Talk:2017: Stargazing 2

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

In the description for the earlier comic, it is quite emphatically asserted that this is not Megan (although it certainly is drawn like her) but is, instead, a male TV host. 20:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)MrBigDog2u

Thanks, but I believe the transcript of the former comic was interpreted false. People are often outlined as male when they are in fact women. AND in this comic it's clearly a female without any doubt. --Dgbrt (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually if you go to /1646/info.0.json , you'll find the presenter referred to as he twice. Unless you're saying Megan uses he, it seems unlikely to be a female. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ For what it's worth, I assumed it was a female until I read the explanation for 1644. 22:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Two questions about that:
1.) I don't see any use of the word "he" in that transcript. Where do you see that?
2.) Why 1646? Isn't that one with Cueball writing a Twitter bot?
Looking at,, &, I can't find a reference to gender in any of them.
ProphetZarquon (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey Zarquon, if you look again at [1], you can see the star guide referenced as “he” a couple times if you carefuread the whole transcript. If alternatively your contribution to this wiki is that of trolling, you are making this rather obvious. If you’re getting different contents for that file than we are, maybe you could upload it to ipfs or something for comparison and tell us the ip addresses that resolves to for you, so that somebody can debug the issue. 07:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Not a troll, but a failure to detect an xkcd site error. It appears the issue is that the xkcd website is sending out json information that is mismatched with the cartoons. That is, has the json information for the cartoon at where we would expect the json data for that cartoon to be at So if you (logically) read and search it for "he" or "him" you don't find it. But if all you're doing is looking for "he" or "him" you might not notice that "stargazer" isn't in that json file either. Confirmed the mis-URLed json file for the cartoon does refer to the host as "he." Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Wait a minute, that definitely says "She continues to talk"... 14:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Is it possible this is meant to be Brian Cox? The hair is right and he's often noted for his enthusiasm. don't know how well known he is in the US, but a nerd like Randall is very likely to know of him --Luckykaa (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It is certainly Brian Cox as was found out in the first Stargazing and as fits with the offical transcript. It is even named after his show. End of story! I have corrected both explanations. Please don't go there DGBRT. This was discussed back then and was concluded to be so. --Kynde (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
There is even a triva with the original transcript in the original copmic to make this clear. Read that first! 1644:_Stargazing#Trivia --Kynde (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
But since sometime in 2019 Randall changed the official transcript to calling the host she rather than he, so now of course all the discussion regarding the transcript calling "her" a he, is made invalid by Randall. So seems he did not intend it to be Brian Cox? although I'm still sure he knows him and makes fun of his show --Kynde (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Bullshit. The pronoun "he" does not make him male as a person. That's a stupid preconception, which is perpetuated in the 21st century by a subfaction of feminists, thereby making a fool of themselves. There is no solid hint as to what the actual sex/gender of the figure is, and in this case English language defaults to "he". Maybe Randall indeed thought of Brian Cox, but that's speculation, not basis to infer a gender. And why anyway does it matter?!?!? -- 11:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree it is called Stargazing and he has a show called Stagazing live and is a famous physicist and Randall follows these things and like astronomical phenomenons. I have no doubt it is a reference to Brian cox. And Randall does not use he when it is about Megan in other transcripts! BS to you too ;) --Kynde (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, in English, "they" is the indefinite pronoun traditionally used to refer to a person without identifying gender (on either side of the Atlantic). As in, "someone left their keys here". There is no significant confusion on this point; it's been common usage since at least the 1300s, & is considered correct for every English grammar guide I've ever seen. Inanimate objects get the non-gendered "it". English does not default to "he". If anyone wants to refer to someone they don't know the preferred pronoun for, they'd be rude to presume "he" or "she" when it could be either or neither. "They" is correct & this is not new.
ProphetZarquon (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

"Don't bother trying to catch them"??? What stellar object would you catch? Unless this is a reference to asteroid mining? 22:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)SiliconWolf

Those stellar objects are so close compared to all the others, who wouldn't try?? Could you imagine actually meeting another object in this universe of distant interstellar bodies? 23:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I assumed that, having described all the goodies in an aircraft, there's a chance that someone might literally try to catch one by jumping in the air (with a suitably poor concept of distance). Or trying to construct some kind of giant butterfly net. 17:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The Triangle may refer to Summer Triangle It can be found very easily by beginners. 12:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, any three non-colinear points make up a triangle so there are an incredibly large number (not infinite, but ...) of triangles formed by combinations of three stars. I would go so far as to speculate that it may not be possible to find three stars that ARE perfectly colinear (certainly not in three dimensions). I think that's sort of the point of the joke. 16:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)MrBigDog2u

Is anyone else worried about a reference to shining a light at aircraft? There are decent astronomical reasons to have a moderately (50mW-200mW in my case) powerful laser, since it provides a very visible "pointer" when showing people to bits of the sky (or for lining up a telescope, where you can't see the surroundings easily and amateurs like me can get lost). But there are way too many stories of morons shining lasers at aircraft in an attempt to "cause trouble" (by blinding the pilot and potentially killing hundreds of people in the subsequent crash), so any responsible astronomer would be checking for aircraft in the sky, not doing this anywhere near an airport, and moving the laser in circles to avoid holding it on a target. I don't consider shining a light at a plane to be a topic of amusement. 17:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of a pilot noticing having a light shined on them from the ground by a pedestrian? It seems to me planes are so far away the jitter of your hand is going to make actually blinding the pilot a comparable task to blinding a moving housefly the same way. The light will also be much weaker at that distance, and the cockpit would have to be aiming at you. I feep pointing at an aircraft with a laser would be pretty safe, because the plane’s angular size is so much smaller than your precision, and it is moving super fast. 19:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I do! And I wonder what would happen to the plane if we tried more power? Hmmm... BytEfLUSh (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Pilots blinded by laser are real issue, but only WHEN LANDING or taking off, and therefore in very low attitude. I don't think it's problem in normal cruising altitude. However, if the telescope was in mountains which the airplanes flied over relatively low ... -- Hkmaly (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
A traditional flashlight shone at a pilot is unlikely to do much - although there are definitely consumer lights that could be visible at range. Using a telescope sounds more like generating a searchlight (and there are absolutely members of the public who have picked up military searchlights, and who have attracted attention by firing them even carefully). It does depend what's intended, but I think the implication is that the light is bright enough to do something (if only visibly illuminate the plane); shining a searchlight at an aircraft even at moderate distance is likely to be distracting and possibly blinding. Practically, no, I don't think it's a major issue as described. But aircraft are often at fairly low altitude: they take a while to get near to cruising height near me - I work a few miles from Heathrow, and think I could absolutely get a moderate strike rate on cockpit windows allowing for a bit of spread if I were a homicidal moron - lasers take a while to dissipate. I'm glad there seemed to be no reports of anyone doing this with yesterday's RAF centenary low-altitude flypast. And of course there are a lot of military training flights at very low altitude in some areas. I don't believe there's ever been a case of more than temporary blinding, and no crashes, but since I actually like having access to bright lasers (and conventional flashlights) for justifiable and responsible reasons, I just think pointing bright lights at aircraft a topic worth avoiding in the context of humour. Idiots, though hopefully few read xkcd, are easily encouraged. And when someone finally brings a plane down, it's really not going to be funny. 11:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Does no one else see this as referencing "stars" in the sense of celebrities? That would make sense to me of several of the otherwise bizarre statements here... Asimong (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Contradictory statements- if it's their observatory, the theses must be theirs. Why would they stock their cabinets with other people's theses? And does anyone know why "Add a comment" is linking to an edit page? Am I supposed to copypaste my address and stuff every time?

The "blinking lights" -- "don't bother trying to catch them". Pretty sure this is a reference to catching fireflies whose "lights" also blink on and off. 15 July 2018

I'm new here, and this is my first edit. I added an explanation of the phrase "Got a thesis out of it", as it seemed that lay people may not be familiar with it. Redbelly98 (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

For both comics I REALLY have to question the assertion that this must be Brian Cox, or even male. This character simply appears to be female. But people say the transcript says "he" (I don't know how to check on my own really, and would hesitate to believe a link I was provided, and I'm not sure I could even check the transcript or find my way to it on this old iPad). Fine. But Brian Cox sounds like a stretch. For Randall to be poking fun at him, he'd have to be seeing a bunch of his show. It seems unlikely that American Randall is getting that kind of exposure to a UK show and a UK host. Not impossible, and I see how well this guy lines up, but at the very least this unlikelihood obliterates any certainty. Maybe if these comics were written while Randall was known to be in the UK, that would be one thing. NiceGuy1 (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure Randall knows of Brian Cox, his show is just the kind of show Randall would enjoy, and in the first comic the hair on the host was much shorter than in this comic. But as can be read in the trivia of the first stargazer comic Randall changed the transcript from he to she somewhere around 2019, for what reason is of course unknown, but this of course changes all the discussion regarding that the host is male. See the updated 1644:_Stargazing#Trivia for 1644: Stargazing. --Kynde (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)