2210: College Athletes

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 08:18, 2 October 2019 by (talk) (Explanation)
Jump to: navigation, search
College Athletes
Their signature play is the three-point combinator, a recursive offense which is guaranteed not to halt and continues accumulating points until the buzzer.
Title text: Their signature play is the three-point combinator, a recursive offense which is guaranteed not to halt and continues accumulating points until the buzzer.


Ambox notice.png This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by a Steph Curry. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.
If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

The comic is about the California Fair Pay to Play act, which was signed into law on September 30, 2019. It gives college athletes the rights to their name and face for financial gain, in contrast to NCAA rules which require that athletes be unpaid.

In this comic, Cueball claims that all members of his college basketball team changed their name to Steph Curry, after the NBA Player of the same name. In particular, one player copied the name from the NBA player, then another member of the team copied the name from that player, and so on.

This process is called "Currying", a play on both the name "Curry" used here, as well as the mathematical procedure called currying, named after mathematician Haskell Curry, wherein a multivariable function is broken down into a sequence of single-variable functions, each of which outputs a new function until the final variable is consumed. For example, the function f(x,y,z) can be curried into f(x)(y)(z), where f is a function that consumes x and produces a function f(x), which in turn consumes y, yielding the function f(x)(y), and that in turn is a function f(x)(y) which consumes the parameter z to finally produce f(x)(y)(z), which is equal to the original f(x,y,z). This is not commonly used in most areas of math except for foundational logic and pure functional programming.

White Hat’s question regarding the form ‘Stephs Curry’ is referring to the pluralization of phrases where a noun is followed by a modifier of some sort, such as attorneys general, parts unknown, heirs apparent, mothers-in-law, and so on. In these cases, plurals are formed by pluralizing the noun parts of the phrases; however, some of these are rare or foreign enough that speakers of English don't always identify them correctly and pluralize the last word instead, e.g. *attorney generals.

The title text is a computer science joke, saying that their signature play is the "three-point combinator", a joke on the three-point play in basketball, and Y Combinator, which is a fixed-point combinator introduced by Haskell Curry, recursive (see: recursion) and does not halt (see: the Halting Problem). "Signature play" may also be a play on words, as currying transforms a method signature.


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

[Cueball, Ponytail and White Hat are having a conversation.]

Ponytail [checking phone]: Oh, huh. California passed a law giving college athletes full rights to their names and images.
White Hat: Good, I think?
Cueball: That's nothing. Our state gave college players rights to use the names and images of any California athletes.
Ponytail: It did not.
Cueball: Sure it did!
Cueball: That's how our school fielded a basketball team made up entirely of Steph Currys.
White Hat: Or is the plural "Stephs Curry"?
Cueball: They didn't all copy the original Steph, though. One player got the rights to his name, then the next player got it from them, and so on.
Cueball: This process is known as "currying".
Ponytail: ...I hate you so much.

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


This was posted way earlier than usual. Still technically Wednesday 00:02 UTC, but usual posting is mid-late afternoon UTC. 01:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that too. That's really weird... I wonder what caused it? 06:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
It happens from time to time. See e.g. discussion of 2188:_E_Scooters. --Lupo (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Note that the joke about how to pluralize names ("Steph Currys" vs. "Stephs Curry") is also present in "How to win an election" in the "How to" book. There it's in the form of "Bob Caseys" vs. "Bobs Casey". 07:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

So glad this site exists! I came here thinking the explanation would be about how to cook curry :-) 11:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think 'signature play' was an intentional pun on the signature (aka type) of a function, but great catch. 12:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Is the category Category:Comics featuring real people applicable here? It does seem to feature some comics where real people are only mentioned... Others with real people are not in that category... --Lupo (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Added to the category. Makes sense to me. 18:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes if a real person is named it belongs in that category. But there will of course be comics where this has not been spotted. Well noted! --Kynde (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
"... but he curries on..."?? ==

The explanation includes the sentence "Ponytail doesn't believe him but he curries on...". I don't see a reason for the use of "curries" vs. the normal "carries", except that the explanation writer is adding an additional (unnecessary) pun. I'd suggest changing it back to the idiomatic "carries on". -- 16:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Ummm, ... for you non-nerds in the audience, his use of "currying" is a deliberate software joke. Check the Wikipedia page for "currying" (software option) Cellocgw (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes it was a joke. Like in the incomplete reason etc. But I have not problem you removed it. Hope someone got a laugh first, and now it is preserved here ;-) --Kynde (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The explanation states that Cueball is implying that his school is from a state other than California, but I don't see any such implication in the comic. 18:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Second panel "Our state gave..." Bugstomper (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes pretty clear that California made this law, and Cueballs state made a better law! --Kynde (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The laws misunderstood?

First, the California law, which "gives athletes rights to their names and likeness". In reality the athletes always had rights to their names and likeness. What the new law allows is for the athletes to license their names/likeness to commercial companies, and receive renumeration for that. Thus, Cueball's summary of the law, even though not incorrect, if taken literally can be misunderstood that the athletes had no rights to their names before.

Then the "other state"'s law, which "gives players rights to use the names and images of ANY California athlete". This is not a real law, so there is a considerable latitude in its possible meaning. This law's summary is intentionally constructed in such a way as to mimic the California's law summary, but that doesn't mean its meaning should be taken literally. I believe that it is *unlikely* that Randall intended this law to be taken literally, mainly because such law would likely be unconstitutional (if one state recognizes name/likeness as a property, then another state may not violate those property rights). What I think the law actually means is that that state's athletes can use *as their own* the name/likeness of another player, provided that they licensed that name/likeness legally. Thus, it's a pun on the word "use": usually when companies "use athlete's name/likeness" means they produce ads featuring those athletes; whereas in the Cueball's state to "use athlete's name/likeness" would mean to adopt it as your own.

Such interpretation is confirmed in the last panel: "one player got the rights to his name, ...". Thus, the first player had to obtain those rights, presumably paying to the original name owner. However, once that player adopted the name as his own - he is now free to license the name to the next player on his team, and so on (presumably at a huge discount). (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~) (Also please do not add sections to the discussion...)

Of course it is a joke law. But Cueball presents it to the others as a real law from his state. And no Randall did not intend this to be believed as a real law, and the explanation already mentions the flaw with other state vs own state and that it is either a mistake or Cueball just running along to setup for his currying joke! --Kynde (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a nit that, IMO, "carrying" in bball isn't about passing or not (that would be traveling) but its other name is "palming" Oddly, WikiP has it as "[carrying] occurs when when the dribbling player continues to dribble after allowing the ball to come to rest in one or both hands." which makes it sound like double dribble. I guess they're all related somehow, I guess I thought of carrying/palming as holding the ball up, while dribbing, for an improper period of time. I guess it's com-pli-cated - see #5,6 & 7 https://www.sdhsaa.com/Portals/0/PDFs/Officials/Basketball/MostMisunderstoodBasketballRules.pdf Afbach (talk)

There have been a ton of changes since I made my fist version of the explanation where I did change some parts and added several new things... So I'm pretty happy to see that no one really changed the idea behind my explanation, but just added and improved. Cool :-) --Kynde (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)