Talk:1302: Year in Review
- 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 ...
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. 184.108.40.206 13:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Pat
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)