Talk:2106: Sharing Options

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 03:03, 4 February 2019 by 172.68.65.168 (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

Certainly true for Twitter where it's either public or private. (Nothing about 300, but the amount of requests one can accept over a lifetime is finite.) As for the "friends-of-friends" option, it's possible that Randall only has ~300 within that wider circle. 162.158.79.113 17:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The 300 may be in reference to a widely reported average number of Facebook friends of 338 (although not sure where this number comes from). For Twitter it looks like the average number of followers is slightly lower [1]. Both Twitter and Facebook have well over a billion users. 300 friends is also around the maximum number of close acquaintances that the human brain is thought to be able to cope with. AlChemist (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Dunbar's Number is closer to about 150. 172.69.210.46 11:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure the title text is meant to have been spoken by "the screen" vs. Randall/Cueball. The screen is attempting to appease Cueball's privacy concerns by proposing that if a company such as Google, Amazon, eBay, etc. mines a large number of Cueball's social posts for their own agenda, instead of notification of that event, Cueball will instead receive a single "like" to one of his posts at random from the company's CEO. This practice would be deceptive and of little value. Cueball might easily miss the like, not know who the CEO of various companies are, may forget the significance of receiving such a like, etc. 172.69.46.16 19:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Pat

For me, I found the idea enticing because targeted advertising is so creepy, and it would show where it comes from. 172.68.65.6 21:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be categorised under "Comics featuring Megan," "Ponytail," "Hairy," and "White Hat" as well, even if they're just in the background? 162.158.255.22 00:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. Why is the explanation "Da da dur dur ma ma hur hur"? 172.69.158.46 02:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

No one bothered to explain it yet.
A lot of vandalism to the article has been reverted, apparently. That was one of the strings of text that the/a vandal had left.172.68.58.251 17:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

New xkcd up! 172.69.46.46 23:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC) NEVER MIND; I WAS WRONG 172.69.46.46 23:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)