tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post2644818389753300730..comments2024-03-17T05:03:46.056-07:00Comments on xkcd sucks: Comic 689: Robo TrumbleCarlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-335945014054389012010-01-21T15:00:16.256-08:002010-01-21T15:00:16.256-08:00No, he said that he's never heard of FIRST.No, he said that he's never heard of <i>FIRST</i>.R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-60496402584641528552010-01-21T12:24:47.287-08:002010-01-21T12:24:47.287-08:00@uncivlengr: You're an engineer under the age ...@uncivlengr: You're an engineer under the age of 30, and you've actually never heard of robot competitions? Really? Are you a software engineer, maybe?<br /><br />Ok. My bad. Turns out some people in our profession actually do live under rocks.Sam Fnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-9338972171877349562010-01-21T10:03:05.862-08:002010-01-21T10:03:05.862-08:00boo hoo, comedy is hard, apparently.boo hoo, comedy is hard, apparently.Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-48116949477552420972010-01-21T08:27:06.977-08:002010-01-21T08:27:06.977-08:00"So, either a comic is too esoteric for most ..."So, either a comic is too esoteric for most readers (and god forbid the reader is forced to learn something from it) or someone who has been involved in the field has heard the joke plenty of times thereby making it lame."<br /><br />How are those mutually exclusive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-590612688628071432010-01-20T17:33:51.874-08:002010-01-20T17:33:51.874-08:00So, either a comic is too esoteric for most reader...So, either a comic is too esoteric for most readers (and god forbid the reader is forced to learn something from it) or someone who has been involved in the field has heard the joke plenty of times thereby making it lame. Your analysis has really taken a nosedive along with the quality of xkcd, and a nosedive isn't something you can afford coming down from 10 feet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-59172783690599877232010-01-19T22:37:27.386-08:002010-01-19T22:37:27.386-08:00"Libraries are unnerving enough--millions of ..."Libraries are unnerving enough--millions of ideas surrounding you, towering over you."<br /><br />Hey, check it out... more evidence that nerds are a higher class of human by virtue of their ability to see ordinary things in a TOTALLY CRAZY and (dare I say) QUIRKY manner. Why, it was only a few comics ago we were reminded of the computer/God/cat-video connection, and john dredged up this little gem from the forums: "It's good to be a geek. Other people don't think this way."<br /><br />Ugh. But wait, I'm forgetting I'm not in xkcd's "target audience," who cream themselves on the barest tidbit of news about new technology anyway. And then the alt-text, something about a soda can, refrigerators... you know Randall, the food/sex thing was done a lot better on Seinfeld. Let's leave it to the pros, shall we?tsld32https://www.blogger.com/profile/08940250788365594985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-91670699706384606812010-01-19T22:13:50.224-08:002010-01-19T22:13:50.224-08:00Oops! He forgot to tell a joke!
(Unless he believ...Oops! He forgot to tell a joke!<br /><br />(Unless he believes that simply showing a dude with technology lust constitutes a joke.<br /><br />It worked for Penny Arcade, with the Gabe Unboxing The Nook comic, but that's because Gabe was already strongly characterized as a gadget whore. There's a difference.)John Magnumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04416392917805723793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-79933519971183305782010-01-19T20:09:03.369-08:002010-01-19T20:09:03.369-08:00I just went through the last 30 comics and noted t...I just went through the last 30 comics and noted the ones I thought relied entirely on a tired joke:<br />661, 664, 668, 670, 675, 676, 680, 683, 689<br />There were some others that used a tired joke, but these are the ones that I thought didn't even try to offer a new or unique take on it. That's about one in three. 690 at least tried to go beyond, "Man, aren't truthers crazy?"<br /><br />Still didn't work. Besides being a few years late to the party, ending by focusing on the truthers' reaction makes that the meat of the joke which just makes me think "too easy". The meat of the joke ought to be that one side of the compromise is accepted while the other is absurd. It also doesn't inform the joke at all. Instead, he should just lead in by saying his compromise theory was poorly received.<br /><br />The problem is that requires more of the compromise. I think it would help if the compromise were less salad bowl and more melting pot. Perhaps something about outsourcing building demolitions. I don't know.Way Walkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-7962236891106862492010-01-19T18:22:53.104-08:002010-01-19T18:22:53.104-08:00You know, I love how jokes about 9/11 conspiracy t...You know, I love how jokes about 9/11 conspiracy theorists have <a href="http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons" rel="nofollow">never</a> <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/9_11_conspiracy_theories" rel="nofollow">been</a> <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new_oliver_stone_9_11_film" rel="nofollow">done</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_of_the_Urinal_Deuce" rel="nofollow">before</a>...alexhttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-84576517934518805892010-01-19T16:02:28.512-08:002010-01-19T16:02:28.512-08:00NO i'm immune to psychological manipulation! a...NO i'm immune to psychological manipulation! any suggestion that my brain actually works the same way everyone else's does is FUCKING INSULTING, i'm not a sheeple!John Magnumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04416392917805723793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-63776689488979743772010-01-19T15:11:38.658-08:002010-01-19T15:11:38.658-08:00"I mentioned this to a friend one time. She p..."I mentioned this to a friend one time. She paused and said something to the end of, 'No, tequila definitely makes me crazier than other drinks.'"<br /><br />It's humorous there because the study didn't disagree, but it's not so funny when people don't get professional help because it's "all in their head".<br /><br />I kind of find these ideas amusing rather than offensive, like an optical illusion. I read a low level psychology text that was talking about suggestion and had a line about having a stiff neck. The next line pointed out that I just stretched my neck. Crazy.Way Walkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-76904594712448263752010-01-19T13:50:27.841-08:002010-01-19T13:50:27.841-08:00You've also pulled out that fucking chimera &q...You've also pulled out that fucking chimera "target audience" that nobody should believe. Does anyone really think XKCD's target audience is engineers?John Magnumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04416392917805723793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-76186513800174070322010-01-19T13:03:00.834-08:002010-01-19T13:03:00.834-08:00Well, Sam F, I'm an engineer that's never ...Well, Sam F, I'm an engineer that's never heard of "FIRST" before this comic, and believe it or not, being an engineer doesn't imply that you build toy robots for a living, or even as a hobby, or have any interest in toy robots whatsoever.<br /><br />I don't know what engineering world you came from that is universally preoccupied with toy building competitions, but you've certainly demonstrated your ignorance of the engineering world that the rest of us live in.uncivlengrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-86999914923491067512010-01-19T12:57:49.506-08:002010-01-19T12:57:49.506-08:00Cam: thanks!
Of course, the phenomenon is slightl...Cam: thanks!<br /><br />Of course, the phenomenon is slightly more complex when applied to people liking a webcomic despite the fact that it has started to suck, but in many ways it is nothing more than the fact that they have been conditioned to like it. The conditioning can be broken--many a person has stopped reading a webcomic that no longer held their interest, but it is usually after quite a while, and you usually find yourself realizing that you haven't been enjoying it for quite some time once you make that realization.<br /><br />There is a strange phenomenon that I am sure you have seen, Cam. It goes something like this: whenever someone mentions that what is taking place is almost certainly the result of some unconscious psychological mechanism, people act as if this is a highly offensive proposition--as if being subject to psychological principles is the same as being sub-sentient, rather than simply the result of the fact that the human brain has a lot of processes we aren't very aware of.<br /><br />On this point I'm being largely speculative, but I feel like half the time, these people will probably agree with the basic premise of a psychological study--they will just not agree that it applies to themselves or to people they like. There are also those who just don't agree with experimental data because they personally believe that it is false.<br /><br />My favorite example: there are studies which show that drinking tequila, for instance, does not make you behave any differently than drinking vodka or red wine or what have you--but that if you <i>believe</i> it will have a different effect, then you will behave accordingly.<br /><br />I mentioned this to a friend one time. She paused and said something to the end of, "No, tequila definitely makes me crazier than other drinks."rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-66562877350869352132010-01-19T12:33:16.280-08:002010-01-19T12:33:16.280-08:00holy fuck that was a long post.
tl;dr version:
I...holy fuck that was a long post.<br /><br />tl;dr version:<br /><br />If you have good reading comprehension skills, read ANY professional explanation of Pavlovian/Classical Conditioning, put aside your hate of this blog and love of xkcd (might be kind of hard, I know) and liken the explanation to Randall and his fanbase and you will see similarities, and there is no maybe you WILL see similaritiesCamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18388252234713990053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-24099290721985609652010-01-19T12:32:44.887-08:002010-01-19T12:32:44.887-08:00You, all you saying that Randall is writing about ...You, all you saying that Randall is writing about something that only highschoolers would know about are simply admitting that you aren't engineers or geeks. And are therefore not the comics target audience.<br /><br />FIRST is a highschool tournament, yes. But get this: most engineers also went to highschool!<br /><br />FIRST has been going on since 1992. Therefore people in their *late 30's* may have actually participated in this!!! o_O<br /><br />But *you* aren't expected to know that. You're not engineers. You're not xkcd's target audience.<br /><br />Why is it that when xkcd dumbs down too much, people here complain about it, yet when it's actually something that engineers know about, they still complain?<br /><br />NOTE: I generally enjoy xkcdsucks. And the comic itself sucked sandy balls. But all the comments about how this is a "highschooler" thing, so why should anyone else know about it simply display most people's (understandable) ignorance about anything to do with the engineering world.Sam Fnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-16656681378938880702010-01-19T12:30:08.125-08:002010-01-19T12:30:08.125-08:00I'm surprised you didn't explain Pavlovian...I'm surprised you didn't explain Pavlovian Conditioning Rob, so in your stead I will do it myself.<br /><br />so anon 12:01 was freaking that Rob was likening the xkcd fans and their reactions to xkcd as the same as a dog salivating at hearing the ring of a bell.<br /><br />I think what our anon fails to realise is what Pavlovian (or also called Classical) Conditioning is and how it works. See the thing with the dog is that Pavlov found out that if he had food out, his dog would smell it and start salivating, because he likes food (don't we all?) and he expected food to be served. This relationship has 2 parts, the Uncontrolled Stimulus (UCS) and the Uncontrolled Response (UCR). What happens next in the conditioning is that our friend Pavlov would ring a bell and serve food to his dog. The dog would eventually familiarize the ringing of the bell with the serving of food, so he would salivate every time he heard a bell, because as far as he knew food would come.<br /><br />This is the real conditioning, because Pavlov created a new relationship because he had control of how to make his dog salivate, and therefore expect food. The ringing of the bell is now the Controlled Stimulus (CS) and the dog salivating is now a Controlled Response (CR) because he will only salivate when he hears a bell, because bell ringing = food in his mind.<br /><br /><br />So what am I trying to say? Well if we think that Randall is Pavlov, Ravlov (as I shall now call the merger) saw that as he made jokes, people would laugh. He also realised at some point a few years ago, that he could put ANYthing up as a comic and people would laugh. You see why Rob called this Pavlov conditioning (or rather he likened it to)? Ravlov no longer has to try to get a rise out of his audience and we have evidence with every blog post because some brave soul will venture to the xkcd forum and bring back evidence that the fanatics will laugh regardless of what Ravlov wrote, read uncivlengr's post above for reference, hell go to the forums yourself and see it with your own eyes. You can deny how severe the damage Ravlov has done to people, but you can't deny that what has happened with his fanbase is a clear example of Classical Conditioning<br /><br />Of course I do not deny that EVERY webcomic on the net has a following like xkcd does, but it has been mentioned many times before that xkcd is really hard to ignore, and that is annoying to those of us who don't like it and don't want to read it, there is always someone we know who will make us read it against our will, we will see traces of xkcd everywhere, and it will sadden us more.Camhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18388252234713990053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-44939817821939905902010-01-19T12:16:36.010-08:002010-01-19T12:16:36.010-08:00uhm
serious dejavu. Did randall or someone not al...uhm<br /><br />serious dejavu. Did randall or someone not already do this?Person #1https://www.blogger.com/profile/17155647957555627795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-290588656971700762010-01-19T10:23:16.102-08:002010-01-19T10:23:16.102-08:00NEEEEEEEERD!NEEEEEEEERD!Ann Apolishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08566528013026340201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-31672371212048269272010-01-19T09:45:59.142-08:002010-01-19T09:45:59.142-08:00I LOSE money posting on xkcdsucks.
(I keep losin...I LOSE money posting on xkcdsucks. <br /><br />(I keep losing count so I am just going to write a small script that I will run at the end of each month to crawl this site and count my posts. kthx)aloriahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01318832080088871491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-31794128203496464032010-01-19T09:27:14.986-08:002010-01-19T09:27:14.986-08:00Just read the forum comments - 90% of them are &qu...Just read the forum comments - 90% of them are "Yay! This is awesome, I'm on the FIRST team!" or similar.<br /><br />The reference alone is clearly more important to the majority of the "target audience" than the comic.<br /><br />The other 10% point out that it's clearly a rule violation. It would be clever if it somehow circumvented the rules, but since it doesn't, one team might as well just bring a supersoaker to spray the other robots... it's just cheating.uncivlengrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-16709933480515421932010-01-19T09:19:08.353-08:002010-01-19T09:19:08.353-08:00And you were noting, that is.And you were noting, that is.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-22574479866300603612010-01-19T09:18:46.466-08:002010-01-19T09:18:46.466-08:00"And you are somebody who makes money writing..."And you are somebody who makes money writing about a comic that spends a lot of time referencing other things, so where does that leave you?"<br /><br />Oh man, I forgot about this bit.<br /><br />First, I don't make any money writing for XKCD Sucks. Carl might eventually make a small sum off it, and it is even possible he will share with his contributors.<br /><br />And second: I'm not sure what you're going for, here. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I am making my living writing for this blog--that complaining about XKCD has become my sole source of income.<br /><br />Does this somehow invalidate my argument that Randall is exploiting his audience by dropping references instead of writing his own material?<br /><br />I assume you're going for the idea that it is hypocritical of me to write about something else not being original when I rely on that other thing existing in order to make money. Yet what we do here is entirely other than reference XKCD. We write about it.<br /><br />Indeed, we write about how it is terrible and unoriginal. We are not really making claims to originality here, much in the same way that a novelist does not make claims to a brilliant rhyme scheme--it's just not appropriate for the medium. The critic criticizes. He analyzes. He looks for truths and subtexts and ideas within an existing work. It is more important that his analysis be accurate and insightful than that it be original. And perhaps it will be something new--just like it is very possible for a novelist to rhyme a few words. But that is not the point of criticism.<br /><br />It makes me wonder if people such as yourself understand that criticism is a separate field from the thing which it criticizes. It is as if we were criticizing a painting's choice of color and noting that the blog is written only in black and white.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-86313054612439041622010-01-19T09:13:01.328-08:002010-01-19T09:13:01.328-08:00"And to 30% of the people on this blog, that ..."And to 30% of the people on this blog, that come in here mocking xkcd "cuddlefish" because they apparently flock to xkcd and praise anything Randall says. Stop being hypocrites."<br /><br />I don't get where you're coming with this. There are more negative comments about Carl or his posts than positive ones. And even the xkcd-haters who come here (me included) disagree with him frequently.<br />Actually, find one post in this comment thread that compliments this blog update, or Carl.<br />Obviously, 'thanks' doesn't count. And any posts made after this one.<br /><br />Provide evidence please. If it's so rampant, surely it would only take you a few seconds to find.R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-88466849216906645682010-01-19T08:59:15.007-08:002010-01-19T08:59:15.007-08:00"Perhaps Randall is, rather than exploiting h..."Perhaps Randall is, rather than exploiting his audience, catering to it. And perhaps his audience is, rather than being exploited by Randall, being served by him. If he manages to make a comic that amuses people who participated in FIRST, or that just arouses nostalgia in those people, he's done them a service, the same way that singers who do Frank Sinatra at retirement homes are providing a service."<br /><br />Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?<br />Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?<br />And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes?<br />Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?Fat Tonynoreply@blogger.com