XKCD - it's awesome!

[Kurald Galain]

Somebody recently pointed me to a webcomics ranking (http://www.webcomics.com/full_blog_story.php?id=80) and I was surprised to find that XKCD is right on top!

http://forums.xkcd.com/download/file.php?id=5500 (http://xkcd.com)

Despite looking like that (or perhaps because of it), it's a great comic with an excellent sense of humor. Yay!

[Chronicled]

Well of course it is. XKCD is one of the best webcomics out there, bar none.

[averagejoe]

http://forums.xkcd.com/download/file.php?id=5500 (http://xkcd.com)

This actually seems like a better format for this comic. It just read better.

Yeah, xkcd is great. What else is there to say?

[Tom_Violence]

I be one of the few resistant to its apparent charms, for reasons that I'm still trying to precisely put my finger on. :smallconfused:

[Freelance Henchman]

I be one of the few resistant to its apparent charms, for reasons that I'm still trying to precisely put my finger on. :smallconfused:

Because it seems to have a faint aura of smugness and feels just a *leetle* pretentious? I don't know, I like it a lot too, but... there's just that feeling.

[Tom_Violence]

Because it seems to have a faint aura of smugness and feels just a *leetle* pretentious? I don't know, I like it a lot too, but... there's just that feeling.

Yes, I think that is most probably it. I find the humour to fall flat most of the time but I reckon the pretention is just that little bit extra that it takes to push me into actually not liking it.

Well that and whole 'isnt the internet crazy!?' and 'geeks are whacky, but cool!' thing just completely washes over me, but not in a good way. Like a filthy shower.

[Mauve Shirt]

It's not XKCD, it's xkcd. And NEVER Xkcd. It matters. From the FAQ

How do I write "xkcd"? There's nothing in Strunk and White about this.

For those of us pedantic enough to want a rule, here it is: The preferred form is "xkcd", all lower-case. In formal contexts where a lowercase word shouldn't start a sentence, "XKCD" is an okay alternative. "Xkcd" is frowned upon.

And yes, I agree it is awesome.

[Gez]

See, Mauve, this kind of stylistic sophistry is exactly what makes people say it's more than a little pretentious. People who insist upon having a name/noun that doesn't work according to the normal conventions are just annoying. Reminds me of this (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/comic.php?current=1568).

[Freelance Henchman]

It's not XKCD, it's xkcd. And NEVER Xkcd. It matters.

No. It doesn't, really.

[Indon]

Because it seems to have a faint aura of smugness and feels just a *leetle* pretentious? I don't know, I like it a lot too, but... there's just that feeling.

I dunno about smugness (except when referencing mathematicians), but it's definitely very niche-heavy in its' humor.

[Mauve Shirt]

No. It doesn't, really.

Yeah I was kidding about it actually mattering. :P

[Nevrmore]

Everyone calling it pretentious is taking it way too seriously.

[Jayabalard]

Everyone calling it pretentious is taking it way too seriously.*nods*

And while some of it is niche humor, most of it is easily understood even by people not in that niche.

[Chronicled]

Everyone calling it pretentious is taking it way too seriously.

It's true.

[Evil DM Mark3]

http://forums.xkcd.com/download/file.php?id=5500 (http://xkcd.com)

And I love XKCD!

[Coffee_Dragon]

Xkcd is not very good. It is more about recognition than jokes. Like, "You know this silly thing that has been all over? Now it is also in a comic I made! So maybe whenever you see this thing referenced again, it is my comic you will think of!" Thanks, no.

[Tom_Violence]

Xkcd is not very good. It is more about recognition than jokes. Like, "You know this silly thing that has been all over? Now it is also in a comic I made! So maybe whenever you see this thing referenced again, it is my comic you will think of!" Thanks, no.

So, its the webcomic equivilant of bad late-90s observational stand-up? Yeah, I'd go with that.

[BRC]

xkcd is kinda hit or miss, for example this (http://xkcd.com/227/) comic goes right over my head, as does pretty much any comic that mentions some sort of function named after a mathematician, or somthing about famous programmer. On the other hand, comics like this (http://xkcd.com/386/), I still get, and even some of those that go over my head I still find funny.

[Coffee_Dragon]

On the other hand, comics like this (http://xkcd.com/386/), I still get, and even some of those that go over my head I still find funny.

Interestingly enough, that particular one was the one that got me thinking that sometimes he's not even trying. It's just a decade-old observation: "Hey, you know how you will sometimes spend a lot of time trying to convince someone of something on the internet? This is silly because it is fruitless and often it cannot even be done! Even success in this endeavour will not be of any real use to you! Ha ha!" He brings absolutely nothing to the table. But yeah, I could probably find a bunch of strips in the archives that I really like as well. I just hate the "cute" and "grounded" ones.

[Trazoi]

xkcd is kinda hit or miss, for example this (http://xkcd.com/227/) comic goes right over my head, as does pretty much any comic that mentions some sort of function named after a mathematician, or somthing about famous programmer. On the other hand, comics like this (http://xkcd.com/386/), I still get, and even some of those that go over my head I still find funny.
That's why I think of xkcd as more niche than pretentious. I find xkcd to be brilliant, but I learnt electrical engineering, computer science and mathematics at university so the jokes are very much aimed at people like me.

I'm more surprised it's so popular when compared to other webcomics, as I thought the nicheness would mean it would have a smaller cult following. But I guess it's just very popular amongst computer, math and electronics geeks.

[Tirian]

I think that he has niche humor and pretension humor. This (http://xkcd.com/410/) is an example of the first (although it is also a great illustration of how expressive Munroe can be with faceless stick figure characters). But the whole continuing theme of "if you don't have a ball cage in your apartment, you're a tool," is pretentious along the non-intellectual axis, and I can understand if that's not everyone's bag.

I don't buy the criticism that he's just doing straight observational humor. He is taking common collegiate truisms and very often putting his own unique "black hat" spin on them. His work deserves to be compared to Gary Larson and Charles Addams.

Admittedly, like every other artist who keeps to a strict schedule and many who don't, sometimes he phones one in, like today's strip which essentially makes fun of the rather dull point that not every Wikipedia page lives up to the editorial standards. I also don't think that Frank Drake (http://xkcd.com/384/) should take the fall for the religion that has arisen around his equation. But Munroe is just as likely to pull gems out of these places, as he does with Ebay feedback pages (http://xkcd.com/325/) or string theorists (http://xkcd.com/171/).

Also, hey, if a strip goes over your head, ask here. Some of them are funny even after they are explained. :)

[Jahkaivah]

That's why I think of xkcd as more niche than pretentious. I find xkcd to be brilliant, but I learnt electrical engineering, computer science and mathematics at university so the jokes are very much aimed at people like me.

I'm more surprised it's so popular when compared to other webcomics, as I thought the nicheness would mean it would have a smaller cult following. But I guess it's just very popular amongst computer, math and electronics geeks.

I find saying you need to be educated in those kind of areas to understand Xkcd (yeah i'm doing it to piss em off) jokes is a bit like saying you need to know the DnD rules to understand the OOTS jokes. I find the technical jokes to be a minority of the comic, and the majority of that minority to be fairly self explanatory.

Anyhow the comic is great as long as the writer remembers why people like it. Like Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal it sometimes makes jokes which are just crap. But when its awesome it more than makes up for it.

I also love the most recent one, sadly the actual Wiki article on wood isn't like that.

[Trazoi]

I find saying you need to be educated in those kind of areas to understand Xkcd (yeah i'm doing it to piss em off) jokes is a bit like saying you need to know the DnD rules to understand the OOTS jokes. I find the technical jokes to be a minority of the comic, and the majority of that minority to be fairly self explanatory.
That's true, although it helps in both cases have an understanding of the base material. But as well as the material, I think xkcd has a certain flavour of humour that appeals to that particular type of geek. I know the comic is very popular amongst the computer science grad student group I'm currently a member of. I don't know how well that type of humour translates to other groups, as it's hard for me to get an outside perspective.

[Tom_Violence]

I don't buy the criticism that he's just doing straight observational humor. He is taking common collegiate truisms and very often putting his own unique "black hat" spin on them. His work deserves to be compared to Gary Larson and Charles Addams.

Oh granted, I'm not saying he's that bad as to just literally do straight observational humour - that was most certainly hyperbole on my part. But I do think that even his slightly more sophisticated version of such just doesn't cut it. Maybe its too geeky for me. Its not that I don't get the jokes. Its just that often instead of making me laugh, they make me cringe.


I'm more surprised it's so popular when compared to other webcomics, as I thought the nicheness would mean it would have a smaller cult following. But I guess it's just very popular amongst computer, math and electronics geeks.

I think it also makes people feel good about themselves. But then maybe this is just me being a ****. :smalltongue:

[Tengu]

Not to sound elitist, but I personally find xkcd brilliant and not getting the jokes as a sign you're not educated enough. Because really, most of it is physics-related humour.

Apart from the strips with romance or emo-ish poetry and no humour. Those are horrible, and nobody apart from the author and his girlfriend care about them.

[BRC]

Not to sound elitist, but I personally find xkcd brilliant and not getting the jokes as a sign you're not educated enough. Because really, most of it is physics-related humour.

Apart from the strips with romance or emo-ish poetry and no humour. Those are horrible, and nobody apart from the author and his girlfriend care about them.
Well you see, I'm a high school senior, so I don't really know if the jokes are stuff I will learn in college anyway, or is it stuff that you would have to be a physics major to understand. Personally I don't get half of the physics jokes, but maybe after graduating from college I will be able to go back and say "Oh yeah, I know what's being reffered to there"

[Jade_Tarem]

Apart from the strips with romance or emo-ish poetry and no humour. Those are horrible, and nobody apart from the author and his girlfriend care about them.

I present this one (http://xkcd.com/436/), which contains emo-ish romantic prose and which had me laughing my can off well into the night, just because of the second panel.

[Trazoi]

I present this one (http://xkcd.com/436/), which contains emo-ish romantic prose and which had me laughing my can off well into the night, just because of the second panel.
I like some of the romantic strips. Take the angular momentum one (http://xkcd.com/162/) for example: I find this one wryly amusing because it's just so unbelievably nerdy.

@BRC: Well, that resistor one you linked to is pretty niche, I'll grant you that. But it's a neat excuse to look something up on Wikipedia.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I've studied math and physics at college level and get (if not necessarily "get") most of the tech jokes. I do miss out on some console gaming references, though.


I present this one (http://xkcd.com/436/), which contains emo-ish romantic prose and which had me laughing my can off well into the night, just because of the second panel.

I don't think that counts as a cute one. Try this (http://xkcd.com/372/).

I - I like the one with permafrost chasers.


I like some of the romantic strips. Take the angular momentum one (http://xkcd.com/162/) for example: I find this one wryly amusing because it's just so unbelievably nerdy.

Ugh, that one is just awkward on all levels.

[nooblade]

IMHO, It's full of creative energy (of the nerdy flavor) but portrays romance as an irrational thing mainly caused by hormones. But those chemical signals are just one of many reasons why people fall in love.

So I don't like the romance comics much either, no.

[Fri]

XKCD is one of the two webcomic I stalked daily (guess what's the other one).

Mind you, I'm actually a Liberal Art Student :smallbiggrin:

[Kurald Galain]

today's strip which essentially makes fun of the rather dull point that not every Wikipedia page lives up to the editorial standards.

Ah, but that joke is so much deeper and funnier if you're familiar with some of the persistent editor debates inside Wikipedia... I think any active WP editor is going to love or hate that comic.

It strikes me that everybody on this thread has a different opinion on what the good and bad parts of xkcd are... that would explain why it does appeal to such a wide audience.

Me? I just like the sarcasm.

[Tom_Violence]

Wait, there's sarcasm? Must've missed that...

[Coffee_Dragon]

I read 8-bit Theater for a while until I overdosed on sarcasm.

Cyanide and Happiness is a pretty good (if uneven) comic with stick figures and sarcasm.

[Tirian]

Ah, but that joke is so much deeper and funnier if you're familiar with some of the persistent editor debates inside Wikipedia... I think any active WP editor is going to love or hate that comic.

It strikes me that everybody on this thread has a different opinion on what the good and bad parts of xkcd are... that would explain why it does appeal to such a wide audience.

Me? I just like the sarcasm.

I think any active (or former) WP editor is going to realize that the article on wood is going to have to be protected against vandalism for quite a long time into the future, both from people talking about wood in television shows and from people talking about the importance of the article itself in popular culture. So people are going to have to do a lot of busy work making constant revisions or lock down a part of the internet because Randall Munroe started a hoax that this specific article was poorly edited. (At least I couldn't find an edit prior to July 5 that had the television references.) I like a free internet and I don't like people who have to do busy work, and the ironic thing is that one would suspect that Munroe agrees. So, all around, this is perhaps the biggest fail of a comic that he has published IMO. Which is a shame, because his previous wiki comic (http://xkcd.com/285/) was legendary.

Worst of all, Jayne got the rain stick in Our Miss Reynolds, not Jaynestown.

[Gez]

Worst of all, Jayne got the rain stick in Our Miss Reynolds, not Jaynestown.

Uh? Did you mean the reverse of what you said. The strip doesn't mention Jaynestown.

As far as Wikipedia strips, DMM of Irregular Webcomics does them better (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/1845.html). Of course, he also does xkcd (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/1458.html) better (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/comic.php?current=1640). :smallcool:

[SteveMB]

I don't buy the criticism that he's just doing straight observational humor.

In some cases, I certainly hope not (http://xkcd.com/443/)... :smalleek:

[Tirian]

Uh? Did you mean the reverse of what you said. The strip doesn't mention Jaynestown.

He fixed it, then. The original comic got it wrong, as a quick google of the blogosphere will verify. (And, as a corollary to the immortal internet karmic rule that you can't write a spelling flame without misspelling "imbecile", I got it wrong too -- it's "Our Mrs. Reynolds."

[Gez]

By the way, he achieved his goal: This page is currently protected from editing until July 9, 2008 because of temporary vandalism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood)

[Jahkaivah]

Wow there was a goal in that? I thought it was just a funny joke about wood.

[Coffee_Dragon]

It has been done. (http://www.qwantz.com/archive/000816.html)

Edit: Done better.

[Moff Chumley]

Xkcd: pretentious. Not nearly a good as VG Cats or OotS. No jokes as good as early 8bit's.

[Nevrmore]

Still uphold the opinion that you're taking it way too seriously.

[Recaiden]

I really like xkcd. It's not quite as good as OOTS though.
It easily is better than VG cats, in my opinion. That just seems overdone.
Some people may be taking it too seriously, but why not?

But, on that list, we're below Ctr-Alt-Del?:furious:

[Job]

better (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/comic.php?current=1640). :smallcool:

That one isn’t bad, though at a cursory glance I don’t know if it’s accurate. If I recall correctly terms of that shape have and imaginary component expressed as sin/cos waves. Engineers should get the joke too, system dynamics were emphasized at my university.

[Jade_Tarem]

Not nearly a good as VG Cats

I'm going to take exception to this part. VG Cats has to actually update once in a blue moon to be a contender for "better than Webcomic X."

For further backup, I present this. (http://badwebcomics.blogspot.com/2007/08/vg-cats.html) (Warning, Language). VG Cats is funny now and then (now and then being the absolute maximum frequency with which the comic is updated), but the guy has a point.

[Arioch]

I'm gonna put my vote in with the "it's awesome" side. Although I admit that some of the value of the advanced-mathematics ones is in the little warm glow of smugness you get for understanding it. (I knew doing Decision Maths would be useful for something!)

And I never liked 8-bit. It always annoyed me immensly and I never found it funny.

[Tom_Violence]

Still uphold the opinion that you're taking it way too seriously.

Nah, I reckon that's a cop out. Like the psychoanalyst that insists 'yes, you are repressing something', or the theological 'god moves in mysterious ways', its one of those statements that just cannot be argued against. And its also irrelevant, since even when not taking it seriously in the slightest I still find it to be tremendously dull.

[Takver]

Really like the comic. It doesn't seem pretentious to me--more innocently joyous in its celebration of nerdery.

But the best part of xkcd are the fora. Never seen a more intelligent, rockin', supportive group of people. They get along--on the internet!

(Sorry.)

[Tempest Fennac]

I've read a few of these cmics, and I've never found any of them funny at all(admittedly, I often find CAD and Garfield to be funny, but I don't read them very often, which may have something to do with it considering how a lot of people really hate those comics).

[Chronicled]

Xkcd: pretentious. Not nearly a good as VG Cats or OotS. No jokes as good as early 8bit's.

xkcd is much, much better than VG Cats, and has numerous jokes better than the early 8 Bit Theatres (modern 8 Bit Theatre is hardly worth reading, of course). OotS beats all of these, hands down.

[Tempest Fennac]

VG Cats has been poor for a while, and I know what you mean about 8-Bit Theater (espcially after Brian spent over a year doing nothing to advance the plot, which should have ended at least 100 omics ago by now).

[Zocelot]

My opinion is that xkcd is good. Sometimes it's funny, other times it's not.

However, there is a familiarity to it. Munroe almost seems to be inside my head, taking ideas out and making webcomics about them. I've heard this opinion in other interweb places too. So, I guess it is observational humor, but Munroe does it better then any other webcomic writer out there.

[Rogue 7]

As far as Wikipedia strips, DMM of Irregular Webcomics does them better (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/1845.html).

I'm sorry. I like DMM well enough, but when you have to put that much effort into explaining a joke, it falls very flat. I followed what he was saying well, but it got boring. A lot of his stuff is good, and Darths and Droids is hilarious, but that comic fails badly.

[Gez]

I'm sorry. I like DMM well enough, but when you have to put that much effort into explaining a joke, it falls very flat. I followed what he was saying well, but it got boring. A lot of his stuff is good, and Darths and Droids is hilarious, but that comic fails badly.

It only falls flat if you have to read the annotation to get the joke. Then it's your fault for not being educated enough.

If it was in an XKCD strip instead, the joke would have been the same but there would not have been an annotation. So not only you wouldn't have gotten it, but in addition you wouldn't have learned something.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Can I just say hooray for Hurricane where the hell is Bermuda!

[Tom_Violence]

It only falls flat if you have to read the annotation to get the joke. Then it's your fault for not being educated enough.

If it was in an XKCD strip instead, the joke would have been the same but there would not have been an annotation. So not only you wouldn't have gotten it, but in addition you wouldn't have learned something.

Seconded, and more so. I've no idea who Godel is, but the second speech bubble tells me all I need to know about him to laugh at the joke. All the annotation did was give me some background info. So its not really a case of being educated enough, but more just being able to actually follow a joke with some minor blank-filling along the way.

By comparison I find xkcd's jokes to be overly simple with regards to humour (but not generally with regards to subject matter - that's what makes it pretentious).

[Lenlalron]

My opinion is that xkcd is good. Sometimes it's funny, other times it's not.

However, there is a familiarity to it. Munroe almost seems to be inside my head, taking ideas out and making webcomics about them. I've heard this opinion in other interweb places too. So, I guess it is observational humor, but Munroe does it better then any other webcomic writer out there.

Interestingly enough, I think the "sometimes funny, sometimes not" is why I love xkcd. The author doesn't really try and push a joke out every time- it's more of just "hey, what's on my mind". Sometimes, it's funny, other times, it's witty, sometimes, it's just what it is- sort of a webcomic blog, in some odd sense. It feels so frank and honest!

[Jade_Tarem]

Pretentious or not, this (http://xkcd.com/451/) was absolutely hilarious.

[Evil DM Mark3]

As was this. (http://xkcd.com/435/)

[BRC]

As was this. (http://xkcd.com/435/)

I just want to say, Great Avatar.

And yes, that was awsome.

[Kd7sov]

Personally, I love it mostly because early on, I found this (http://xkcd.com/162/), which is the only webcomic example I have ever thought of as "beautiful".

Oh, the science and whatnot helps, but had it not been for the sheer beauty that shows up from time to time - of which that is probably the finest example - the occasional coarse language and sexual humor probably would have driven me away within a few weeks after I found it.

[Freelance Henchman]

Personally, I love it mostly because early on, I found this (http://xkcd.com/162/), which is the only webcomic example I have ever thought of as "beautiful".

That one made me cringe, frankly.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Interestingly enough, the three last links all illustrate things I don't like about the comic.


Pretentious or not, this (http://xkcd.com/451/) was absolutely hilarious.

The joke: "Guys, did you know human sciences are so fuzzy you can write a fake article and get it into a prestigious publication? You totally can! You can't really do the same thing with mathematics though!"

Not funny.


As was this. (http://xkcd.com/435/)

The joke: "Guys, did you know mathematics is more abstract than sociology and also physics? It totally is! Take that burn, physics guy!"

Painfully not funny.


Personally, I love it mostly because early on, I found this (http://xkcd.com/162/), which is the only webcomic example I have ever thought of as "beautiful".

Is it beautiful, though? Isn't it sad? She apparently values her time with this other person, but she's wasting it on spinning on the floor and spouting nonsense.

The thing is, he could have salvaged the idea somewhat by playing it for silliness. She could have delivered her line, and then the guy could have gone, "Uh, that's a nice sentiment I guess, but, uh, just stop and come over here." That would even have allowed for some of the cuteness and sex. But no, he plays it for entirely straight cuteness and thus fails.

[Jade_Tarem]

Interestingly enough, the three last links all illustrate things I don't like about the comic.



The joke: "Guys, did you know human sciences are so fuzzy you can write a fake article and get it into a prestigious publication? You totally can! You can't really do the same thing with mathematics though!"

Not funny.



The joke: "Guys, did you know mathematics is more abstract than sociology and also physics? It totally is! Take that burn, physics guy!"

Painfully not funny.



Is it beautiful, though? Isn't it sad? She apparently values her time with this other person, but she's wasting it on spinning on the floor and spouting nonsense.

The thing is, he could have salvaged the idea somewhat by playing it for silliness. She could have delivered her line, and then the guy could have gone, "Uh, that's a nice sentiment I guess, but, uh, just stop and come over here." That would even have allowed for some of the cuteness and sex. But no, he plays it for entirely straight cuteness and thus fails.

Are you, by any chance, a liberal arts major? I can see how xkcd could be totally unfunny for a liberal arts major...

[Tom_Violence]

Interestingly enough, the three last links all illustrate things I don't like about the comic.



The joke: "Guys, did you know human sciences are so fuzzy you can write a fake article and get it into a prestigious publication? You totally can! You can't really do the same thing with mathematics though!"

Not funny.



The joke: "Guys, did you know mathematics is more abstract than sociology and also physics? It totally is! Take that burn, physics guy!"

Painfully not funny.



Is it beautiful, though? Isn't it sad? She apparently values her time with this other person, but she's wasting it on spinning on the floor and spouting nonsense.

The thing is, he could have salvaged the idea somewhat by playing it for silliness. She could have delivered her line, and then the guy could have gone, "Uh, that's a nice sentiment I guess, but, uh, just stop and come over here." That would even have allowed for some of the cuteness and sex. But no, he plays it for entirely straight cuteness and thus fails.

Couldn't agree more, on all counts but the last one. I think he'd've got more impact by playing the 'sad' angle, cos the feeling I got from it was just one of "aww, that poor silly girl".

[Evil DM Mark3]

I think this is proof that nothing is favoured by everyone. There are no doubt people who don't like OotS. I dislike Irregular Webcomic, last year I read through the archives and gave up about 2/3 of the way through because the tedium was getting to me. One thing I dislike is that often IW is clearly trying to be clever. XKCD tries to be funny (admittedly not always succeeding) and is clever because that is what the writer finds funny. He is not TRYING. IW however tries to be clever, throwing in some jokes that just seem strained in order to use a bit of obscure/arcane knowlage.

There are far worse web comics, but even Dominic Deegan did not beat me by grinding down my enthusiasm, although there my enjoyment was bile fascination. But with IW the laughs (and there are some, including some real gems) are, for me, are too far apart to bother with.

[busterswd]

Interestingly enough, the three last links all illustrate things I don't like about the comic.



The joke: "Guys, did you know human sciences are so fuzzy you can write a fake article and get it into a prestigious publication? You totally can! You can't really do the same thing with mathematics though!"

Not funny.



The joke: "Guys, did you know mathematics is more abstract than sociology and also physics? It totally is! Take that burn, physics guy!"

Painfully not funny.



Is it beautiful, though? Isn't it sad? She apparently values her time with this other person, but she's wasting it on spinning on the floor and spouting nonsense.

The thing is, he could have salvaged the idea somewhat by playing it for silliness. She could have delivered her line, and then the guy could have gone, "Uh, that's a nice sentiment I guess, but, uh, just stop and come over here." That would even have allowed for some of the cuteness and sex. But no, he plays it for entirely straight cuteness and thus fails.

Different strokes for different folks I supposed. I'm a biology major and even though I'm low on the "smart chain" I still find it funny because it's true in a way; as the saying went, "A biologist is unhappy when he doesn't get an A. An engineer is overjoyed to not fail his classes." Inside joke, probably, but lighten up and laugh at yourself a bit, the lower division humanities courses tend to be less rigorous then the science ones, just as organic chemistry tends to be less rigorous than pure physical chemistry, etc. etc.

Spinny girl is supposed to be cute in a quirky way, like a cheesy pickup line that nonetheless works. Considering the implications of her wasting precious time is thinking WAY too much into it, and I highly doubt their relationship will be in trouble for the 20 seconds she spends making a cute joke.

And maybe it's just me but him essentially saying "shut up and have sex," even in a bemused way, would not be funny.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Considering the implications of her wasting precious time is thinking WAY too much into it, and I highly doubt their relationship will be in trouble for the 20 seconds she spends making a cute joke.

So we should imagine she does something, claims that doing this gives them more time together, and then stops? Because I have to admit, that really is much funnier. And this takes LESS reading into than picturing her going on for some time, you say? Awesome.


And maybe it's just me but him essentially saying "shut up and have sex," even in a bemused way, would not be funny.

If that's the only thing two people could be doing together on a bed. Hey, what would you say is going on off-panel here (http://xkcd.com/150/)?

[Jade_Tarem]

So we should imagine she does something, claims that doing this gives them more time together, and then stops? Because I have to admit, that really is much funnier. And this takes LESS reading into than picturing her going on for some time, you say? Awesome.

Sure, why not?


If that's the only thing two people could be doing together on a bed.

Actually, you did suggest that that strip would be funnier with a crack about sex at the end.


Hey, what would you say is going on off-panel here (http://xkcd.com/150/)?

A snowball fight. With carebears.

[Siosilvar]

I'd love to have one of these. (http://xkcd.com/413/)

And, is it just me, or are Hurricanes Red + Blue here (http://xkcd.com/453/) a reference to Tron/Armegatron (http://www.armagetronad.net/)?

[Coffee_Dragon]

Actually, you did suggest that that strip would be funnier with a crack about sex at the end.

Ah, that was mostly a reference to Munroe's penchant for referencing such things (for instance, "I love tangled sheets"). The implication that sex would follow was not part of my suggestion (to any greater extent than it is in the actual strip, what with the unmade bed and two stick figures who may or may not be clothed) nor is this a point of criticism against the comic.


A snowball fight. With carebears.

That's no laughing matter. Bears launched at high speeds can cause people's limbs to fly off.

[Arbitrarity]

Yeah, xkcd isn't about the jokes, necessarily. It's observational. It sees things, and references them. That is why I like it, probably. It's a combination of insight, simple humor, and sentiments. Partially stylized, partially exaggerated, and partially very random.

http://webcomicssobad.blogspot.com/2007/11/xkcd.html :smallwink:

[busterswd]

So we should imagine she does something, claims that doing this gives them more time together, and then stops? Because I have to admit, that really is much funnier. And this takes LESS reading into than picturing her going on for some time, you say? Awesome.
Some people pillow talk, or talk during foreplay. Apparently she can crack a joke about mathematical concepts during foreplay, or at least while undressing. There's not really a deep imagination needed for that.

You're equating her spinning to something that's shattering their fragile relationship, or something akin to a mental disorder where she spins and says things related to spinning out of the blue. You're also suggesting she actually expects this to work. It's a JOKE on her part.

In the end, you're changing a cute little joke into something much more meaningful then it is and assuming she's either crazy or stupid.


If that's the only thing two people could be doing together on a bed. Hey, what would you say is going on off-panel here (http://xkcd.com/150/)?
The point isn't that they should avoid sex to keep a punchline intact. The point is that the guy outright saying "Let's have sex now!" would take away from the humor and the general mood. See: Ctrl alt del.

[Tom_Violence]

See: Ctrl alt del.

What a horrible thing to say!


Yeah, xkcd isn't about the jokes, necessarily. It's observational. It sees things, and references them. That is why I like it, probably. It's a combination of insight, simple humor, and sentiments. Partially stylized, partially exaggerated, and partially very random.

http://webcomicssobad.blogspot.com/2007/11/xkcd.html :smallwink:

Holy moly the comments on that link are hilarious! And go someway to narrowing down why I dislike ze comic.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Holy moly the comments on that link are hilarious! And go someway to narrowing down why I dislike ze comic.

Given the context it wouldn't surprise me if a number of them were written by trolls posing as Xkcd fans.

[Warpfire]

XKCD is just meh. Nothing really exciting.

But dear god do most of the fans piss me off. And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the comments on that blog were from actual fans because I've seen actual XKCD fans say the same irritatingly retarded things before.

[Jade_Tarem]

XKCD is just meh. Nothing really exciting.

But dear god do most of the fans piss me off. And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the comments on that blog were from actual fans because I've seen actual XKCD fans say the same irritatingly retarded things before.

Then why did you come to this thread? You had to have known that it would be full of irritating and retarded xkcd fans pissing you off by saying irritatingly retarded things. I'm afraid I just don't understand why you would subject yourself to our presence if it's so painful for you.

[Cubey]

Holy moly the comments on that link are hilarious! And go someway to narrowing down why I dislike ze comic.

Seeing as the page is a Stealth Parody (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StealthParody) of Your Webcomic Is Bad And You Should Feel Bad, I wouldn't be surprised if at least some comments were tongue-in-cheek or Stealth Parodies of trolling too.

[Occasional Sage]

Then why did you come to this thread? You had to have known that it would be full of irritating and retarded xkcd fans pissing you off by saying irritatingly retarded things. I'm afraid I just don't understand why you would subject yourself to our presence if it's so painful for you.

Actually, I'm somewhat glad he did. I'm an xkcd fan, but open to criticism of something I like. What remarks in the comment thread irritated you so much, Warpfire and/or Tom? I only lightly skimmed, so I didn't see anything particularly egregious.

[MrEdwardNigma]

Pretentious or not, this (http://xkcd.com/451/) was absolutely hilarious.
That one is the first that I actually though was pretentious. It was also not at all funny.

I love xkcd, but that one made me want to punch the author in the face.

Anyways, this thread is about xkcd being awesome, so everyone who thinks it's not should probably, ehrm... yeah.

[Tom_Violence]

Then why did you come to this thread? You had to have known that it would be full of irritating and retarded xkcd fans pissing you off by saying irritatingly retarded things. I'm afraid I just don't understand why you would subject yourself to our presence if it's so painful for you.

He only said that some fans get like that, not that all fans do.


Seeing as the page is a Stealth Parody (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StealthParody) of Your Webcomic Is Bad And You Should Feel Bad, I wouldn't be surprised if at least some comments were tongue-in-cheek or Stealth Parodies of trolling too.

True enough. But doubtless some of the comments were serious, and seperating the two is impossible.


Actually, I'm somewhat glad he did. I'm an xkcd fan, but open to criticism of something I like. What remarks in the comment thread irritated you so much, Warpfire and/or Tom? I only lightly skimmed, so I didn't see anything particularly egregious.

"It's for people with an intelligent sense of humor, not a chip on their shoulder."

"XKCD is for those of us who realize life is not all about happy endings and trophy wives and who is better than who and all that ****. It's for those of us who live in reality. It's for the intelligent. It's for the insane. It's not for fairytale blankety blanks like you."

"PS: your comic was just a mirror, maybe you need therapy."

"Unless you understand this comic: http://xkcd.com/45/ you don't deserve to review XKCD."

"Real people read xkcd. If you'd ever bothered to look past the seemingly minimalistic stick-figures and plot... webcomics aren't supposed to represent all of life. Slices."

Etc. Etc. The notion that xkcd was made for the Master Race and stands as some kind of litmus test for a person's worth doesn't really wash well with me.

[Occasional Sage]

"It's for people with an intelligent sense of humor, not a chip on their shoulder."

"XKCD is for those of us who realize life is not all about happy endings and trophy wives and who is better than who and all that ****. It's for those of us who live in reality. It's for the intelligent. It's for the insane. It's not for fairytale blankety blanks like you."

"PS: your comic was just a mirror, maybe you need therapy."

"Unless you understand this comic: http://xkcd.com/45/ you don't deserve to review XKCD."

"Real people read xkcd. If you'd ever bothered to look past the seemingly minimalistic stick-figures and plot... webcomics aren't supposed to represent all of life. Slices."

Etc. Etc. The notion that xkcd was made for the Master Race and stands as some kind of litmus test for a person's worth doesn't really wash well with me.

Yup. I'm a fan, and those are noxious. That you need to "deserve" to review something is a ridiculous statement!

So, what actually bothers you about the strip, rather than the fanboys I want to slap? I like the quirky sense of humor, but would imagine that I'm kinda odd in that. Apathy is different than dislike, though....

[Tom_Violence]

Yup. I'm a fan, and those are noxious. That you need to "deserve" to review something is a ridiculous statement!

So, what actually bothers you about the strip, rather than the fanboys I want to slap?

I just don't find it funny. I've tried, many many times, but it barely ever gets even a faint smile out of me. That just makes it boring. It turning its nose up at me makes me dislike it.

I can't really blame it for its fans, but it sure does give them a lot of ammo.

[Occasional Sage]

I just don't find it funny. I've tried, many many times, but it barely ever gets even a faint smile out of me. That just makes it boring. It turning its nose up at me makes me dislike it.

I can't really blame it for its fans, but it sure does give them a lot of ammo.

Fair point. There's a fine line between seeing yourself as "quirky" for liking something narrowly-enjoyed, and seeing yourself as "inherently superior." I hadn't really considered that, since I don't typically discuss webcomics outside my circle of close friends. I've seen it lots of places, though, so I should have.

[Frosty]

I enjoy the comic most of the time. To each his own.

[busterswd]

Fair point. There's a fine line between seeing yourself as "quirky" for liking something narrowly-enjoyed, and seeing yourself as "inherently superior." I hadn't really considered that, since I don't typically discuss webcomics outside my circle of close friends. I've seen it lots of places, though, so I should have.

There is the air of superiority sprinkled throughout for being a techie and not a fuzzie, yes. But as posted by Nevrmore, a lot of the people who hate it are thinking about it way too much. It's like a Perry Bible comic, you look at it, and if you understand or relate, you laugh/cringe. If not, move on. I doubt there are fans who make xkcd a part of their actual way of thinking and view the ability to comprehend a comic as a reason for being a superior human being or better than everyone else and if there are, I'll be rooting for them to get hit by a truck.

[memnarch]

Before or after the question? (http://xkcd.com/356/)

[Tom_Violence]

There is the air of superiority sprinkled throughout for being a techie and not a fuzzie, yes. But as posted by Nevrmore, a lot of the people who hate it are thinking about it way too much. It's like a Perry Bible comic, you look at it, and if you understand or relate, you laugh/cringe. If not, move on. I doubt there are fans who make xkcd a part of their actual way of thinking and view the ability to comprehend a comic as a reason for being a superior human being or better than everyone else and if there are, I'll be rooting for them to get hit by a truck.

Well if that's your thing, root away. I've met such fans, both online and in 'The Real'.

Anyway, like I've said, I don't really care if the comic is pretentious - its just a comic afterall - and its fans can go around high-fiving each other over physics jokes all day long for all I care, provided they can actually manage to not be jerks about it and not assert that their education is any better than anyone else's.

But the thing that really gets my goat about xkcd and its fans is when it turns around and tells me that the only reason I don't enjoy it is because I don't 'get it' since I haven't read enough maths textbooks, or I'm not awash with the light of a thousand little pixies and can't see all the wonderous beauty in the world, or whatever. By all means enjoy the comic if that's your thing. Just don't tell me my opinion automatically counts for nothing just cos it goes against the grain.

[Otempora]

XKCD is one of those comics that I remember to check about once a month. It's almost never laugh-out-loud funny, but it can be amusing (and I'm by no means a math/physics/computer geek). Sometimes it's boring, but it's not a bad comic.

[Jahkaivah]

"Unless you understand this comic: http://xkcd.com/45/ you don't deserve to review XKCD."


That's a good example of what I said earlier, the basis of Schrodigner's Cat and therefore the joke behind that strip is explained in the 2nd and 3rd panel of the comic.

Also, given that i'm seeing people attack jokes which I personally saw little flaw in, its safe to say XKCD is a strong example of Your Mileage May Vary (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YourMileageMayVary).

[Coffee_Dragon]

I thought it was only fair to post and say I thought "Google Maps" was awesome.

[The Extinguisher]

This (http://xkcd.com/464/) comic fails me, for some reason.

I understand it basically well enough, but I still don't get it.

[PhantomFox]

This (http://xkcd.com/464/) comic fails me, for some reason.

I understand it basically well enough, but I still don't get it.

To "Bel Air" someone, is to start to tell a long rambling story and then have it segue into the theme song from "Fresh Prince of Bel-air". It's sorta related to Rick-rolling, as you don't get an ending to the story, you get the Bel-Air theme song and the realization you got played.

So to Reverse Bel Air someone is to take that formula, and invert it, resulting in something like what happens in this comic.

[hanzo66]

I respect the comic, though I would say that there have been certain things that I may never necessarily understand. Then again I'm not quite educated enough in Mathematics or Physics I guess. The humor is the type in that it can get ultra-technical, yet there's usually enough humor for the Lesser Ones to sort of get.


I really enjoyed this one (http://xkcd.com/351/) though...

[The Extinguisher]

To "Bel Air" someone, is to start to tell a long rambling story and then have it segue into the theme song from "Fresh Prince of Bel-air". It's sorta related to Rick-rolling, as you don't get an ending to the story, you get the Bel-Air theme song and the realization you got played.

So to Reverse Bel Air someone is to take that formula, and invert it, resulting in something like what happens in this comic.

Makes sense. Somewhat.

What really throws me off is that cup in the last pannel. Like it was thrown or something.

But I'm probably over analysing it. A lot.

[chiasaur11]

Makes sense. Somewhat.

What really throws me off is that cup in the last pannel. Like it was thrown or something.

But I'm probably over analysing it. A lot.

The guy dropped it in shock.

Also: XKCD is all awesome. The thread title is truth.

[Oberon]

Also: XKCD is all awesome. The thread title is truth.

Your truth is true! Although I don't know enough about programming to get a lot of the jokes (ie any about lisp, perl, python, etc.)

[Occasional Sage]

Your truth is true! Although I don't know enough about programming to get a lot of the jokes (ie any about lisp, perl, python, etc.)

I understand enough to be dangerous to myself, but do lean on my programmer brother for the odd explanation. "Sudo make me a sandwich" being a prime example.

[Whoracle]

"Sudo make me a sandwich" being a prime example.

Haha! I laughed for days at that one. Even have it as a t-shirt. And mind you, if you're studying computer networking, you can get your whole course in stitches with this.

[random11]

My personal favorite:

http://xkcd.com/327/

[Jahkaivah]

My personal favorite:

http://xkcd.com/327/

Mine too. :smallbiggrin:

[Colt]

The alt text for that one is great.

[random11]

The alt text for that one is great.

The winner for alt texts is definitely this:

http://xkcd.com/236/

[Jahkaivah]

This could get ugly. (http://xkcd.com/467/)

[Tirian]

I fear that all of the criticisms about xkcd's pretensiousness have sunk in, and now it will be a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, language, and idiotic YouTube memes.

[Evil DM Mark3]

This could get ugly. (http://xkcd.com/467/)I don' actually get this one.

[Tirian]

"2 girls 1 cup" is a movie so disgusting that I would probably get an infraction just telling you what happens in it. There's a wiki article that describes it, but don't say I didn't warn you. Evidently, YouTube's idea of a good time is to get a bunch of unsuspecting people in a room, show them this movie, and film (and then upload) their reaction.

[Evil DM Mark3]

"2 girls 1 cup" is a movie so disgusting that I would probably get an infraction just telling you what happens in it. There's a wiki article that describes it, but don't say I didn't warn you. Evidently, YouTube's idea of a good time is to get a bunch of unsuspecting people in a room, show them this movie, and film (and then upload) their reaction.I like being ignorant of things like that.

[Sholos]

It's referencing the 2girls1cup video (DO NOT look it up).

[Tirian]

Indeed. :smalleek: I was naive about it myself and am only relieved that I didn't get too much of an education. This isn't the first day that I've felt that the world would be a better place without an xkcd update.

[Occasional Sage]

Yeah, it's pretty horrific.

My first response, though, was along the lines of, "Why would you look for permutations?!"

[Justyn]

"2 girls 1 cup" is a movie so disgusting that I would probably get an infraction just telling you what happens in it. There's a wiki article that describes it, but don't say I didn't warn you. Evidently, YouTube's idea of a good time is to get a bunch of unsuspecting people in a room, show them this movie, and film (and then upload) their reaction.

I like being ignorant of things like that.

Not a discription, but what it is (spoilered five times):

A lesbian scat fetish video.

I havn't seen it, but I learned about it from Family Guy, and then looked it up on Wikipedia.

[Occasional Sage]

Not a discription, but what it is (spoilered five times):

A lesbian scat fetish video.

I havn't seen it, but I learned about it from Family Guy, and then looked it up on Wikipedia.

If you love your sanity, DO NOT FIND THAT VIDEO.

You already know more than is safe, but there are no words to prepare you for the sight.

Although...

George Clooney was ambushed by it. His response is priceless.

[nooblade]

The wikipedia article was not bad at all, it's a very professional description of actual events. I would agree about encouraging people to not look for the video itself though. Reading the article made me sure I don't want to.

[Wraith]

A simple question, requiring only a simple answer, with regards to the "<X> Girls <Y> Cups" comic...

....Did anyone else pick one combination at random (6 Girls 3 Cups!) and test to see if the table was accurate? Or was that just me?

Because it's not. Just in case you were wondering. :smalltongue:

[Jahkaivah]

A simple question, requiring only a simple answer, with regards to the "<X> Girls <Y> Cups" comic...

....Did anyone else pick one combination at random (6 Girls 3 Cups!) and test to see if the table was accurate? Or was that just me?

Because it's not. Just in case you were wondering. :smalltongue:

I haven't checked, but mainly becuase I know they will be wrong. The very act of posted the strip is going to change the results. This happened with "Died in a Blogging Accident". (http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2008/01/13/the-xkcd-data-died-in-a-blogging-accident/)

Also, you just increase the hits for "6 Girls 3 Cups" by 1. :smalltongue:

[Rockphed]

Ahhh, isn't the self referencing web nice.

What the self referencing web references is not so nice.

[Helanna]

I don't quite get the accusations of xkcd being "pretentious". How exactly is a webcomic pretentious?

Like people said, a lot of the time it's just observation, sometimes it's just a joke, and sometimes . . . it's internet memes . . .

But yeah, I love xkcd. It's one of the things I'm going to have to rely on to get me up Monday mornings once school starts. My schedule this year is to get up, go to math, and then two periods of physics. I'm going to have to have some motivation to get up!

Also, I get most of the jokes and I haven't even taken physics yet. Also, the forums are incredibly helpful. If you don't get a joke you can guarantee that someone will explain it on the forum.

It's true that a lot of the time the webcomic is just 'meh' for me - definitely funny and still worth reading, but nothing too great. Then all of a sudden there's just one comic that hits home and I can't stop laughing.

[busterswd]

How exactly is a webcomic pretentious?

It makes the assumption that its intended fanbase is inherently superior to other people, and oftentimes delves into the "techs > fuzzies" debate. I think people overuse the word though, because the vast majority of the comics are just written for science-y people. There's no "haha we're better than you" intent that I can really detect for the most part.

Some of the fan comments I read support the pretentious description though.

[Trazoi]

It makes the assumption that its intended fanbase is inherently superior to other people, and oftentimes delves into the "techs > fuzzies" debate.
Those jokes are just an off-shoot of the sorts of things you hear all the time in a university setting. There's a whole bunch of jokes based on comparing faculties and schools, usually exaggerating a characteristic to absurd levels to make the joke. As a double degree student I heard (and told) plenty of jokes comparing engineers, physicists, math majors, computer scientists, and plenty others with punchlines making a random one of those look better in comparison. There never seemed to be any malice behind it - it's all just done for a bit of fun.

[Tengu_temp]

It makes the assumption that its intended fanbase is inherently superior to other people, and oftentimes delves into the "techs > fuzzies" debate.

How can you debate something that's already been established ages ago? :tongue:

[Helanna]

It makes the assumption that its intended fanbase is inherently superior to other people, and oftentimes delves into the "techs > fuzzies" debate.

Oh . . . so it's basically people reading WAY too much into the comic? Because I've never seen anything that suggests "nerds are superior" in the comic, not in a serious way.


How can you debate something that's already been established ages ago?

"Be nice to nerds, chances are you'll end up working for one". Except I can't help but think that if more people on the top actually were nerds, the world would run a little more smoothly.

[Tengu_temp]

Except I can't help but think that if more people on the top actually were nerds, the world would run a little more smoothly.

Just what I meant - the superiority of tech nerds has been a established long time ago. xkcd is not pretentious, it just shows reality how it really is.

Not an entirely serious post.

[Helanna]

The world: As run by nerds!

* All wars would be conducted over the internet (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FlameWar), and would mostly involve name-calling, nonsensical arguments, and Nazi comparisons.

* Most hypothetical situations would be tested extensively - and some people say RPGs aren't any use!

* We'd live in an age where computers rule everyone's life and almost no one in a developed country is without three or four electronic devices at any given time . . . oh wait.

* There would be no self-aware computers that attempt to take over the world (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenreSavvy).

* The reason the world would be divided on genetic engineering is because half of it wouldn't be able to resist messing around with Nature (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MadScientist) and the other half would be warning against the inevitable take-over by the dangerously twisted mutants.

[Whoracle]

[Awesome Things]

Sounds great! Where do I sign up for this World?

[chiasaur11]

Sounds great! Where do I sign up for this World?

With the self aware computers trying to take over the world.
Genre Savvy does not prevent boredom.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Can I just say the furry (http://xkcd.com/471/) somehow looks youthful and kiddish, despite being 90% identical to all the others.

[Enlong]

Can I just say the furry (http://xkcd.com/471/) somehow looks youthful and kiddish, despite being 90% identical to all the others.I think it's 'cause he's shorter, and because those ears are rounded, like Winnie-the-Pooh-style bear ears.

But yes, you're right.

[Ascension]

I find this disturbing, beautiful, disturbingly beautiful, and beautifully disturbing. (http://xkcd.com/472/)

I want to write a novel about this poor cursed soul, but apparently someone already has, since the entire comic is an Amazon link.

[Tirian]

My vibe was that this was the journal of The Red Eye, the ersatz hitchhiking horror comic villain that The Tick confronted on their road trip to New York. I guess he got kicked out in Rochester. :smallsmile:

I'll just go ahead and assume that the whole House of Leaves bit is another ploy to get more of his readers fired from their job by googling his references and getting led into viewing NSFW content on the company machine.

[Kurald Galain]

Sounds great! Where do I sign up for this World?

At the DNRC, obviously.

[Evil DM Mark3]

At the DNRC, obviously.Wait, Dogbert is in on this?

[Bryn]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HouseOfLeaves

A book I really want to read.

[chiasaur11]

My vibe was that this was the journal of The Red Eye, the ersatz hitchhiking horror comic villain that The Tick confronted on their road trip to New York. I guess he got kicked out in Rochester. :smallsmile:

I'll just go ahead and assume that the whole House of Leaves bit is another ploy to get more of his readers fired from their job by googling his references and getting led into viewing NSFW content on the company machine.

The whole thing is a parody of house of leaves.
Weird formatting, multi layer narrative, house
The only thing missing is the minotaur.

[Bryn]

Surely you mean the minotaur there? :smalltongue:

[chiasaur11]

Surely you mean the minotaur there? :smalltongue:

It's just a silly superstition.
There's nothing it could do to m

[Evil DM Mark3]

Aeroplane + treadmill = ?

[Tirian]

Here is the classical formulation of the problem: Imagine a plane is sitting on a massive conveyor belt, as wide and as long as a runway. The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction. Can the plane take off? I hadn't seen the problem before today either, but it's another one of those mental viruses that tears through scientific forums. I'm reluctant to describe the arguments, but hopefully folks won't see it as an opportunity to fight it out here.

The simple argument is for no. Since the conveyor belt is designed to match the wheel's speed, the plane will remain stationary and all of those wonderful Bernoulli effects won't affect the air pressure above and below the wing and therefore the plane will stay on the ground.

The critics argument is more nuanced. They would say that a taxiing plane doesn't move along the ground (like a car or a jogger) but through the air (motivated by the propellers or jets); the freely-spinning wheels are just there to minimize the force of static friction that keeps the plane from initially moving forward. Once it does get moving, the wheels and the "ground" can turn at whatever speed they want because they are (in an ideal setting) completely isolated from the actual players in the drama: the propellers, air, and wings. So from the standpoint of an observer who can see the plane but not the treadmill, the plane takes off in its ordinary fashion.

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KsdMuhYJPw) is the Mythbusters test. I don't know if the "no" camp has any quibbles with it but it is precisely the effect that the "yes" camp would have predicted.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Oh right. I would have said yes, but then again I did study aerodynamics with the Air Cadets and know that the engine provides thrust that opposes the plane's drag and that lift (opposing weight) is created by moving air, and seeing as both propellers and jets cause air to move over the wings thanks to air pressure changes and of course as soon as you get a tiny bit of lift the conveyor belt stops having any effect whatsoever.

[Felius]

If the conveyor belt managed to input more force to the plane than the thrust it produces, then it would stay stationary and not take off. But that's quite impossible unless the pilot of the plane collaborates with the operator of the belt to not move. If he does tries to take off, the plane will either take off, or have a catastrophic failure because of excess heat on the wheels.

[Tirian]

This is pretty slipshod. How can somebody an entire comic (http://xkcd.com/personal/permalinked/1218062796760xd1.jpg)?

(uh, since the evidence is now gone, I should explain. He posted about 45 minutes late, and that was his excuse.)

[Evil DM Mark3]

Hey, is that the Existentialist up a tree?

[Rockphed]

Hey, is that the Existentialist up a tree?

And the Class Hat is kicking a cat off the top.

[chiasaur11]

This is pretty slipshod. How can somebody an entire comic (http://xkcd.com/personal/permalinked/1218062796760xd1.jpg)?

(uh, since the evidence is now gone, I should explain. He posted about 45 minutes late, and that was his excuse.)

45 minutes late?

The monster.

[Suicide Junkie]

Conveyor belt vs AirplaneI think this is a fairly decent summary:

If your treadmill is designed to cancel the movement of the plane then the treadmill will quickly accelerate up to relativistic speeds. The hundreds of thousands of pounds of thrust from the engines will be counteracted via wheel friction and momentum.

The fact that such a treadmill is completely absurd and for all intents and purposes impossible to construct must be ignored if the question is to be taken as is.

Alternatively, if the question states that the treadmill is designed to move backwards at the same rate as the plane moves forwards, then the plane will take off normally, and its wheels will simply spin at twice the rate.
The treadmill is still quite absurd, although slightly less over the top as in the first case.

PS:
If mechanical failure is considered, then the plane will either be destroyed as the treadmill tears itself apart, or will have an opportunity to take off through the rubble. Either way, the plane seems unlikely to make it.



and of course as soon as you get a tiny bit of lift the conveyor belt stops having any effect whatsoever. A tiny bit is insufficient. To be precise; the lift must exceed the weight of the craft in order for the belt to stop having an effect. For a physical airplane, that is a large but somewhat reasonable number (up to half a million kilograms for a 747 according to google).

[Jimorian]

And the Class Hat is kicking a cat off the top.

Not quite sure where he got the 46 billion light years number, though, experiments with Hubble and quite a few other methods put the age of the universe pretty consistently at ~15 billion years.

Awesome drawing otherwise.

[Rockphed]

And the alt text is right, although it might depend on the scale used. The sides of the Eiffel Tower are natural log curves...

And If you have an indestructible airplane with frictionless wheels, the treadmill doesn't matter. If you have an Indestructible airplane with perfectly frictionalble wheels, the jet engines just burn until they run out of fuel. The question that needs to be answered is: What is the kinetic friction between the airplane and the treadmill. If you can get a million pounds of friction, the airplane doesn't move. Otherwise the airplane inches forward and either hits the wall or reaches the right speed to take off.

[Enlong]

Wow, soooo many in-jokes and awesome references.

Oh, and the poster form of this is already up for pre-order (door-sized)

[Evil DM Mark3]

Oh, and the poster form of this is already up for pre-order (door-sized)DO WANT!:smallcool:

[Radar]

Well, it's true, that xkcd is a bit inconstant in humor level, still i am reading it for pearls like that:
http://xkcd.com/230/ (so true - not in that context tough) or http://xkcd.com/184/ - small thing, but great.

For me xkcd has an additional appeal, because i am studying physics and i get the impression, that pure sciences are feared or totaly misunderstood (http://xkcd.com/465/) by let's say not-scientists, so every time i stumble upon physics or math mixed into culture by someone, who understends it a bit, it realy makes me smile.

On the other hand, i didn't find xkcd pretencious. It doesn't state, that scientists or nerds are better people - we just are different (http://xkcd.com/242/).

[Finn Solomon]

One of the greatest webcomics ever created by mind of mortal man.

[Arbitrarity]

I like today's comic. Failure makes for some amusing insights on classic tropes.

[Sholos]

Huh? What do you mean?

[Fri]

Have you guys read Randall's new short story on his blag? It's bloody hillarious. I'm tempted on posting in media discussion, but it might have a bit too much inside joke.

[SnowballMan]

What? No 52? And I really wanted to see an irrational number.

[Jahkaivah]

Awesome... just awesome... im having fun using this on all the silly comments I have read on youtube. (http://blag.xkcd.com/2008/10/08/youtube-audio-preview/#comments)

[dish]

That is a pretty firm opinion expressed on DRM.

[Gez]

Now (http://xkcd.com/488/), I agree that XKCD is awesome.

[Kurald Galain]

That is a pretty firm opinion expressed on DRM.

It is also, unfortunately, completely true. This year, several shops that used to sell DRM music went out of business, thus making their music completely unusable even to people who paid for it.

Would you want to pay for music that could plausibly stop working at some arbitrary moment in the future?

[dish]

Oh, I'm totally with him. It's not just about music, but other media as well.

[drengnikrafe]

xkcd has always been my second favorite comic. I read a small number of webcomics, but most are whatever. OOTS is first, because it caters to my favorite type of humor (D&D, obviously), but xkcd is in a close second with science, love, math, and the like. And it's reliability.

[chiasaur11]

xkcd has always been my second favorite comic. I read a small number of webcomics, but most are whatever. OOTS is first, because it caters to my favorite type of humor (D&D, obviously), but xkcd is in a close second with science, love, math, and the like. And it's reliability.

You know, we live in one of the best of all possible worlds.

I mean, where else could you say "Hey, how about that popular, incredibly geeky stick figure webcomic?" and get the response of "Which one?"

[Evil DM Mark3]

Can anyone guess when and where I read today's strip? (http://www.xkcd.com/490/)

[Gez]

This is so very, very true.

And laptops aren't weird, they're awesome.

[chiasaur11]

Did anyone else read dinosaur comics today?

Randall Munroe did one for guest week. Good stuff.

[Rockphed]

Did anybody look at his "Google Sobriety Test?" I am stone cold sober, and I wail in pain at the thought of having to answer those questions. I really need to take a math refresher.:smallfrown:

[chiasaur11]

Did anybody look at his "Google Sobriety Test?" I am stone cold sober, and I wail in pain at the thought of having to answer those questions. I really need to take a math refresher.:smallfrown:

Yeah, I looked.

I might be able to do them, with a pen and some luck. And a textbook. And a calculator.

Might.

[Tirian]

I do not believe they were made to be solved. The second one doesn't even make sense, as the upper bound of the summation is not an integer. I suppose it is possible that the integral collapses into a tractable form, but I wouldn't assume that it is worth your time.

[MeklorIlavator]

Where is this test?

[Tirian]

Here (http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/googlecopy.jpg), via here (http://blag.xkcd.com/).

[Evil DM Mark3]

5 updates this week!

Heard those lolcats cl*******. Heard them well.

EDIT: Woops. Lets just call him Black Hat then.

[BRC]

5 updates this week!

Heard those lolcats cl*******. Heard them well.

EDIT: Woops. Lets just call him Black Hat then.
What else would we call him?

[Evil DM Mark3]

As he calls himself here. (http://xkcd.com/72/) Only I posted it as one word and got filtered and I feel that putting spaces in to get around the filter might get me in trouble.

[chiasaur11]

There is now ay this will end well for anyone.

Well, anyone besides Black Hat, at least.

[The_Firenail]

Seriously, I can't wait for this week's comics. We'll can just imagine how the antics of the HatGuy will result in this one. It's gonna be EPIC! (yeah, I stole that from the forums)

[Evil DM Mark3]

Its a blimp sir.

[Rockphed]

Ron Paul's blimp made me laugh. Note how, except for the 'R' and 'N', all letters in "Revolution" are backwards.

Also, what kind of apartment has a moat?

[Gez]

Ron Paul's blimp made me laugh. Note how, except for the 'R' and 'N', all letters in "Revolution" are backwards.

Also, what kind of apartment has a moat?

One could argue that the V, O, U, T, I and O aren't backwards either. :smallwink:

[chiasaur11]

Ron Paul's blimp made me laugh. Note how, except for the 'R' and 'N', all letters in "Revolution" are backwards.

Also, what kind of apartment has a moat?

An apartment that wants to be able to feed visitors to the sharks.

Duh.

[Turcano]

Ron Paul's blimp made me laugh. Note how, except for the 'R' and 'N', all letters in "Revolution" are backwards.

Also, what kind of apartment has a moat?

Actually, just the "EVOL" is backwards, and his real signs were like that (with the backwards part in red, if I remember correctly).

[Rockphed]

Actually, just the "EVOL" is backwards, and his real signs were like that (with the backwards part in red, if I remember correctly).

I was expecting more, "but only the E and L are backwards," but that actually makes sense. I feel silly now.

And the new page made me smile. Especially, "I plead the Third."

Edit: I see Gez lived up to my expectations. But I can argue that they are backwards with just as much efficacy.

[SnowballMan]

Made you smile?

Just smile?

I couldn't stop laughing for minutes.

[Mauve Shirt]

Heeheehee I love the class hole. "I plead the third" <3

[Gez]

Edit: I see Gez lived up to my expectations. But I can argue that they are backwards with just as much efficacy.

I didn't say I argued, just that it was possible. :smallbiggrin:

That said, looking at the real deal:
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/357/highres2878096db8.th.jpg (http://img147.imageshack.us/my.php?image=highres2878096db8.jpg)
It's quite clear the V is backward. Yay non-symmetrical font!

[chiasaur11]

Heeheehee I love the class hole. "I plead the third" <3

He only has a few principles, but he's sticking to them.

[The_Firenail]

I've seen something similar to the blimp before. The "EVOL" spelt backwards is supposed to make it resemble the word "LOVE," but backwards.
My similar image that I have on disk:
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/9463/onerevolutiongu9.th.png (http://img293.imageshack.us/my.php?image=onerevolutiongu9.png)http://img293.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

Regarding today's strip, it's kinda wierd that The HatGuy would do said things, but I'm not surprised. The twin towers probably really never collapsed, and we're getting so worked up about nothing. Also, it might be useful for you to know that I am Canadian.
Can't wait for the rest of the arc!

[Zocelot]

Regarding today's strip, it's kinda wierd that The HatGuy would do said things, but I'm not surprised. The twin towers probably really never collapsed, and we're getting so worked up about nothing. Also, it might be useful for you to know that I am Canadian.
Can't wait for the rest of the arc!

I'm also Canadian, and I've been to the wreckage. The twin towers most definitely collapsed. Whether or not it was terrorist action is another question.

[Evil DM Mark3]

I'm also Canadian, and I've been to the wreckage. The twin towers most definitely collapsed. Whether or not it was terrorist action is another question.

I think this is the most delicate thing on the list. His evidence is almost certainly as convincing and accurate as the other 9/11 conspiracies. It is also as blatantly stupid. By doing what he did the campaigners will have to level arguments valid against their own cause to shut him up, and hear their own pre-programed bleating played back at them.

[Sholos]

I'm confused. What evidence did Black Hat give?

[chionophile]

I'm confused. What evidence did Black Hat give?

Evidence? This isn't a trial, it's a hearing. All they're doing is evaluating him for the job.

[Rockphed]

Evidence? This isn't a trial, it's a hearing. All they're doing is evaluating him for the job.

Furthermore, it is a congressional hearing. Those things are incredibly lax when it comes to actually following up on bizarre answers. I suspect that much of what he is saying is simply to exploit that.

Not that he didn't do that stuff, but he is simply giving bizarre answers because it amuses him. He is truly a class of his own. I feel like going and pleading the second now.:smallamused:

[Sholos]

I think this is the most delicate thing on the list. His evidence is almost certainly as convincing and accurate as the other 9/11 conspiracies. It is also as blatantly stupid. By doing what he did the campaigners will have to level arguments valid against their own cause to shut him up, and hear their own pre-programed bleating played back at them.

This is what I was referring to. When did Black Hat do this?

[chionophile]

This is what I was referring to. When did Black Hat do this?

He doesn't, EvilDMMk3 is speculating.

[Sholos]

Ohhhh.....

[Evil DM Mark3]

Ohhhh.....

Well, more deducing. We know he made the claims, the comments he makes are mirrors of the slogans expounded by the 9/11 was faked suporters, it seems in his nature to take this step.

[Arioch]

The twin towers probably really never collapsed, and we're getting so worked up about nothing.

I can only assume you're joking here. Please be joking. Because if you're not joking you're edging awfully close to conspiracy nut territory.

[Mauve Shirt]

Tron Paul :smallbiggrin:

[The_Firenail]

Guys, shut up. It was just a joke. (i'm just glad(?) that someone finally qouted a pixie)

But after reading today's comic, I had only three words for it: What. The. F***ing. Hell.
And how come I seriously doubt that this plot isn't going to end nicely, if it's going to end.

EDIT: I also noticed this quote:

I can only assume you're joking here. Please be joking. Because if you're not joking you're edging awfully close to conspiracy nut territory.
Again, I was joking. (and if you can read this, laugh at him for me.)

[SnowballMan]

Tron Paul :smallbiggrin:
No more debates. From now on, primaries will be settled with light cycles!

A number of other jokes spring to mind, but they would violate the rule against discussing real world politics.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Hmmm...

Is BH going soft?

[The_Firenail]

And how come I seriously doubt that this plot isn't going to end nicely, if it's going to end.

I take it back. The ending was HiLARIOUS! Good thinking to fill the maintenence tunnels with playpen balls. At least we know why Randall went with the Tron reference.

I wonder what would result from Al Gore from being Internet Secretary...

[Arioch]

(and if you can read this, laugh at him for me.)

Yeah, that's some subtlety there. I never suspected. Nice one. :smallannoyed:


Wake up, people!

To whom are you speaking, and why do you deem it necessary to tell them to wake up?


I may have 50 Infraction Points for mouthing off at Burlew...

Really? I find this unbelievable. Are you trying to joke again?

[The_Firenail]

Yeah, that's some subtlety there. I never suspected. Nice one. :smallannoyed:



To whom are you speaking, and why do you deem it necessary to tell them to wake up?



Really? I find this unbelievable. Are you trying to joke again?

...You're good. I was just pouncing at the chance at the double post.
I only have the single strike worth NOTHING!

[Evil DM Mark3]

Oh my god, this (http://xkcd.com/502/)is so depressing and sad.

[chiasaur11]

Oh my god, this (http://xkcd.com/502/)is so depressing and sad.

Yet kinda sweet, in a way.

[Flame of Anor]

http://xkcd.com/98/
http://xkcd.com/104/
http://xkcd.com/240/
http://xkcd.com/372/

These are also sweet.

[ericgrau]

http://xkcd.com/287/

I just couldn't resist. Wasn't too hard, what a dumb waiter.:smalltongue:

First I divided the cost of the menu items by $0.05 for simplicity:
43,55,67,71,84,116
total=301

The lowest 5 items add up to more than 301, so they must be gettng less than 5 appetizers. The highest 3 items add up to less than 301, so they must be getting more than 3 items. So they must be getting exactly 4 apetizers. I subtracted 43 from the cost of each item, and 43x4=172 from the total to further simplify things:
0,12,24,28,41,73
total = 129

The one's digits on all 6 add up to 18. The one's digit on the total is 9. So 18 minus the one's digits on the two apetizers they are NOT purchasing should equal 9. There 2nd & third highest one's digits are 4 & 3, so there's no way this works without involving the first highest one's digit: 8. That must be paired up with 1 to get 9, therefore 28 and 41 - i.e. the 4th and 5th appetizers are out. But wait, 0+12+24+73 = 109. There is no other way to get the proper one's digit, so there is no solution. The remaining appetizers on the solution I did get add up to $14.05 not $15.05, so I suspect a math error on the part of the comic creator.:smallbiggrin:

[Keris]

Unfortunately, you haven't included the possibility that they order more than one of each appetizer. There are in fact several solutions.

[Tirian]

Everybody stand back. I know Python.

<swoop>


def xkcd287():
menu = [43, 55, 67, 71, 84, 116]
budget = 301

ways = [0] * (budget + 1)
ways[0] = 1
for appetizer in menu:
for i in xrange(budget + 1 - appetizer):
ways[appetizer + i] += ways[i]
return ways[-1]



>>> print xkcd287()
2
>>>


</swoop>

ETA: Okay, assuming you want me to do the waiter's job....


def xkcd287plus():
menu = {'mixed fruit':43, 'french fries':55, 'side salad':67,
'hot wings':71, 'mozzarella sticks':84, 'sampler plate':116}
budget = 301

ways = []
for i in xrange(budget+1): ways.append(set([]))

for appetizer, price in menu.items():
ways[price].add(appetizer)
for i in xrange(budget + 1 - price):
for order in ways[i]:
ways[price + i].add(order + ', ' + appetizer)

for order in ways[-1]:
print order


>>> xkcd287plus()
hot wings, hot wings, mixed fruit, sampler plate
mixed fruit, mixed fruit, mixed fruit, mixed fruit, mixed fruit, mixed fruit, mixed fruit

>>>

[Gez]

My solution:
Give 'em 2.15 worth of mixed fruits, and grab 12.90 as tip.

[Skippy]

Hey guys. Just wanted to post here because the last comic depressed me.

[Mando Knight]

The last comic (http://xkcd.com/513/)...


....


....

....is me... over and over and over again...

[Skippy]

The last comic (http://xkcd.com/513/)...


....


....

....is me... over and over and over again...

Make it two of us.

[starburst98]

totally me too. why do us nice guys who like commitment never get the girl, in spite of the fact that the media shows that that is exactly what women want, it hurts my head.

[averagejoe]

Dudes, if you're being nice just to get the girl then you're, as we say on the internets, doing it wrong. Or, really, if you expect anything out of niceness or commitment loving. Even if you're a nice dude you still have to be the sort of person that she wants to date. (Varies from woman to woman, but you know.) Niceness does not equal good romance.

And, really, it is kind of a crappy thing to do, putting a close friend in that position. Two of my (female) friends each recently had their best friends (both male) try to ask them out. Suffice it to say, both of them felt really bad (to say the least) and found the situation to be both awkward and painful.

Point is, if you want someone to like you, you can't say, "Oh yeah, well I'm the sort of guy you SHOULD like!" That's just as annoying and pretentious as when authors and writers go, "You shouldn't like this stuff, this is stupid stuff meant only to feed the masses, a.k.a. stupid people. You should like the stuff I do because it's True Art."

You should also maybe think about why those girls like the less savory dudes. No girl goes into a relationship going, "He's a total ****! That's just perfect!" All guys start out as nice guys.

So, yeah. That was much longer than I meant it to be. In conclusion, be proactive, don't just blame other people for your problems. I say this not for ethical reasons, or whatever, but because I've experimentally verified that this produces good results more often.

[Greep]

totally me too. why do us nice guys who like commitment never get the girl, in spite of the fact that the media shows that that is exactly what women want, it hurts my head.

Probably cause mainstream media is pure fantasy, >.> if it weren't would you listen to it?

Don't get me wrong, being nice I think is a plus in my experience, but honestly does a nice woman who's homely as a mule and weighs 9000 pounds (overestimated to not offend anyone :D) attract you? Neither would a nice guy who was homely as a mule and weighed 9000 pounds attract a woman I'm guessing. Even if you're not "generally low charism" some people just will not like you. Solution? Don't tie your hopes to one person ;)

[Ganurath]

Make it two of us.Three. Unlike the character (and presumably unlike Mando and skippy) I'm not trying to do this, I'm just spineless when it comes to getting into a relationship due to a combination of fear of rejection and reasonable grounds for rejection.

[sun_tzu]

totally me too. why do us nice guys who like commitment never get the girl, in spite of the fact that the media shows that that is exactly what women want, it hurts my head.

...I think you completely missed the point of the comic.
The guy speaking here is the jerk. Because he doesn't have the courage to, you know, ask her out, he decides instead to act like her friend in the hope she'll eventually settle for him. He's being dishonest, manipulative, and spineless, all in one package.

[Gez]

Yup. He's actually being a creep, not a nice guy. His "selfless friendship" is just an act.

[ninja_penguin]

Yeah, I realized a bit ago that if you're being a 'nice guy' only for the sake of trying to be next in line, you're about as bad as the 'jerks' that you rant about, but you're being ludicrously passive aggressive about it. I make a conscious effort to think about if I enjoyed a woman's company for the sake of conversation etc. in itself, or if I'm lying to myself whenever I try to remain friends, and work from there, and I think it's been better for my head overall.

[Mando Knight]

The guy speaking here is the jerk. Because he doesn't have the courage to, you know, ask her out, he decides instead to act like her friend in the hope she'll eventually settle for him. He's being dishonest, manipulative, and spineless, all in one package.

...that's kinda harsh. For me, at least, the fear of the loss of a friendship due to rejection is nearly unbearable. Many of the women I find myself attracted to have personalities that I find I can more easily form friendships with.

He is a bit manipulative, but that's all he's got. When you're treading on eggshells, and the only way to get through without cracking the eggs is to use tricks. His plan is to try to show the girl that he's reliable... the shoulder to cry on, the friend to watch corny B-movies with, the man who will stand with her to the ends of the earth. You're taking it to mean that what he tries to show her is a facade, but for many (myself included), it might just be exactly who he is.

Ulterior motive? Yes. Manipulation? Yes. Honesty? For some, yes. Honest manipulation. Sounds funny, doesn't it? Trying to influence someone to like you because you are what you say you are.

[Gez]

You really think a "no" to a date means that you can't be friend afterwards anymore?

Or is it that maintaining the friendship is simply not worth it anymore?

[JMobius]

I have mixed feelings about XKCD. It has a pretty bad hit-miss ratio for me personally. I do think that this recent comic is very good, though, and quite possibly the most insightful the strip has ever been.


He is a bit manipulative, but that's all he's got. When you're treading on eggshells, and the only way to get through without cracking the eggs is to use tricks. His plan is to try to show the girl that he's reliable... the shoulder to cry on, the friend to watch corny B-movies with, the man who will stand with her to the ends of the earth. You're taking it to mean that what he tries to show her is a facade, but for many (myself included), it might just be exactly who he is.

Ulterior motive? Yes. Manipulation? Yes. Honesty? For some, yes. Honest manipulation. Sounds funny, doesn't it? Trying to influence someone to like you because you are what you say you are.

Having been that guy at some point, I have to say that my personal experience suggests that this is not the case as often as men would like to believe. The reasons vary, and can be complicated, but many that I've seen that think they're not putting up a facade just don't even realize it themselves.

I'm sure there are exceptions, there always are. But I do think that most men in this category are just like the comic portrayal, simply with lesser degrees of self-honesty and self-awareness.

[Ganurath]

You really think a "no" to a date means that you can't be friend afterwards anymore?

Or is it that maintaining the friendship is simply not worth it anymore?That's turned out to be the case here, despite my efforts to maintain the friendship.

[Green Bean]

...that's kinda harsh. For me, at least, the fear of the loss of a friendship due to rejection is nearly unbearable. Many of the women I find myself attracted to have personalities that I find I can more easily form friendships with.

There's a pretty big difference between being friends because you like them, and being friends so you can passive-aggressively manipulate them into a sexual relationship.

[Mando Knight]

No, it's the rejection in and of itself that causes the fear of a lack of friendship. Not everyone has high self-esteem, and with some, that causes a subconscious link between "I don't want to date you" and "I find you to be a poor choice for a friend" ...and can cause them to withdraw from society. Hard. The emotional pain due to rejection can be inconceivably intense... even worse than the anguish caused by not attempting it in the first place. The reward for success? Great. The punishment for failure? Unbearable (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FateWorseThanDeath). It seems silly, but the mind doesn't always act logically.

It's almost trying to win the lottery when every losing ticket is a punishable felony. It almost becomes a Kobayashi Maru situation: the only way to win is not to play, but the reward for not playing is simply the lack of punishment.

...also, there is the problem in that everywhere I go, all the females seem to be perpetually in a relationship with someone else more attractive/"better," so that doesn't help.

Anyway, this discussion probably belongs more in the "Relationship woes & whatever else fits in the title" thread...

[Greep]

No, it's the rejection in and of itself that causes the fear of a lack of friendship. Not everyone has high self-esteem, and with some, that causes a subconscious link between "I don't want to date you" and "I find you to be a poor choice for a friend" ...and can cause them to withdraw from society. Hard. The emotional pain due to rejection can be inconceivably intense... even worse than the anguish caused by not attempting it in the first place. The reward for success? Great. The punishment for failure? Unbearable (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FateWorseThanDeath). It seems silly, but the mind doesn't always act logically.

It's almost trying to win the lottery when every losing ticket is a punishable felony. It almost becomes a Kobayashi Maru situation: the only way to win is not to play, but the reward for not playing is simply the lack of punishment.

...also, there is the problem in that everywhere I go, all the females seem to be perpetually in a relationship with someone else more attractive/"better," so that doesn't help.

Anyway, this discussion probably belongs more in the "Relationship woes & whatever else fits in the title" thread...

Well sure but it works just as well in this thread so "meh"

But yeah, I think you just need to go in with the mindset that even the most attractive people are going to get rejected a lot. Heck, if pretty much any movie actress wanted to be my girlfriend I'd probably say no! (Heh, messing around would be a totally different story tho ;)) I personally am only going to settle down with some pretty laid back.

As for the comic... I think you all missed it :P The guy's a jerk because he said "Let's be friends blah blah, I'll be there for you when the guys you date hurt you.. blah blah" Then the second she dates someone he gets jealous.

[ZtM]

You guys realize that the last xkcd strip is a criticism of that approach to dating right? It's saying that doing things that way is manipulative and hurtful.

Anyway, overall I'm not a very big fan of XKCD although I understand most or all of the jokes. I pretty much only look at the strips when they're posted elsewhere or someone links to them.

I did find the nostalgia (http://xkcd.com/318/) comic amusing though, largely because I saw it the day after I had been reminiscing with a friend from my old highschool about our old trolling shenanigans.

[Suicide Junkie]

The guy's a jerk because he said "Let's be friends blah blah, I'll be there for you when the guys you date hurt you.. blah blah" Then the second she dates someone he gets jealous.

He did say he was going to do that way back in panel 6.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Just read the latest strip. Douglas Addams called this "The familiarity routine" in Dilbert. You get them used to your foibles and, um, issues by being around them a lot and when they become so emotionaly damaged they can no longer date, there you are.

NOT healthy.

[Tirian]

Douglas Addams called this "The familiarity routine" in Dilbert.

Scott Adams. Douglass Adams is the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe guy, and the two-d guy is Charles Addams who created The Addams Family.

[Gez]

Scott Adams. Douglass Adams is the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe guy, and the two-d guy is Charles Addams who created The Addams Family.

You know, there's the kernel for the Best Crossover Ever here.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Scott Adams. Douglass Adams is the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe guy, and the two-d guy is Charles Addams who created The Addams Family.* Head-Desk * Ooops.
You know, there's the kernel for the Best Crossover Ever here.Mix in Stephen Fry (not a character, the actual man) as the villain and Discworld's Death and we can talk.

[Zocelot]

Three. Unlike the character (and presumably unlike Mando and skippy) I'm not trying to do this, I'm just spineless when it comes to getting into a relationship due to a combination of fear of rejection and reasonable grounds for rejection.

Four. That comic hit really close to home for me.

As a side note, has anyone seen this work with the roles reversed?

[Cleverdan22]

I used to hate XKCD, in that you needed to know physics and all that crap to get the jokes, and he used to try to be too deep. Lately, he seems to have realized a clear audience and his jokes are funnier. Also:

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d68/Toenail22/scantron.png

[Ozymandias]

I have mixed feelings about xkcd of late. When it's funny it can still be really funny, but a lot of the more serious strips tend to leave a bad taste in my mouth. It's also begun to focus a lot more on relationships recently, and a lot more on sex, which makes me sort of uncomfortable because of the way those things are presented in the comic. I can't really put my finger on it, but it may have something to do with the art or the fact that there aren't really characters. I also really don't like the way the comic praises immaturity in the way that it does - but that's really more of a personal hangup.

The jokes can still be really funny, though, as I've said. It's just not consistent in its delivery.

Plus, the idea behind the "Friends" comic (which I thought was a puerile and overly cynical one_ was basically taken from Something Positive (http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp02142004.shtml) circa 2004.

[Pearl]

As a side note, has anyone seen this work with the roles reversed?

Sure. When I switched schools I quickly had several girls make friends with me and then put pressure on taking it past that at dances and stuff. And now I don't really speak with any of them, a year and a half later, because it wasn't worth it to them to keep talking to me after all I wanted was to be friends.

Does that count, or am I completely misinterpreting the comic?

[Greep]

I have mixed feelings about xkcd of late. When it's funny it can still be really funny, but a lot of the more serious strips tend to leave a bad taste in my mouth. It's also begun to focus a lot more on relationships recently, and a lot more on sex, which makes me sort of uncomfortable because of the way those things are presented in the comic. I can't really put my finger on it, but it may have something to do with the art or the fact that there aren't really characters. I also really don't like the way the comic praises immaturity in the way that it does - but that's really more of a personal hangup.

The jokes can still be really funny, though, as I've said. It's just not consistent in its delivery.

Plus, the idea behind the "Friends" comic (which I thought was a puerile and overly cynical one_ was basically taken from Something Positive (http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp02142004.shtml) circa 2004.

I don't think XKCD's ever been consistent, just look at it's early stages. It's just, when it's good, it's mindblowingly awesome. So we're always gonna keep reading even during the lulls :D

[Rogue 7]

I've seen a lot of comments on the whole "nice guy" routine comic, and just feel like leaving my 2 cents. I was probably that guy more than I'd care to admit in high school, with the caveat that it never worked, largely due to self-esteem issues. But there is certainly a difference between being friends with someone whom you'd like to go out with and the method used here. I'm sort of in that situation right now- I'm friends with a girl who I would very much like to go out with. Problem is, obviously, she's dating another guy. He's not a jerk by any means (I know him reasonably well), he's actually quite nice. So we're friends. I'm up at school, but we've been talking a bit online and whatnot. Casual stuff, y'know? I don't flirt or anything, I'm just a friend. And you know what? If that means I'm never going to go out with her, fine. I can most certainly deal with that. I'd much rather simply be friends long-term than date for a few months, break it off, and never talk with her much again. Does that make me sketchy in any way?

[latwPIAT]

I have mixed feelings about xkcd of late. When it's funny it can still be really funny, but a lot of the more serious strips tend to leave a bad taste in my mouth. It's also begun to focus a lot more on relationships recently, and a lot more on sex, which makes me sort of uncomfortable because of the way those things are presented in the comic.
I'm not certain, but I've held the impression that in the beginning, Randal Monroe had no girfriend and was slightly depressed, but brightened up when he got a girlfirend. I'm probably wrong, but I would be a convenient explanation.

[Tom_Violence]

As a side note, has anyone seen this work with the roles reversed?

From a personal point of view, I've been the guy in a role-reversed situation of this ilk. Its not great, really. No matter what anyone says, things do change when you find out that someone doesn't just see you as a friend, and if you don't believe me then just be introspective about it. Imagine if even your closest friend (gender irrelevant) told you that they're attracted to you. I sincerely doubt that you'd see them in exactly the same way afterwards. Things become at best a bit awkward, at worst completely uncomfortable depending on what lengths they go to. A shallow attraction admitted sooner is easiest to recover from. One that has dwelled on itself for a long time is much worse. Either way though, things are very likely to go pear-shaped for a bit.

@Mando Knight - Don't think that what makes someone attractive as a friend is the same thing at all as what makes someone attractive for things more. Down that way madness lies. I think that's one of the biggest problems a lot of people have. You can be the best friend ever to someone, but if they want something else out of a lover then you'll never ever get anywhere. And if you're completely paralyzed by fear of rejection, I would genuinely suggest some professional help, no word of a lie.



Oh, and for the record xkcd still only ever gets a 'meh' from me, but this one at least moved slightly closer to the 'mildly interesting' edge of that 'meh'.

[Radar]

I've seen a lot of comments on the whole "nice guy" routine comic, and just feel like leaving my 2 cents. I was probably that guy more than I'd care to admit in high school, with the caveat that it never worked, largely due to self-esteem issues. But there is certainly a difference between being friends with someone whom you'd like to go out with and the method used here. I'm sort of in that situation right now- I'm friends with a girl who I would very much like to go out with. Problem is, obviously, she's dating another guy. He's not a jerk by any means (I know him reasonably well), he's actually quite nice. So we're friends. I'm up at school, but we've been talking a bit online and whatnot. Casual stuff, y'know? I don't flirt or anything, I'm just a friend. And you know what? If that means I'm never going to go out with her, fine. I can most certainly deal with that. I'd much rather simply be friends long-term than date for a few months, break it off, and never talk with her much again. Does that make me sketchy in any way?
No, it's totally fair to be friends with someone, you might want to go out with.

The guy in the said comic was a jerk because he consciously wished that girl's relationships to fail one after another. Thus he wished all bad for her, while claiming, it's because he loved her.
True love sometimes means to let go. It might hurt (and a lot - frankly i wish, i hadn't had that much experiance in that matter), but one cannot force fealings on somebody.

[ericgrau]

Just read the latest strip. Douglas Addams called this "The familiarity routine" in Dilbert. You get them used to your foibles and, um, issues by being around them a lot and when they become so emotionaly damaged they can no longer date, there you are.

NOT healthy.

I'd say that recent comic shows why "nice guys" aren't actually all that great for girls. Once she sees it laid out plainly, it makes it even easier to see that the jerk is the better choice. As least in comparison.

I'd call "nice guys" a bunch a self-righteous jerks. The only difference is that they're jerks and proud of it. Wait a second, that's not different either. The only real difference is that they get screwed while the other guy gets the girl. At least as much of a jerk, except they're just plain pathetic for not getting anywhere with it.

No offense to people who are just shy and wish they weren't.

Kind + forward = better.


Everybody stand back. I know Python.


<swoop>


def xkcd287():
menu = [43, 55, 67, 71, 84, 116]
budget = 301

ways = [0] * (budget + 1)
ways[0] = 1
for appetizer in menu:
for i in xrange(budget + 1 - appetizer):
ways[appetizer + i] += ways[i]
return ways[-1]



>>> print xkcd287()
2
>>>


</swoop>

ETA: Okay, assuming you want me to do the waiter's job....


def xkcd287plus():
menu = {'mixed fruit':43, 'french fries':55, 'side salad':67,
'hot wings':71, 'mozzarella sticks':84, 'sampler plate':116}
budget = 301

ways = []
for i in xrange(budget+1): ways.append(set([]))

for appetizer, price in menu.items():
ways[price].add(appetizer)
for i in xrange(budget + 1 - price):
for order in ways[i]:
ways[price + i].add(order + ', ' + appetizer)

for order in ways[-1]:
print order


>>> xkcd287plus()
hot wings, hot wings, mixed fruit, sampler plate
mixed fruit, mixed fruit, mixed fruit, mixed fruit, mixed fruit, mixed fruit, mixed fruit

>>>


Guess I should have coded it up after all. So that's Python? Looks like a cross between BASIC and Java. The question is, though, how was the waiter supposed to solve it using a more mathematical approach, as suggested by the reference material?

[chionophile]

I don't think XKCD's ever been consistent, just look at it's early stages. It's just, when it's good, it's mindblowingly awesome. So we're always gonna keep reading even during the lulls :D

And the lulz. :smallbiggrin:

[MeklorIlavator]

I'd say that recent comic shows why "nice guys" aren't actually all that great for girls. Once she sees it laid out plainly, it makes it even easier to see that the jerk is the better choice. As least in comparison.

I'd call "nice guys" a bunch a self-righteous jerks. The only difference is that they're jerks and proud of it. Wait a second, that's not different either. The only real difference is that they get screwed while the other guy gets the girl. At least as much of a jerk, except they're just plain pathetic for not getting anywhere with it.

No offense to people who are just shy and wish they weren't.

Kind + forward = better.


Personally, I wouldn't classify the guys in the comic as nice guys. Being passive aggressive and betraying trust is not a nice thing to do, and is in many ways worse than being a visible jerk.

Oh, and

The only real difference is that they get screwed while the other guy gets the girl.
I think the point is that they don't get screwed.

[Tirian]

So that's Python? Looks like a cross between BASIC and Java. The question is, though, how was the waiter supposed to solve it using a more mathematical approach, as suggested by the reference material?

It's a lot easier to be powerful with a few lines of code than BASIC or Java or just about anything else. For instance, the variable "ways" in the second program references a list of sets of strings, which would require a half-page of declaration and huge lines to iterate through if you were using a language with normal STL containers.

And that is the mathematical approach. :smalltongue: The first of my programs (to find the number of possible solutions) uses generating functions, and the second program (listing the exact orders) is the graph theory problem of finding all paths between two vertices in a directed graph.

I don't know where Randall is coming from claiming that this is an NP-complete knapsack problem, because it is just a one-dimensional packing problem and is quite tractable in polynomial time. Now, if the request was to spend $15.05 to get as much food as possible but not over 4000 calories worth, that would be a knapsack problem that would become enormously complex as the number of entrees grew.

[Turcano]

Now I know what I want (http://xkcd.com/520/) for Christmas.

[Rockphed]

And now (http://xkcd.com/521/) we see why mathematicians should not be allowed to run budget cuts.

[Gez]

It's also begun to focus a lot more on relationships recently, and a lot more on sex, which makes me sort of uncomfortable because of the way those things are presented in the comic.

R.H. Milholland noticed the same thing (http://www.superstupor.com/sust12222008.shtml) (it's tiny, but the advert reads: "Math. Sex. Stick Figures. xxxkcd.").