Talk:1781: Artifacts

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 15:40, 4 January 2017 by 162.158.2.10 (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

Wouldnt data entirely made of outliners just be ..regular measurements that just yields different results?#GoWest-West (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The graph that Cueball is showing looks like the graph from the EM drive paper. Maybe Randall is poking fun at the EM drive with this comic? Cgplover (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It does look like the Full Resonance tuner sweep graph 108.162.237.238 15:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Why the emphasis on HAVE in the alttext instead of, say, ENTIRELY?

I see no issue with this. The speaker is clearly focusing on the probability of the situation. If anything, I'd say that this emphasis is intended to underline the competence, or lack thereof, of the researcher, which is in line with the mocking tone previously given. Not emphasizing HAVE would more indicate the speaker is accepting of the results, but is still surprised by them. 162.158.2.10 15:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there also a suggestion that Indiana Jones didn't properly handle artifacts he dealt with?

Depends... Does dropping the Holy Grail down a crevice count as "not properly"? 162.158.2.10 15:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I have the feeling that I've seen this comic before. Is there another comic where Cueball gives a presentation and is then dissed by his audience? 162.158.89.223 15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)