Talk:1640: Super Bowl Context

Peyton Manning is a football player who is really good (the only NFL player been MVP five times). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyton_Manning Aquaplanet (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds the last speech pattern weird? Saying "mammals like Payton" seems a little reminiscent of comics 1541 and 1530... 162.158.2.140 13:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't think so, there is no body snatching involved -- he is simply trying to connect whitehat's statement with some trivia; Mainnings is a human, humans are mammals, retirement is a recent human invention -- the statement is simply just hyper over loaded with irrelevant facts. 162.158.255.109 15:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with that. Since we are all mamals and all mamals age, many of them via the same processes there is nothing wrong with the statment, only with the timing. --Kynde (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just gonna come out and say it: Coldplay sucks. 198.41.235.173 14:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this some pop culture reference I'm missing? (I didn't watch the Super Bowl, so perhaps it's a reference to that?) 199.27.130.246 19:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Coldplay played in the Halftime show. --Kynde (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The first paragraph at the moment is merely insulting nerds and not really explaining anything. (N.B.: would the "stereotypical Nerd" watch sports, at all?) --198.41.242.240 15:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I wrote it. I'm a nerd. It is more a self-reflection than an insult. I think it explains everything. 162.158.255.109 16:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm also a nerd, but the generalization given (in the present/former comic explanation) is not a high-fidelity description of me. However, since it's a humorous hyperbole, I'm letting it go with just a "citation needed" stamp.  :-)

But, hyperbole or not, I did not feel like the rest of it was generally accurate. That is, not all nerds are (or act) the same. The description given seems to match Cueball's depiction in this comic, but does not match "nerds" generally. So I tried to soften it a little, while exercising restraint. (It's the sort of generalization that is funny when it's the joke, but does not seem as appropriate in an explanation of the joke.)

To answer the first point, though, it's hard to define what a "stereotypical nerd" is. If we choose it to be Sheldon (of TBBT), then you're right in assuming that a nerd would not be watching sports at all (and would need a reminder of last year's Super Bowl comic). However, there are many types of nerds. If "nerd" means "someone with an extreme interest in a field" then "sports nerd" can be a synonym for what we called a "jock" back in school.

Also, for what it's worth, I work in the software industry, and an alarming (to me) number of engineers are quite interested in sports and sporting events. They might otherwise be called nerds. YMMV. 199.27.130.246 19:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have changed this completely. He is not a nerd. He just cannot focus on a normal conversation. --Kynde (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You are a nerd. 162.158.255.109 23:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)^{[citation needed]}

Well thanks, that must be one of the biggest compliments you can get on explain xkcd ;-) --Kynde (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel that the "maybe next year" line was intentional? Teams that don't win the Super Bowl (or at least their fans) will use the line when their hopes for a ring have been lost. This is particularly apparent in the case of Cleveland Browns fans, who sometimes use the line during pre-season games. 108.162.218.47 18:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if the comic is making fun of this website? The explanations are sometimes (usually) over the top. 108.162.218.166 00:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

i think white hat should be black hat