Friday, December 10, 2010

Comics 831 and 832: A Losing Game

weather

[ALT: Ever notice how there aren't as many thunderstorms now as there were when you were a kid? Much like 'the shuffle on my MP3 player has a bias', this is occasionally true but universally believed. Brains are so interesting!]

Man, I get distracted for a couple days and Randy goes all shitty on us again. Hello, Randy! I'm glad you're back to your old self again.

Not much to say about the weather comic. It's a really boring observation--hey, ever notice how sometimes the weather breaks up around you? I think the joke is supposed to be that this actually happens because the weather people are stalking you and feed you false information or something? The alt text here bothers me, because I'm pretty sure "universally believed" is not, in fact, remotely accurate. Randy needs to stop making observations that aren't accurate and pretending he's found some fascinating insight into the workings of the human brain.

And then we have the tic-tac-toe comic! This is incredibly, incredibly boring. We get it, we've solved tic-tac-toe. It's an incredibly simple game. This poster is not visually interesting, intellectually interesting, or funny. It's a complete waste of time. It's also not the best way to present this data--it's not really very easy to read.

I hope Randy does more graphs of presenting information we intuitively grasp in a hard-to-read chart form. This could be a lot of fun! Maybe he can do a map of the local park, and note that the sidewalks do not present an optimal way to get from point A to point B. Maybe then someone will finally love him!

Too afraid to go to the forums for these.

UPDATE! A helpful reader offers this link, which is basically identical to Randy's comic in every way.

98 comments:

  1. The force is strong in you, Rob. The forums are even more of a festering shithole than usual, even on 832. It's really not worth going there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The tic tac toe comic is so laughably illegible that I actually UNlearned how to play from trying to understand it, and like everyone else older than ten, I already understood optimal tic tac toe.

    "Your opponent has to be in idiot" is not a winning strategy unless you play against Randall's average fan, I guess.

    I was thinking about the Tower of Hanoi while bored out of my skull last week, and thought, "You know what would make such a shitty XKCD that I'm surprised it doesn't already exist? A graph showing the relationship between the number of 'discs' and the number of moves required to solve it."

    And now there's Tic Tac Toe, which is even more childish and stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  3. argghh rob you're so boring

    where the fuck is redux

    ReplyDelete
  4. >Bret
    A graph showing f(n)=2^n-1?
    Sorry if my sarcasm detector is broken.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm anon 8:07 and I apologise for my stupid post.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rob, you should point out his comic's likeness to the chart in the following link: http://www.stonybrook.edu/philosophy/fractal/2Tic.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. What... what the fucking fuck. I've never bought into the whole "RANDALL IS THE CHEATZ0R!1" storyline. But this... this is ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  8. He prob thought he had changed it enough by making it quite a bit worse than the original.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Someone on the forums linked to that same chart and added:

    "Though I admit Randall's version is a lot cleaner. I've seen this already before, and in different ways too, so I'm kinda sad, but still must've taken him a long time to do it."

    So, somehow Randall's shitty version is "cleaner?" And even though it's been done before, Randy gets a pass because it "must've" taken him a loooong time!

    ReplyDelete
  10. The holocaust took quite a long time too...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yeah, but was the Holocaust done before, and in different ways?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I've never, ever heard of the "more thunderstorms when you were a kid" thing. What the hell is Randy talking about? Or is he just pulling stuff out of his ass and acting like it's universal?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Of cause genoicde has been done before. In some cases even with the jews as its victems. What a silly question...

    ReplyDelete
  14. I can't be the only one who finds the alt-text really patronising. I mean, I find it INTERESTING, sure. But "Brains are so interesting!" complete with the exclamation mark is the kind of phony enthusiasm that a teacher might use while addressing a class of idiots. It's just not how anybody would ever speak.

    I don't always buy the "unrealistic dialogue" criticism, think it's slapped around a bit too much on this site, but that's a prime example if ever there was one - and it's just him expressing his inner feelings. Maybe he just speaks really bizarrely.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @12:13
    I agree and it also wasn't even very relevent. I can think of many much greater examples that show how interesting and amazing the human brain is...

    It kinda reminded me of when he made that comic about jokes in the past as though he was a genious for just realising this. When not only is it commen sense but there are also also unlimited proofs most obvious being shakespear.

    Patronising and quite thick

    ReplyDelete
  16. ...wow, Randall LITERALLY (not using the word ironically here) copied that tic tac toe fractal chart. Except for the shitty line work, and the fact that he automatically chose to start with the X in the upper right square instead of doing it the same as he did O (interestingly, the animation on the link anonymous 9:00 posted has X in the upper right corner when it starts).

    I feel like someone linked this in the other comment section, but I couldn't exactly find it, so here is a link of what Randall's chart is trying to do, but better:

    http://ted.mielczarek.org/code/ticfractoe.html

    ReplyDelete
  17. Off topic...have you guys seen CAPTCHArt? Seems like something this crowd would enjoy

    http://www.captchart.com

    ReplyDelete
  18. I solved Tic-Tac-Toe when I was around ten, and I don't even have particularly refined spatial reasoning skills. Try again when you solve *chess,* numbnuts.

    Nate, it's too bad you weren't being "ironic" about your use of the word "literally," because if you hadn't inserted that parenthetical you probably wouldn't have come off as a fucking dipshit who doesn't know what "literally" means.

    But don't worry, your not as bad as the fuckwit who decided to compare these idle doodles to the Holocaust. Feeling nice and edgy in your lonely little corner? I certainly hope so.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have life all figured out, yet at the end of the day I am so lonely...

    NT are stupid, I'm so superior!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sarge - "your" one to criticize grammar.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Haha who is this Sarge and whats he doing on the internet where everything is spelled wrong with bad grammer and everything is compared to the holocaust.
    Also i think 8:35 was being ironic. Ever heard comparing minor griveneces with huge global disastrous events for comic effect? Might not be very funny but there you go...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Your all dumasses. The holocaust was a thing where people died jeeze. Also I am the greatest chess player in my class, so suck that you conformist neurotypicals. I even mastered Tic Toe at the age of 10.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Guys why are we expecting an army officer to both have the astounding spatial reasoning skills to solve a game as horribly complicated as tic-tac-toe at the age of 10, and the intellectual agility understand the punchline of anon 8:35.

    I mean really clearly this is the best and the brightest of the american military right here folks.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Nate: I wasn't criticizing grammar, I was criticizing lexical semantics. Get your head out of your ass.

    And you're comparing a passive mis-type to a lamp-shaded catachresis? Though I guess the joke's on me, because why the FUCK would I use the word "catachresis" around a fuckstick like you?

    And I'm not in the military. Nice deductive reasoning, though.

    ReplyDelete
  25. All i know is that if i had been in the holocaust i would be happy Sarge was here to whiteknight me.
    And for the record while i am desperatly lonely i don't regard a holocaust reference as 'edgy'.
    So go fuck yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  26. :waves hand over head while making whooshing noise:

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ves, why are you defending Randall Munroe? Are you running on auto-pilot? Are you even aware of the words you're typing?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Nate: I wasn't criticizing grammar, I was criticizing lexical semantics. Get your head out of your ass.

    Um, I hadn't posted again since the last post with my name on it. I don't know why you think I was that anon. I pretty much own up to my posts no matter how stupid they are. But have fun pretending that you figured me out?

    Sarge, it's also too bad you apparently know fuck-all about this site because it's been a running joke for a few weeks now where someone will say "This comic LITERALLY made me bleed out of my eyes and puke out my intestines!" due to a cuddlefish using the word "literally" incorrectly. The reason for my statement in parentheses was to indicate I was not using the word ironically as many people here do from time to time.

    Also geez getting mad about Holocaust jokes? You might want to stay off the internet. I hear you can even see naked girls on it! Wouldn't want to destroy your innocent and pure mind after all.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Though I guess the joke's on me, because why the FUCK would I use the word "catachresis" around a fuckstick like you?"

    Nate's use of "literally" was fine. He could have left the word out and lost no meaning, as his qualifier suggests, but it's nothing to attack him over.

    However, "lexical semantics" is redundant. I suppose you thought it would make you sound smarter, though. Like using the word "catachresis" and splitting hairs on the difference between grammar and semantics. Your specialized knowledge (which I can tell you is not as deep as you seem to believe) does not give you the right to hold judgment over the intellects of others.

    Joshua, if you're wondering why no one likes you (and I'm just making an educated guess based on the admittedly tiny evidence I have of your character), in the "real world" and on the Internet, it's because of shit like this. It's not everyone else; it's you. Learn something about interpersonal relations, check your ego, and have a nice day.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Did you guys know that you can make yourself seem "credible" if you add in swearwords and make sure to offend every participant in the discussion? It's all about making sure everyone has to defend themselves, because if they attack you they're admitting their flaws, and if they defend it, then you are inherently flawless!

    Debate: a Solved Game.

    ReplyDelete
  31. You're all big poopy heads...


    Do I win?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Sarge makes me miss Mr. Pitchy. Aaaah, the illiterate fuckheads of yore were so much more fun than the illiterate fuckheads of today.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "However, "lexical semantics" is redundant."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_semantics

    Wait, you mean you guys don't want to be my friends? Well, SHIT, I thought I was making such a good first impression.

    Believe it or not, Nicholas, People who make Holocaust jokes (or "fucksticks" from now on) did not win a competition guaranteeing them the right to make such jokes without being called "Fucksticks." In fact, if these Fucksticks are clever enough to come up with a holocaust joke, I would think they're clever enough to defend themselves without needing you, Nicholas, to White Knight them on the XKCDSucks comments.

    And it's cute that you guys think someone using the word "literally" incorrectly is funny enough to be a running "joke." Who knew the frequenters of XKCDsucks wouldn't appreciate someone criticizing their sense of humor.

    ReplyDelete
  34. and *Nicholas,* thank you for the advice on my interpersonal relationships. I can only reciprocate: If you're wondering why no one likes YOU, in real life or on the internet, it's probably because of your shitty fucking beard.

    ReplyDelete
  35. And it's cute that you guys think someone using the word "literally" incorrectly is funny enough to be a running "joke."

    It's funny you say that since Randall kind of made a comic about someone using "literally" incorrectly and his fans thought it was comedy gold.

    Anyway it was one of those things that you kind of had to be there for. You don't find it funny, that's fine. Inside jokes are kind of like that. My parenthetical statement was a note that I wasn't using the word "LITERALLY" in the joke way. I don't see why it's something to get mad over.

    ReplyDelete
  36. oh noes, someone is offended about a holocaust joke. Because there are Very Important Things That You Cannot Joke About Ever, you guys.

    Except, not.

    Nate: Sarge has only recently discovered the internet, and even more recently discovered the fact that there are people with other opinions on it.

    With any luck, he'll calm down when he reaches the ripe old age of 16.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ves, that is just when things start to get wild.

    So how do people find this place? I honestly can't remember how I got here.

    Also, I'm pretty sure this covers it.

    Captcha: uncakedd. That what happens an hour or so after you drink a lot at a birthday party.

    ReplyDelete
  38. fortuitous google searches and the occasional link, I think.

    Ves: you weren't around in the glory days of our best trolls. oh, for the days of Ryan Learn to return!

    ReplyDelete
  39. UndercoverCuddlefishDecember 12, 2010 at 8:32 PM

    seriously everybody here is a troll if you do not get it i cannot help you

    ReplyDelete
  40. UndercoverCuddlefishDecember 12, 2010 at 8:33 PM

    that was aimed at nobody in particular

    ReplyDelete
  41. See the flowchart, we all end up the same if we aren't the "you guys have no talent" drones. Just hate them so much, those commie bastards.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I was recently in a discussion with jokes, jokes related to graphs and improperly labelled graphs in particular. And 833 doesn't amuse me, so I don't know.

    Maybe it's good and I am just blind, at least it has no PPD?

    ReplyDelete
  43. I actually chuckled at 833. Starts off looking like a typical stupid xkcd graph joke, but subverts your expectations at the end while still being nerdy.

    However, it is kind of the same joke as 304. Guy sees apparently nerdy girl, but upon further examination finds a particular flaw in her nerdiness, doesn't like her anymore. I still liked it, though.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Any mention of 304 necessitates a link to this review of Ender's Game, explaining that Orson Scott Card's novels are nerd-porn: http://plover.net/~bonds/ender.html

    ReplyDelete
  45. That was not necessary, only sufficient.

    Captcha: marry. Cool.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I took some notes from goatkcd...

    http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/765/goats.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  47. Oh good golly gosh, another shitty awkward breakup comic! With GRAPHS, to boot!

    Also you guyses remakes are HILARIOUS. I especially like the goatkcd one. I wish goatkcd would actually break up the monotony by putting the goatse in a different panel where appropriate, but what can you do...

    ReplyDelete
  48. Have any of you guys seen Flight of the Conchords? Remember the episode where Murray and the band become friends, and Murray graphs everything?

    Remember how much funnier that was than this new comic?

    ReplyDelete
  49. I'm pretty sure that randall doesn't label his axes consistently. I could be wrong- maybe it's just because he doesn't use a ruler and his graphs turn out looking like a chimpanzee with cereberal palsy was trying to do maths.

    Anyway- Randall's graphs are pretty fucking hard to reas

    ReplyDelete
  50. goatkcd 832 actually made me laugh. "Map for O:"

    ReplyDelete
  51. Literally is perfectly acceptable as a metaphorical qualifier. You don't have to mean a word in its (lol) literal sense to use it. I really can't stand people who get on their high horses about it and act like they're the fucking guardians of language (or lexical semantics), when all you're doing is being a small-minded cunt with no real eye for how language (or lexical semantics) work, and have worked for millennia.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I've done a limerick for this one, but I'm stopping putting them in the comments here and instead putting them in my new blog - limerixkcd!

    ReplyDelete
  53. Wait, who the hell is RANDALL for making a joke about unlabelled graphs? He has been criticised countless times for having done exactly that!

    What a fucker.

    ReplyDelete
  54. you BASTARD lear

    you could at least have linked back to us

    (no wonder you've had to start rhyming words with themselves)

    ReplyDelete
  55. @Ravenzomg

    That chart is awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Fernie Canto: I like to think he is making a self-aware joke about himself. Like to think that is.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @marman57

    Rnadall Munroe? Self-aware? HA! I could believe if he said instead "No, I just think I can do better than someone who makes graphs like these!"

    This was... bland. This sort of baint-and-switch joke is actually pretty jarring for me. Especially when the characters talk something like this:

    Funny one makes the build-up statement for the joke.
    Straight one: "Oh, because ?"
    Funny one: "No, because !"
    *rimshot*

    I'll give it to him, there was no PPD here and he actually showed the build-up, but the format of the joke itself bothers me. And the floating heads that only get worse! But, seriously, I'll chalk this up to personal taste, I just don't enjoy these jokes.

    Also, what was that cache site again? I forgot it. :|

    ReplyDelete
  58. ...oh, yes, Blogger doesn't parse < and >. Stupid me! =|

    "Funny one makes the build-up statement for the joke.
    Straight one: "Oh, because <common interpretation of the statement expected by the reader>?"
    Funny one: "No, because <wacky interpretation of that same statement>!"
    *rimshot*"

    ReplyDelete
  59. NEWEST COMIC SUCKED ASS

    Seriously? He already made this joke. And I loved it then. Now it just pisses me off.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @Anon 2:46

    "Literally is perfectly acceptable as a metaphorical qualifier. You don't have to mean a word in its (lol) literal sense to use it."

    Perhaps not, but "literal" is necessarily an exception in that it means, "This next part is NOT metaphorical." It's because words can be used in so many ways that something like "literally" needs to have one and only one meaning.

    "He was on fire." <- a figure of speech saying someone was doing really well
    "He was literally on fire." <- this means that the person is BURNING

    How are you going to convey that the person needs to be extinguished if "literally" is just a synonym for "really"?

    ReplyDelete
  61. sign language, duh

    ReplyDelete
  62. @Gamer_2k4

    Are we really going back to this "literal" discussion?

    Well, I have a suggestion: context. You can tell that the person needs to be extinguished by context.

    Besides, "really" is also a way of conveying "literally", as is "actually". In the end, I think one big part of language is context.

    ReplyDelete
  63. @Ann, Gamer_2k4

    I knew I should never enter this discussion. It was worth a laugh, though. :P

    ReplyDelete
  64. Re 833: It's a shame...things had largely been getting better of late. Cringe-worthy exceptions, of course, but...this just makes me want to vomit. We've seen this joke before, Randy. Using the same jokes isn't allowed unless you use it in a novel way or thoroughly subvert it, and tweaking the punchline a bit isn't acceptable to me.

    ReplyDelete
  65. 833 has got to be self-parody. I know, I know. You generally won't go broke betting on Randall's lack of self awareness, but this is an exception. The density of obliviousness required for 833 not to be self-parody would create a black-hole of clueless and rip the fabric of space time.

    833 has the same setup/joke as 701 (with genders reversed). 701 has a graph with the axes unlabeled.

    Is there a single graph xkcd that actually labels the axes properly? I can't find one. Most do have a label on the axes, but aside from ones with Google results, I haven't seen any that have the units on the both axes (there are a few that give the x-axis units). I realize the Google ones actually have real data behind them, and the rest are just made up for the joke, but I'm not even asking for real numbers. Just "low"/"high" would be good. Lord knows the media loves to present graphs where the axes lack units, which I would say is a worse sin than not explaining the difference between a million and a billion, but apparently Randall is OK with this kind of innumeracy.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Jesus goddamn assfucking shit cocksucking tit bitch motherfucker Christ why are the fucking heads floating

    Finally when randy's writing is no longer spectacularly, face-meltingly shitty, his art still is

    Rob is fat

    Raven please let me know if I forgot to include anything essential

    ReplyDelete
  67. @Ves: You forgot to include a MEANINGFUL LIFE.

    ReplyDelete
  68. WHERE IS REDUX!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  69. I think that finals week is really kicking the shit out of the xkcd hate blogs. Fucking college students, its going to get even worse when they get into the real world. Unless you're Randall Monroe, then you can be a t-shirt selling man-child for life.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Capn, I think Randall thinks he is sorta like Peter Pan, and he is just trying to bring some magic into people's lives, k? And by "bring some magic" we obviously mean "drag them away from their comfortable lives into a world of for-real pirates lacking any form of social infrastructure". Also he refuses to grow up and keeps hanging out with younger kids despite being born, like, 10 years before them. Maybe that is too many years, maybe it is not enough who knows.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Also, real post-secondary [sucks to your americo-centric "colleges"] students won't study for their finals until the day-of. That's what got me my 0 in business, very proud of that. Fuck business.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Also, Fuck Randall Munroe.

    Captcha: goricky. Fuck Randall, go ricky! woooo

    ReplyDelete
  73. Ravenzomg what the fuck are you on about?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Shits goin' down over at redux...

    ReplyDelete
  75. Damn, I'm gonna miss redux and his vicious little shitfits. Sad face.

    ReplyDelete
  76. @ anon 1:53- You're just not in raven's target audience.

    ReplyDelete
  77. whoa what the hell is happening at redux, he's postin spambot ads in hex and binary form and a link to comic 792

    ReplyDelete
  78. I have no fucking clue. A hack, maybe?

    Somehow I severely doubt he's simultaneously smart enough to write decent criticism of xkcd strips and childish enough to have this as a victory dance if he were, in fact, trolling the whole time.

    ReplyDelete
  79. if it's been randall the whole time then the guy is a brilliant comedian, who knew

    ReplyDelete
  80. Hmm, all the redux pages that popped up are gone now. Hack denied?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Oh, it's a silly hacker-cuttlefish or something.
    He said "xkcdsucks is next." then deleted all of his hax-posts

    ReplyDelete
  82. heyy it's back to "the xkcd hate will never die" and not "xkcd: suprisingly good"

    ReplyDelete
  83. Ves, you ARE my target audience <3.

    Also, wait, people come here expecting us to critique XKCD? That was, like, so last year.

    Who wants gratuitous colour which doesn't particularly add an element of professionalism in Wednesday's update? Too bad, you're getting it.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Bluh. An imitation of a hacker that apparently thinks a blog is a threat to Randall Munroe's business...

    Okay, let's lay down the big picture here. This blog has been running for two years now, I think. XKCD fandom is as strong now as it was before, especially with the addition of high school nerds. What I mean is: if you think we make a difference to XKCD, you're way insecure about the quality of the comic.

    Also, I just saw now the notices on Google Reader and, if I really know reader as well as I think I do, it'll stay there forever. Here's something:

    "Way to insult the one webcomic community that knows most about programming/hacking/etc."

    Yes. So good hackers that the site didn't stay down. So good at programming all he did was use Wordpress to... write posts! OMYGOD, so much l337n322!

    ...BLARG.

    PS.: I personally prefer my first theory that the author of redux suffered a breakdown of Dave Sim proportions.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Personally, I'm amused that he went for the least-trafficked xkcd-hate site. Not the flagship or anything, just a 2-month old blog that was dying anyhow.

    I guess blogger was resistant to his ub3r-1337 h4x0rz?

    ReplyDelete
  86. 834: Welp, at least he's keeping current.

    THAT IS ALL

    ReplyDelete
  87. "Way to insult the one webcomic community that knows most about programming/hacking/etc."

    Lessee. Gawker called 4chan a bunch of script kiddies or something. Some hackers calling themselves Gnosis took all of Gawker's passwords and put them in a torrent where they said something like "see, we're not all script kiddies".

    Then some script kiddie xkcd fanboi downloads the password file, and finds that somebody associated with xkcdsuxredux used the same password on Gawker and the blog. Script kiddies like xkcd.

    ReplyDelete
  88. @Sepia

    Given the clues given in the posts that were now deleted(a reference to xkcd 731), that's most probable. I forgot about the Gawker incident, even though it was... yesterday.

    Nonetheless, there's a good hacker there: the kiddie didn't even bother changing the password.

    ReplyDelete
  89. ...Who the hell actually refreshes the weather radar?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Well, how about this? I've chopped the diagonal of X and Y, as there's symmetry there, and merged them into one square.
    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2hofy20&s=7

    ReplyDelete
  91. Err... diagonals of X and O.

    ReplyDelete