Talk:2572: Alien Observers

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

This is my first explanation, i know it is really bad but i wanted to give it a goElijahRock (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Great you are helping. Often easier to continue and improve existing explanations rather than start as you did from scratch. Even if most of the original version end up getting changed. I make alot of edits but rarely begin the explanation. --Kynde (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thanks! glad i could be helpful ElijahRock (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to track each human individually, I was under the impression that it was a "before and after" picture. - 22:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I think they both track humans individually, and that this is a (representative) before-and-after picture. They probably have minions/computers/whatever continuously updating the actual flight-boundaries as people move around (and go into camera/phone/cameraphone stores and come out with something new) but this is a 'management briefing' that extraordinarily reports this otherwise mundane development as an individual matter, with a visual aid to make the report sink in. Just going to show how aliens can be both so alien and yet amazingly human in their bureaucratic minutiae. 01:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
What I was trying to say is that they don't actually keep track of which phone any random person has (or alter their flight path respectively), it's just a matter of "this is the furthest human technology can go". - 00:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I think they do track everyone's individual capabilities. (They're that good at observation!) That's why they're so specific about what two individuals have done to upgrade their media capabilities. On the other hand, I think the on-screen image is just a representative diagram, rather than real-time/real-geography with real UFO positions - but it depicts the effective alterations of approach distances that this person's now 'toy' has enforced upon these Little Green Voyeurs. 00:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Feels like this is a partial rebuttal of Boatster (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Didn't see your comment, before, but added this link myself in my own way. 01:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
cheers Boatster (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that Randall is also referring to the fact that all footage of "UFOs" show them flying erratically. This being due to the fact that this is the way refraction works. Sorry for the bad English, not sure how to explain it :) EDIT: It could also refer to the fact that a lot of people still believe in UFOs even though this is a well-known phenomenon that is known to be the cause of a lot of these sightings. As I said below though most of these kind of sightings are reported by pilots flying at high altitudes, so now I'm not sure...-- The Cat Lady (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

(Ditto above, didn't see this before starting editing, but...) I put it down to zoom-wobble in what I just inserted. Though didn't say that this is just normal (acceptable) hand-wobble augmented by the zoom needed to frame the distant whateveritis. Yes, rapidly changing refraction through moving air is probably also a thing (usually heat haze during the day, or the subtler stuff that astronomical telescopes have to deal with at night with lasers and adaptive optics and/or electronic post-processing) but I'm happy to leave it at zoom-wobble without going back and adding your suggestion. Do edit it if you feel like it, though, that being how this site works. 01:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
The zoom-wobble is a great explanation! I didn't think of that at all :P However, there's lots of footage that exists from non-zoomed, fixed cameras like security cameras and 8 mm film cameras on tripods, which sort of obviates that explanation. But also, I did a quick search for footage like that and it looks nothing like refraction phenoma (at least the examples I could find) so my explanation isn't quite correct either. I think those kind of sightings are mostly reported by pilots at high altitudes, as those are more likely conditions for this to happen. I'm still leaning more towards my explanation than yours for now though:) I'm going to leave this here for now and wait for more discussion before I change anything -- The Cat Lady (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Zoom is a misnomer for the lens setups modern phones come with. As an example, the Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra does not have any zoom - it has three distinct cameras, each with their own prime lens. You can switch between the cameras, but this is not zooming. Paul-Simon (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I have added that "Human 38XT11" is a reference to THX 1138... anyone who can spot something similar with Human 910-25J-1Q38 or B-C54? --Kynde (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

1Q38 can be seen as the 1st quarter of 2038, also known as Epochalypse. 11:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
1Q84 is the title of a novel by Haruki Murakami. The meaning of the title is the year 1984, since 9 in Japanese is kyū. So perhaps 1Q38 is code for 1938? Entropy (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Can't they just be random numbers that Randall decided to use? Why does everything need to be a reference to something? 18:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
people like to see patterns even if there are noneNew editor (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
If Randall had chosen them randomly, they'd both have ended up as "4444-4444-4444-4444"... ;) 20:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree that some of the numbers may have been chosen randomly. But with Randall, being fan of Starwars, and often putting in funny references, I cannot imagine he would manage to put in the letters from THX1138 numbers in the first part of the first humans code, by a random coincidence, it is just too unlikely. But that doesn't mean the other numbers need to reference anything. --Kynde (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't get why starting a YouTube-channel should have any impact on flying patterns because it's the filming and not the publishing that is the problem. The videos shown on that particular channel can be years old so the erratic flight behavior should take place as soon as a human has the capability to shoot a video rather than publish it. Kimmerin (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the aliens is not that bright, just good at technology, I still don't get the lines spoken by the other alien and the reply to that. It makes no sense to me. As with the title text. Agree that it makes no difference to have a channel. --Kynde (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I disagree - aliens in popular media *constantly* present themselves to only one or a small number of people, with the expectation that those people will not further reveal their presence on earth (or even with the deliberate intention of making them appear foolish to others!). L-Space Traveler (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

These aliens need to do a better job of tracking human technology. One camera, the Nikon P900 has an optical zoom ratio of 83x and a digital zoom of 166x. They should have made flight compensations immediately upon its product announcement back in 2015. Or at least upon its consumer rollout in 2017, not after the fact. These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the UFO pictures are blurry because the UFOs themselves are, well, fuzzy. Though what benefit could be had by making a spacecraft covered in wool, with density dropping with distance from the hull, is beyond me. 14:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Insulation. It's very cold, in space (or very hot, depending on if the nearest star is shining on one side from close enough). And possibly they have to enter the atmosphere just like our craft have to re-enter it. It'd be unobtanium wool, of course! 17:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)