Talk:1095: Crazy Straws

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 09:36, 17 August 2012 by (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

Compare Arlo James Barnes (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  • "Subcultures" is misspelled in the comic. Perhaps Randall will fix it and reupload? Erenan (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Randall has corrected the mistake, but the image on this page is still the old one. Would we want to keep both versions of the image in the interest of completeness? Erenan (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Have to admit, this one went a bit over my head. TheHYPO (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Fractals not only have an unlimited level of detail; they are (most times) self-similar in the sense that you'll find the same pattern on every level of detail. Just like finding the equivalent of finding the "Paris hilton of the plastic straw subcultures' hobbyists' splinter group." BKA (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we should get the corrected comic, but note that it was originally misspelled in the explanation. Tebow Time, Twice a Day. 17:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC) (talk)
  • It's a mistake to think the every-pickier level of detail is a flaw in these interest subcultures. Smaller and smaller levels of study are what flesh out our knowledge of the world. And myriad small subgroups of shared interests allow many people to achieve excellence and status, not just in their minds but in an (admittedly small) range of reality. Examples: the people who maintain and improve the Kennedy line of Boston Terriers; people whose specialty is tooth wear in prehuman hominids; people who parse xkcd comics.
  • I don't think that the comic means it as a flaw, I think it's a just a (humourous) observation, not a negative critisism.
  • Agreed, and it even goes on here (just drop in on the community portal, to see tempests in a tea pot such as whether he's Cueball or Rob...) I couldn't help but think that RM poked his head in on this site and came up with this comic as a response. (Of course, that would be greatly overestimating our importance in the grand scheme of things, but we are all entitled to our little fantasies of grandeur, no?) Ah, well... it seemed perfect timing nonetheless. By the way, folks: please sign your posts. Four tildes, a la ~~~~, is all it takes... -- IronyChef (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think the fractal analogy holds because human subcultures cannot be nested infinitely deep. At some point, subcultures will come down to individual humans, who aren't also (infinitely deep) subcultures. 15:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Randall is using the term hyperbolically — his point is that subcultures have ludicrous amounts of detail, not necessarily infinite. 18:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Half of me disagrees with you, with the other half in an argument with itself over from which crazy straw will Paris Hilton look best drinking. 18:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Still, even people so crazy they are kept in straitjacket all the time can have only several dozens of personalities ... there's not enough space in brain for infinite. -- 09:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I still believe Randall's point was not the infinite detail, but self-similarity. Regardless on whether you look at something very popular or a niche - you'll always find exactly the same social structures. BKA (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)