br />
| not bad (at all) || (very) hard || Lyrics to "12 Days of Christmas" || Hearing the same Christmas songs over and over each year makes it hard not to learn the lyrics over time. However, the consequences of not doing so are minimal; at most, ignorance of popular culture may leave your friends [[1769|a bit surprised and dismayed]].<br />
|-<br />
| not bad (at all) || (very, very) hard || TV theme songs || Most children in developed countries grow up watching at least some television. Many of these television shows play the same theme song before the show starts, and many of these have catchy lyrics. Therefore, by repetition, most children will learn at least one of these growing up, and often many.<br />
|-<br />
| bad || hard || That you have to empty the dryer lint trap || Most clothes dryers collect lint in a mesh "trap". Failing to remove the lint can cause the dryer to stop working effectively, introduce lint back onto your clothes, or (in extreme cases) start a fire.<br />
|-<br />
| (very) bad || (very) hard || Stop, drop, and roll || This is a technique to extinguish a fire on one's own clothing, and is frequently taught to children for safety. Not knowing it (or forgetting it in a panic when the situation arises) can result in severe burns that could have been avoided by following the recommendation.<br />
|-<br />
| (very) bad || (very) hard || That you have to pay taxes || Most residents of most countries are legally obligated to pay, or at least file, their taxes annually. Penalties for not doing so often include large fines, and possibly prison sentences. Fortunately, it is something that children hear about quite a bit so it is very difficult to grow up without learning that it must be done.<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
ranking explanation<br />
100% not bad: not bad at all . . . 100%>not-badness≥50%: not bad . . . 50%>not-badness≥0%: not too bad<br />
100% very bad: very, very bad . . . 100%>very badness≥50%: very bad . . . 50%>very badness>0%: bad<br />
100% hard: very, very hard . . . 100%>hardness≥50%: very hard . . . 50%>hardness>0%: hard<br />
100% easy: very, very easy . . . 100%>easiness≥50%: very easy . . . 50%>easiness≥0%: easy<br />
<br />
The title text describes an encounter Randall had the night before writing this comic where a cat climbed into the engine compartment or his car. It probably serves as an explanation for the seemingly out of place point on the graph about how serious cat bites are. Also, the start of the title text "Guess who has two thumbs and..." is a reference to Dr. Bob Kelso from Scrubs, which might refer to the other end of the spectrum from cat bites: TV theme songs.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
{{incomplete transcript}}<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}</div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1273:_Tall_Infographics&diff=1325661273: Tall Infographics2016-12-15T21:13:06Z<p>172.68.78.10: /* Transcript */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1273<br />
| date = October 4, 2013<br />
| title = Tall Infographics<br />
| image = tall_infographics.png<br />
| titletext = 'Big Data' doesn't just mean increasing the font size.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic is a satirical {{w|infographic}}, which is usually used to simplify and help visualize information that would be dreadfully boring otherwise. [[Randall]] takes this "simplification" to the extreme by making an unhelpful infographic, complete with unnecessary data and ironic and blatant misuse of common graphs and charts. At this point, he is not even simplifying his sentence "By the year 2019, all information will be communicated in this clear and concise format." He makes a sarcastic claim, pointing out how needlessly complicated some infographics make things they are supposed to condense.<br />
<br />
In the chart:<br />
*The number 2019 is huge and placed between the numbers 2018 and 2020, which is bordering on extraneous considering that the fact that 2019 precedes 2020 and succeeds 2018 is blindingly obvious.<br />
*The graph of information represented by this format is extrapolated off of and intersects with 100% at 2019. This is a running joke on xkcd and is ridiculous for multiple reasons, as shown in [[605: Extrapolating]] and [[1007: Sustainable]].<br />
*The word "information" has the letters "info" highlighted differently for the typical abbreviation despite the text splitting after the "r", a rather silly graphical styling.<br />
*A pie chart, with one part labeled "will" and one part labeled "be", which is completely nonsensical as pie charts compare the sizes of two populations, and "will" and "be" are merely words and are not being used as populations.<br />
*"6 years from now" is more blindingly obvious fact at the time (2013).<br />
*"72 months" is an unneeded and obvious conversion from six years; it is also {{w|false precision}} as 2019 (January 1) arrives 63 months from the comic date. The word "months" is also split across two lines, mid-syllable.<br />
*A corny illustration of [[Megan]] telling [[Hairy]] the word "communicated" and Hairy enthusiastically responding "Yes!", despite the absurdity of the situation.<br />
*The word "this" in huge font, and the word "in" with a bracket, taking up an inordinate amount of space.<br />
*A {{w|Venn diagram}}. As anyone who has seen a Venn diagram knows, the two circles are two concepts or qualities, and objects or concepts that fit inside the circles go within. The words "clear and concise" plastered across the Venn diagram have absolutely nothing to do with Venn diagrams, and are ludicrously inappropriate for this jumbled and overblown presentation, but the word "AND" is in the intersection of the two circles, which is meta-humorous.<br />
*In the lowermost bar graph, the bar height shows the alphabetic position of each letter of the word ''FORMAT'', with T highlighted because it is the highest.<br />
<br />
It is also likely that this comic is a send up of the recent trend towards presenting information in tall graphics that are easily viewed on smartphone screens. A tall graphic with the same pixel width as an iPhone, for example, can viewed without zooming and using only vertical scrolling. Another discussion venue for the topic and this comic is [http://gizmodo.com/tall-infographics-suck-1441047853 Gizmodo: Tall Infographics Suck].<br />
<br />
The title text mentions the often-hyped term "{{w|big data}}." "Big data" normally refers to the challenges of working with and visualizing a quantity of data which is hard to process using traditional tools and methods. Randall, now speaking unsarcastically, tells us that just because the font size is huge doesn't mean you have handled the big data well.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:BY THE ''YEAR''<br />
:<small>2018</small> <big>'''2019'''</big> <small>2020</small><br />
:'''ALL''' ''INFO''Rmation<br />
:[Graph representing all information.]<br />
:[X axis of graph: '''6''' YEARS from now ('''72''' months)]<br />
:'''WILL''' BE [in two segments of a pie chart]<br />
:Megan: COMMUNICATED<br />
:Hairy: Yes!<br />
:'''in THIS'''<br />
:''CLEAR'' '''''and''''' '''CONCISE''' [in a Venn diagram]<br />
:'''F O R M A ''T''''' [on the x axis of a bar graph of where these letters fall in the alphabet (the bar labeled T is shaded with a different color)]<br />
:[Arrow pointing to the bar labeled "T": '''T''']<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]<br />
[[Category:Extrapolation]]</div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1273:_Tall_Infographics&diff=1325651273: Tall Infographics2016-12-15T21:08:56Z<p>172.68.78.10: /* Transcript */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1273<br />
| date = October 4, 2013<br />
| title = Tall Infographics<br />
| image = tall_infographics.png<br />
| titletext = 'Big Data' doesn't just mean increasing the font size.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic is a satirical {{w|infographic}}, which is usually used to simplify and help visualize information that would be dreadfully boring otherwise. [[Randall]] takes this "simplification" to the extreme by making an unhelpful infographic, complete with unnecessary data and ironic and blatant misuse of common graphs and charts. At this point, he is not even simplifying his sentence "By the year 2019, all information will be communicated in this clear and concise format." He makes a sarcastic claim, pointing out how needlessly complicated some infographics make things they are supposed to condense.<br />
<br />
In the chart:<br />
*The number 2019 is huge and placed between the numbers 2018 and 2020, which is bordering on extraneous considering that the fact that 2019 precedes 2020 and succeeds 2018 is blindingly obvious.<br />
*The graph of information represented by this format is extrapolated off of and intersects with 100% at 2019. This is a running joke on xkcd and is ridiculous for multiple reasons, as shown in [[605: Extrapolating]] and [[1007: Sustainable]].<br />
*The word "information" has the letters "info" highlighted differently for the typical abbreviation despite the text splitting after the "r", a rather silly graphical styling.<br />
*A pie chart, with one part labeled "will" and one part labeled "be", which is completely nonsensical as pie charts compare the sizes of two populations, and "will" and "be" are merely words and are not being used as populations.<br />
*"6 years from now" is more blindingly obvious fact at the time (2013).<br />
*"72 months" is an unneeded and obvious conversion from six years; it is also {{w|false precision}} as 2019 (January 1) arrives 63 months from the comic date. The word "months" is also split across two lines, mid-syllable.<br />
*A corny illustration of [[Megan]] telling [[Hairy]] the word "communicated" and Hairy enthusiastically responding "Yes!", despite the absurdity of the situation.<br />
*The word "this" in huge font, and the word "in" with a bracket, taking up an inordinate amount of space.<br />
*A {{w|Venn diagram}}. As anyone who has seen a Venn diagram knows, the two circles are two concepts or qualities, and objects or concepts that fit inside the circles go within. The words "clear and concise" plastered across the Venn diagram have absolutely nothing to do with Venn diagrams, and are ludicrously inappropriate for this jumbled and overblown presentation, but the word "AND" is in the intersection of the two circles, which is meta-humorous.<br />
*In the lowermost bar graph, the bar height shows the alphabetic position of each letter of the word ''FORMAT'', with T highlighted because it is the highest.<br />
<br />
It is also likely that this comic is a send up of the recent trend towards presenting information in tall graphics that are easily viewed on smartphone screens. A tall graphic with the same pixel width as an iPhone, for example, can viewed without zooming and using only vertical scrolling. Another discussion venue for the topic and this comic is [http://gizmodo.com/tall-infographics-suck-1441047853 Gizmodo: Tall Infographics Suck].<br />
<br />
The title text mentions the often-hyped term "{{w|big data}}." "Big data" normally refers to the challenges of working with and visualizing a quantity of data which is hard to process using traditional tools and methods. Randall, now speaking unsarcastically, tells us that just because the font size is huge doesn't mean you have handled the big data well.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:BY THE ''YEAR''<br />
:<small>2018</small> <big>'''2019'''</big> <small>2020</small><br />
:'''ALL''' ''INFO''Rmation<br />
:[Graph representing all information.]<br />
:[X axis of graph: '''6''' YEARS from now ('''72''' months)]<br />
:'''WILL''' BE [in two segments of a pie chart]<br />
:Megan: COMMUNICATED<br />
:Hairy: Yes!<br />
:'''in THIS'''<br />
:''CLEAR'' '''''and''''' '''CONCISE''' [in a Venn diagram]<br />
:'''F O R M A ''T''''' [as entries on the x axis of a bar graph]<br />
:[Arrow pointing to "T": '''T''']<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]<br />
[[Category:Extrapolation]]</div>172.68.78.10https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1273:_Tall_Infographics&diff=1325631273: Tall Infographics2016-12-15T21:05:35Z<p>172.68.78.10: /* Transcript */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1273<br />
| date = October 4, 2013<br />
| title = Tall Infographics<br />
| image = tall_infographics.png<br />
| titletext = 'Big Data' doesn't just mean increasing the font size.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic is a satirical {{w|infographic}}, which is usually used to simplify and help visualize information that would be dreadfully boring otherwise. [[Randall]] takes this "simplification" to the extreme by making an unhelpful infographic, complete with unnecessary data and ironic and blatant misuse of common graphs and charts. At this point, he is not even simplifying his sentence "By the year 2019, all information will be communicated in this clear and concise format." He makes a sarcastic claim, pointing out how needlessly complicated some infographics make things they are supposed to condense.<br />
<br />
In the chart:<br />
*The number 2019 is huge and placed between the numbers 2018 and 2020, which is bordering on extraneous considering that the fact that 2019 precedes 2020 and succeeds 2018 is blindingly obvious.<br />
*The graph of information represented by this format is extrapolated off of and intersects with 100% at 2019. This is a running joke on xkcd and is ridiculous for multiple reasons, as shown in [[605: Extrapolating]] and [[1007: Sustainable]].<br />
*The word "information" has the letters "info" highlighted differently for the typical abbreviation despite the text splitting after the "r", a rather silly graphical styling.<br />
*A pie chart, with one part labeled "will" and one part labeled "be", which is completely nonsensical as pie charts compare the sizes of two populations, and "will" and "be" are merely words and are not being used as populations.<br />
*"6 years from now" is more blindingly obvious fact at the time (2013).<br />
*"72 months" is an unneeded and obvious conversion from six years; it is also {{w|false precision}} as 2019 (January 1) arrives 63 months from the comic date. The word "months" is also split across two lines, mid-syllable.<br />
*A corny illustration of [[Megan]] telling [[Hairy]] the word "communicated" and Hairy enthusiastically responding "Yes!", despite the absurdity of the situation.<br />
*The word "this" in huge font, and the word "in" with a bracket, taking up an inordinate amount of space.<br />
*A {{w|Venn diagram}}. As anyone who has seen a Venn diagram knows, the two circles are two concepts or qualities, and objects or concepts that fit inside the circles go within. The words "clear and concise" plastered across the Venn diagram have absolutely nothing to do with Venn diagrams, and are ludicrously inappropriate for this jumbled and overblown presentation, but the word "AND" is in the intersection of the two circles, which is meta-humorous.<br />
*In the lowermost bar graph, the bar height shows the alphabetic position of each letter of the word ''FORMAT'', with T highlighted because it is the highest.<br />
<br />
It is also likely that this comic is a send up of the recent trend towards presenting information in tall graphics that are easily viewed on smartphone screens. A tall graphic with the same pixel width as an iPhone, for example, can viewed without zooming and using only vertical scrolling. Another discussion venue for the topic and this comic is [http://gizmodo.com/tall-infographics-suck-1441047853 Gizmodo: Tall Infographics Suck].<br />
<br />
The title text mentions the often-hyped term "{{w|big data}}." "Big data" normally refers to the challenges of working with and visualizing a quantity of data which is hard to process using traditional tools and methods. Randall, now speaking unsarcastically, tells us that just because the font size is huge doesn't mean you have handled the big data well.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:BY THE ''YEAR''<br />
:<small>2018</small> <big>'''2019'''</big> <small>2020</small><br />
:'''ALL''' ''INFO''Rmation<br />
:[Graph representing all information.]<br />
:[X axis of graph: '''6''' YEARS from now ('''72''' months)]<br />
:'''WILL''' BE [in two segments of a pie chart]<br />
:Megan: COMMUNICATED<br />
:Hairy: Yes!<br />
:'''in THIS'''<br />
:''CLEAR'' '''''and''''' '''CONCISE''' [in a Venn diagram]<br />
:[On the x axis of a bar graph.]<br />
:'''FORMA''T''''' [Arrow labeled "T" pointing to T]<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]<br />
[[Category:Extrapolation]]</div>172.68.78.10