tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post8391620711300591971..comments2024-03-17T05:03:46.056-07:00Comments on xkcd sucks: Comic 797: LOLcustsCarlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comBlogger104125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-56487563421448898292010-10-29T07:21:16.972-07:002010-10-29T07:21:16.972-07:00Yes, I understand, you never installed Debian.Yes, I understand, you never installed Debian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-77185999020233752802010-09-29T06:22:42.847-07:002010-09-29T06:22:42.847-07:00Hey guys, can you please help me?
I don't get...Hey guys, can you please help me?<br /><br />I don't get the newest SMBC.Defiantnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-70451328346547642362010-09-29T03:40:16.093-07:002010-09-29T03:40:16.093-07:00oh okay gotchaoh okay gotchaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-20404877361157967672010-09-29T02:30:36.168-07:002010-09-29T02:30:36.168-07:00First of all, prescriptivists are stupid because t...First of all, prescriptivists are stupid because they are essentially creating a disconnect between language and communication.<br /><br />Second, 12:37 wasn't talking about what is correct, they were talking about what people would say, and seeing as people would add intensifiers to words with literal definitions that refer to dichotomies (a little bit pregnant), that's stupid. It is double stupid because even in the case of the scaler ones, it's just as semantically incorrect. "bored as shit"? Shit is inanimate, it can't be bored!i am a turd and i am not very stimulated right nownoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-28762028446525571562010-09-29T01:52:20.569-07:002010-09-29T01:52:20.569-07:00Anon 7:13
Isn't that only if you're a des...Anon 7:13<br /><br />Isn't that only if you're a descriptivist?<br /><br />If you're a prescrip[tivist then surely certain words occupy discrite binary states just because that's the way the grammar works?<br /><br />Like if you held a poll and 99% of the public thought 3+3=89 doesn't mean that fact becomes true.<br /><br />I donno- just a questionAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-53367239461548863392010-09-28T19:13:45.137-07:002010-09-28T19:13:45.137-07:00@Anon 12:37: Math is a liberal art, too. The liber...@Anon 12:37: Math is a liberal art, too. The liberal arts are the fields of study which are not technical, vocational, or professional, e.g. law and engineering are not liberal arts, but biology and mathematics are.<br /><br />Also, you can't just apply your own intuition about language and declare it to be the truth. It's all well and good to say, "Well, [I believe that] pregnancy and stochasticism are decidedly not continua, and are in fact discrete states!" But in linguistics—<em>real</em> linguistics, not armchair grammarianism—you have to support hypotheses with experimental data and studies and whatnot, or else it's just meaningless hypothesizing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-63650638322877082952010-09-28T17:17:38.453-07:002010-09-28T17:17:38.453-07:00Irregular webcomic is mostly a long series of chea...Irregular webcomic is mostly a long series of cheap jokes, usually devolving to one of its many running gags or a pun. That fourth one is just a statement about how ridiculously awesome wolverine is.<br />That said, it would be interesting to see someone here do another review like the one about QC. May I recommend Sluggy Freelance.Darjhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05380591004677775048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-34117612015401694922010-09-28T14:11:34.668-07:002010-09-28T14:11:34.668-07:00anon those are hilarious, in ways the author proba...anon those are hilarious, in ways the author probably didn't intend.R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-73078544116333250032010-09-28T13:22:59.478-07:002010-09-28T13:22:59.478-07:00Someone who's been pregnant for a month is &qu...Someone who's been pregnant for a month is "a little bit pregnant." Someone who's been pregnant for eight months is not.Gamer_2k4noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-55317294954865391652010-09-28T12:48:22.066-07:002010-09-28T12:48:22.066-07:00http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/1458.html
http://...http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/1458.html<br />http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/1640.html<br />http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2058.html<br />http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2317.html<br />http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2635.html<br />parodies of xkcdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-30695142458753377512010-09-28T12:42:40.931-07:002010-09-28T12:42:40.931-07:00"just as you can't be..."incredibly ..."just as you can't be..."incredibly blue-eyed"."<br /><br />You clearly haven't read a lot of adjective writing in your time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-85466634009536203882010-09-28T12:37:58.592-07:002010-09-28T12:37:58.592-07:00I'm not sure if some of the adjectives in the ...I'm not sure if some of the adjectives in the latest comic even work grammatically in the construction Randall is using. You wouldn't say "very peristrionic" or "very stochastic", either, because it's not the sort of quality that can be graded. Either something pertains to pigeons or it doesn't, just as you can't be "a little bit pregnant" or "incredibly blue-eyed". <br /><br />Sorry, linguistics is a liberal art!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-20756301891605668372010-09-28T12:12:13.267-07:002010-09-28T12:12:13.267-07:00http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1762...http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1762<br /><br />haha questionable content and xkcd are merging.<br /><br />it's like some terrible maths and relationship-based episode of power rangers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-18539671165691868912010-09-28T10:28:31.701-07:002010-09-28T10:28:31.701-07:00http://www.defectiveyeti.com/archives/002279.htmlhttp://www.defectiveyeti.com/archives/002279.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-6268369402850782652010-09-28T07:29:14.336-07:002010-09-28T07:29:14.336-07:00Anon 5:32: Agreed. I was somewhat into math back i...Anon 5:32: Agreed. I was somewhat into math back in high school (or our equivalent school form) but now I'm only interested in what appears practical to me - i.e. what I can imagine to be useful in a program. Although that generally covers a lot I'm more interested in actual software development than kinda "just knowing" about math things. (Does that exclude me from "nerd culture"?)<br />Although some logarithms (2, sometimes 10) are often useful, logarithmus naturalis isn't as often. I only ever used simple calculus stuff in any program too. (Now whether that says something about me as a programmer is open for debate.)<br /><br />I don't think delving into niche things really was what made the early xkcd better: true, he did it a lot, but it was mostly (as far as I understand them, anyway) somehow connected to an interesting observation or a joke in a way that made sense. Now, he's just making interchangeable (!) references to memes/concepts and/or draws something wacky and/or types wacky phrases into Google. (Most of the memes now are common internet denominator too.)Evlnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-82411029085983842752010-09-28T07:28:16.413-07:002010-09-28T07:28:16.413-07:00carl has actually previously asked if xkcdsucks ts...carl has actually previously asked if xkcdsucks tshirts would be viable<br />another reason to hate him!<br /><br />seriously though carl, please don'tR.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-29954900843749698002010-09-28T07:26:06.253-07:002010-09-28T07:26:06.253-07:00Okay posting this in parts now to try getting past...Okay posting this in parts now to try getting past Carl's dumb-ass censoring blog or whatever it is. (Maybe I'm just spamming the place with this. But I looked for my comments several times now and this sucks.)<br /><br />Anon 4:01: No way, you're missing Chaos's point. (Also Anon 5:27 saying there are improved xkcds. You are stupid and missed the point too.) She said that about making badly drawn charts of random Google results. That is neither the same as making a better xkcd, nor is it (exactly) copying xkcd. I think most would even agree it would not be a webcomic. Don't quote out of context, and learn to troll.Evlnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-21858021775981849722010-09-28T07:21:44.065-07:002010-09-28T07:21:44.065-07:00So here's my older longer post for the third t...So here's my older longer post for the third time. If Carl's dumb-ass blog will let it pass this time.<br /><br />Anon 5:32: Agreed. I was somewhat into math back in high school (or our equivalent school form) but now I'm only interested in what appears practical to me - i.e. what I can imagine to be useful in a program. Although that generally covers a lot I'm more interested in actual software development than kinda "just knowing" about math things. (Does that exclude me from "nerd culture"?)<br />Although some logarithms (2, sometimes 10) are often useful, logarithmus naturalis isn't as often. I only ever used simple calculus stuff in any program too. (Now whether that says something about me as a programmer is open for debate.)<br /><br />I don't think delving into niche things really was what made the early xkcd better: true, he did it a lot, but it was mostly (as far as I understand them, anyway) somehow connected to an interesting observation or a joke in a way that made sense. Now, he's just making interchangeable (!) references to memes/concepts and/or draws something wacky and/or types wacky phrases into Google. (Most of the memes now are common internet denominator too.)<br /><br />Anon 4:01: No way, you're missing Chaos's point. (Also Anon 5:27 saying there are improved xkcds. You are stupid and missed the point too.) She said that about making badly drawn charts of random Google results. That is neither the same as making a better xkcd, nor is it (exactly) copying xkcd. I think most would even agree it would not be a webcomic. Don't quote out of context, and learn to troll.Evlnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-22731319081391448662010-09-28T07:19:38.717-07:002010-09-28T07:19:38.717-07:00The fuck. Why can't I post 2 times in a row? I...The fuck. Why can't I post 2 times in a row? It always eats one of the comments. (First the older one, now the newer one?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-70785264482460503722010-09-28T07:17:14.509-07:002010-09-28T07:17:14.509-07:00THE FUCK HAPPENED TO MY LONGER POST. Ah luckily he...THE FUCK HAPPENED TO MY LONGER POST. Ah luckily here it is again:<br /><br />Anon 5:32: Agreed. I was somewhat into math back in high school (or our equivalent school form) but now I'm only interested in what appears practical to me - i.e. what I can imagine to be useful in a program. Although that generally covers a lot I'm more interested in actual software development than kinda "just knowing" about math things. (Does that exclude me from "nerd culture"?)<br />Although some logarithms (2, sometimes 10) are often useful, logarithmus naturalis isn't as often. I only ever used simple calculus stuff in any program too. (Now whether that says something about me as a programmer is open for debate.)<br /><br />I don't think delving into niche things really was what made the early xkcd better: true, he did it a lot, but it was mostly (as far as I understand them, anyway) somehow connected to an interesting observation or a joke in a way that made sense. Now, he's just making interchangeable (!) references to memes/concepts and/or draws something wacky and/or types wacky phrases into Google. (Most of the memes now are common internet denominator too.)<br /><br />Anon 4:01: No way, you're missing Chaos's point. (Also Anon 5:27 saying there are improved xkcds. You are stupid and missed the point too.) She said that about making badly drawn charts of random Google results. That is neither the same as making a better xkcd, nor is it (exactly) copying xkcd. I think most would even agree it would not be a webcomic. Don't quote out of context, and learn to troll.Evlnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-83381175727814784212010-09-28T07:15:03.158-07:002010-09-28T07:15:03.158-07:00Adorable: Are you stupid? First and foremost, why ...Adorable: Are you stupid? First and foremost, why didn't you invent Facebook when you had the time too? Second, you say "There are ideas for jokes that are extremely simple". I fail too see how googling random phrases then putting that in chart form makes a joke. It doesn't. (Not intrinsically, you pedants.)Evlnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-80239000134056571212010-09-28T07:10:14.323-07:002010-09-28T07:10:14.323-07:00Anon 5:32: Agreed. I was somewhat into math back i...Anon 5:32: Agreed. I was somewhat into math back in high school (or our equivalent school form) but now I'm only interested in what appears practical to me - i.e. what I can imagine to be useful in a program. Although that generally covers a lot I'm more interested in actual software development than kinda "just knowing" about math things. (Does that exclude me from "nerd culture"?)<br />Although some logarithms (2, sometimes 10) are often useful, logarithmus naturalis isn't as often. I only ever used simple calculus stuff in any program too. (Now whether that says something about me as a programmer is open for debate.)<br /><br />I don't think delving into niche things really was what made the early xkcd better: true, he did it a lot, but it was mostly (as far as I understand them, anyway) somehow connected to an interesting observation or a joke in a way that made sense. Now, he's just making interchangeable (!) references to memes/concepts and/or draws something wacky and/or types wacky phrases into Google. (Most of the memes now are common internet denominator too.)<br /><br />Anon 4:01: No way, you're missing Chaos's point. (Also Anon 5:27 saying there are improved xkcds. You are stupid and missed the point too.) She said that about making badly drawn charts of random Google results. That is neither the same as making a better xkcd, nor is it (exactly) copying xkcd. I think most would even agree it would not be a webcomic. Don't quote out of context, and learn to troll.Evlnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-21198166141885185812010-09-28T06:48:21.265-07:002010-09-28T06:48:21.265-07:00I wonder how much money Carl could earn by selling...I wonder how much money Carl could earn by selling "XKCD sucks" t-shirts with his angriest rants printed on them.<br /><br />Wait, I think I have an idea what the big revelation for comic 800 might be!Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-59336219786009212012010-09-28T06:40:30.691-07:002010-09-28T06:40:30.691-07:00Dear Chaos,
"How come nobody every pays me a...Dear Chaos,<br /><br />"How come nobody every pays me a bunch of money for doing random Google searches and then making a badly drawn chart out of the results? Because I could totally do that 3 times per week."<br /><br />Rob's brilliant essay does not cover your back on this one, my friend. You didn't say: "this comic is bad and I'm going to explain you why", you said "It's so easy, I could do the same." Well, if you want to make money out of drawing stupid things, do it; i mean, what else can we adorable cuddlefish respond to something like that?<br /><br />You're like people saying in front of an abstract painting: "my 6 year old could have painted that!" You're not saying anything on the quality of the painting, you're just saying it was easy.<br /><br />Is art good because it's hard to do? No.<br /><br />There are ideas for jokes that are extremely simple, but someone had to find it. of course, when you see it or hear it, you're bitter, because it was easy and you didn't think about it.<br /><br />I had the idea for facebook like in 1998. but now, Zuckerberg swims in a pool of 100dollar bills and I live with my mom in a tree under a bridge.<br /><br />This is SO UNFAIR!Adorable cuddlefishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-63460406817710934742010-09-28T05:36:33.606-07:002010-09-28T05:36:33.606-07:00I don't remember, did Randall ever do a chart ...I don't remember, did Randall ever do a chart on the frequency of "FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUU" by the number of Fs and Us? It's kinda interesting to know what is the canonical way to spell it.Timofeihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06478844501804517520noreply@blogger.com