1302: Year in Review

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 05:25, 11 December 2013 by DgbrtBOT (talk | contribs) (Created by dgbrtBOT)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Year in Review
All in all, I give this year a C-. There were no aurora visible from my house and that comet evaporated. They'd better not cancel the 2017 eclipse.
Title text: All in all, I give this year a C-. There were no aurora visible from my house and that comet evaporated. They'd better not cancel the 2017 eclipse.


Ambox notice.png This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by a BOT
If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.


Ambox notice.png This transcript is incomplete. Please help editing it! Thanks.

comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!


The eclipse happened according to schedule.

"...she never saw an aurora borealis (or australis)" Australis? She specifically states northern lights. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

True, but first she says that she never say an aurora, period; so I think that we can assume that she never saw the southern lights either. —TobyBartels (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
She should have played Half-Life 3 ... oh, wait ... (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Eclipses are so predictable I suspect that the 2017 eclipse was already predicted by Chinese before christ. I mean, they executed two astrologers in 2134 BCE for failing to predict one, so I'm sure others worked hard to save themselves. -- Hkmaly (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the joke of the comic is that she's giving an actual review/critique of the astronomical year itself, like one would review a movie. This is in contrast to the expected summary or recap of events occuring during the year. 13:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Pat

Good point; you should add that. —TobyBartels (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I added it now... --Kynde (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Coincidence that this was released the same day as rewind YouTube style 2013?--Mralext20 (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that another subtler point this comic raises is the idea of how ridiculous it is to critique "the year" in the first place. The idea of Megan giving the year a grade highlights this, because why would you grade an arbitrary designation of time that has no agency or animacy in the first place? The title text pokes further fun at this by implying that the people behind the "Year in Review" have the power to cancel the solar eclipse, as if the news station suddenly not only has the power to pass judgement on an entire year, but they can also take away a freaking eclipse if they feel like it. Worth mentioning? --Mynotoar (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that it's the news station that can cancel the eclipse, but a different "they" (presumably the same ones that destroyed the comet). —TobyBartels (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I mentioned these "they" that can stop eclipses and destroy comets etc. --Kynde (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting to note she sat inside working on a computer during aurora back in april of 2012 in 1037[1] --Calvsie (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it a coincidence that the comic number can be rearranged to form "2013"? (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I was thinking the same. I'm not sure it is important though, but say he had this comic ready in good time planning to release it before new year, then Randall might have chosen this comic number for that reason... --Kynde (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)