ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Vicare
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:51 am UTC

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby Vicare » Sun Aug 23, 2009 10:48 pm UTC

JohnOldman wrote:I made a compilation of all "characters" who in my opinion should be included in the final battle because they are for some reason memorable (spoilered for length):
Spoiler:
    Barrel Boy
    Red Spiders
    Black Hat Guy
    Dinosaur (Apatosaurus?)
    Flying Ferret
    Guy with Golf Club (in another Comic this is the Black Hat Guy though)
    Someone with an RJX-21 Laser Scope Rocket Launcher
    M.C. Hammer Slide Girl
    Meerkat
    Boy with Balloon
    Electric Skateboard Guy (optionally with Glasses and Protective Gear)
    Djinn
    Guy in Hamsterball (alternatively Wayne Coyne in Hamsterball)
    4 Soldiers with Assault Rifles
    Guy in Kayak with Beret
    Super Soaker Guy
    Richard Stallman with Katanas
    Cat
    Distant Future Guy with Red Cape
    Labyrinth Guards
    Merlin
    Linux Guy with Motorbike
    Tape Measure Guy
    Wikipedian Protestor
    Velociraptor
    Toaster with Knife
    Rachel (Bride)
    Choir of Angels
    Floating Nostalgia People
    Joanna (Girl with Death Ray)
    Santa Clause
    Trebuchet
    Death
    Guy with Burning Tennis Racket
    Mario & Luigi
    Psychologist with Book
    Biologist with Octopus
    Chemist with Test Tube
    "That's What She Said" Guy
    Boomerang Guy
    Shark (with Ballon)
    Pope
    Ghost Busters
    Morgan Freeman
    Furry
    the Ronpaul Revolution Blimp
    (T)the Ronpaul
    Mephistopheles
    Upholstery Blonde
    People with Marshmallow Guns
    Cuttlefish
    Rick Astley
    Summer Glau
    Devil
    Don Quixote
    Blowtorch Guy
    Neo
    Benjamin Franklin
    Nathan Fillion
    Summer Glau (might need an action pose or speech to identify)
    Cheerleader
    Paul Erdös Zombie
    Special Unit for People Who Write in "DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE" space
    Woodpecker
    Little Prince
    Guy with Wings
    Newton
    Leibniz

I think I missed the physicist with the crossbow but I can't be bothered to try to figure out when he first appeared :-)


But wouldn't that imply that, while awesome, xkcd would have to end? It would be like if Gilligan figured out a way off the island. Yes, its would be entertaining. Worth never seeing another episode? No. Unless, somehow, the following comic was a rerun of Barrel-Part 1, then he began to introduce the characters again without referencing any old jokes, and possibly creatng a new staple character in the process... That would be cool.
GENERATION 2: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and subtract 1 from the generation. Social experiment.
---
quod erat demonstrandum, baby!

User avatar
lulzfish
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:17 am UTC

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby lulzfish » Sun Aug 23, 2009 10:55 pm UTC

JohnOldman wrote:Argh, I think I included her for the metric conversion cuz I thought her appearance there was hillarious and then when I got to the race, I didn't think of that because she doesn't do anything in the conversion one. Anyway, refresh my memory, which comic does Zombie Feynman appear?


I think he was in the Mythbusters one?

Walter.Horvath
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:33 pm UTC
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby Walter.Horvath » Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:50 pm UTC

lulzfish wrote:
JohnOldman wrote:Argh, I think I included her for the metric conversion cuz I thought her appearance there was hillarious and then when I got to the race, I didn't think of that because she doesn't do anything in the conversion one. Anyway, refresh my memory, which comic does Zombie Feynman appear?


I think he was in the Mythbusters one?

The OhNoRobot search is valuable.

User avatar
'; DROP DATABASE;--
Posts: 3284
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:38 am UTC
Location: Midwest Alberta, where it's STILL snowy
Contact:

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby '; DROP DATABASE;-- » Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:41 am UTC

What a tragic waste D:
poxic wrote:You suck. And simultaneously rock. I think you've invented a new state of being.

User avatar
The Scyphozoa
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Sector 5

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby The Scyphozoa » Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:04 am UTC

Image
3rdtry wrote:If there ever is another World War, I hope they at least have the decency to call it "World War 2: Episode One"

doogly wrote:murder is a subset of being mean

User avatar
'; DROP DATABASE;--
Posts: 3284
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:38 am UTC
Location: Midwest Alberta, where it's STILL snowy
Contact:

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby '; DROP DATABASE;-- » Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:16 am UTC

http://www.xkcd.com/625/ + http://www.xkcd.com/626/ = depressed mathematicians.
Spoiler:
xkcdsw-calculus.png
Maybe more people would be reacting if you weren't in an empty room.
xkcdsw-calculus.png (45.06 KiB) Viewed 8204 times
poxic wrote:You suck. And simultaneously rock. I think you've invented a new state of being.

JohnOldman
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:53 pm UTC

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby JohnOldman » Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:03 am UTC

Vicare wrote:
JohnOldman wrote:I made a compilation of all "characters" who in my opinion should be included in the final battle because they are for some reason memorable (spoilered for length):
Spoiler:
    Barrel Boy
    Red Spiders
    Black Hat Guy
    Dinosaur (Apatosaurus?)
    Flying Ferret
    Guy with Golf Club (in another Comic this is the Black Hat Guy though)
    Someone with an RJX-21 Laser Scope Rocket Launcher
    M.C. Hammer Slide Girl
    Meerkat
    Boy with Balloon
    Electric Skateboard Guy (optionally with Glasses and Protective Gear)
    Djinn
    Guy in Hamsterball (alternatively Wayne Coyne in Hamsterball)
    4 Soldiers with Assault Rifles
    Guy in Kayak with Beret
    Super Soaker Guy
    Richard Stallman with Katanas
    Cat
    Distant Future Guy with Red Cape
    Labyrinth Guards
    Merlin
    Linux Guy with Motorbike
    Tape Measure Guy
    Wikipedian Protestor
    Velociraptor
    Toaster with Knife
    Rachel (Bride)
    Choir of Angels
    Floating Nostalgia People
    Joanna (Girl with Death Ray)
    Santa Clause
    Trebuchet
    Death
    Guy with Burning Tennis Racket
    Mario & Luigi
    Psychologist with Book
    Biologist with Octopus
    Chemist with Test Tube
    "That's What She Said" Guy
    Boomerang Guy
    Shark (with Ballon)
    Pope
    Ghost Busters
    Morgan Freeman
    Furry
    the Ronpaul Revolution Blimp
    (T)the Ronpaul
    Mephistopheles
    Upholstery Blonde
    People with Marshmallow Guns
    Cuttlefish
    Rick Astley
    Summer Glau
    Devil
    Don Quixote
    Blowtorch Guy
    Neo
    Benjamin Franklin
    Nathan Fillion
    Summer Glau (might need an action pose or speech to identify)
    Cheerleader
    Paul Erdös Zombie
    Special Unit for People Who Write in "DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE" space
    Woodpecker
    Little Prince
    Guy with Wings
    Newton
    Leibniz

I think I missed the physicist with the crossbow but I can't be bothered to try to figure out when he first appeared :-)


But wouldn't that imply that, while awesome, xkcd would have to end? It would be like if Gilligan figured out a way off the island. Yes, its would be entertaining. Worth never seeing another episode? No. Unless, somehow, the following comic was a rerun of Barrel-Part 1, then he began to introduce the characters again without referencing any old jokes, and possibly creatng a new staple character in the process... That would be cool.

Well, I think your theory doesn't hold because xkcd is not an ongoing story as demonstrated by the numerous times some or all people die anyway. But you just gave me an interesting idea for the final battle. Not sure if I'll have time to do it though... those are a LOT of characters :-)

JohnOldman
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:53 pm UTC

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby JohnOldman » Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 am UTC

I felt that today's comic was lacking a very important point :-)
Spoiler:
flowchart-doyouusevista.png
flowchart-doyouusevista.png (213.83 KiB) Viewed 8157 times

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby Random832 » Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:34 pm UTC

The button in question on Vista is not, in fact, labeled Start (at least not when it's round).

Also, what if they have Windows 7?

JohnOldman
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:53 pm UTC

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby JohnOldman » Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Random832 wrote:The button in question on Vista is not, in fact, labeled Start (at least not when it's round).

I take great pride in the fact that I so far have been able to keep my Vista exposure at a level where I wasn't consciously aware of that :-)
But here is a corrected version.
Spoiler:
flowchart-doyouusevista.png
flowchart-doyouusevista.png (214.09 KiB) Viewed 8129 times

Random832 wrote:Also, what if they have Windows 7?

Since 7 is (kind of) not out yet and I also don't feel I'm able to judge how bad it is, I think it is perfectly justifiable, not to include it in the flowchart ;-)

schmalpal
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:52 pm UTC

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby schmalpal » Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:00 pm UTC

.
Last edited by schmalpal on Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:06 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
screech
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:20 am UTC

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby screech » Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:34 am UTC

I was annoyed that all my comics on the SWXKCD site seemed just to be swearing. I thought I made some good ones.

Here's one I thought of for some reason.
Attachments
cunni.PNG
And yet they would eventually form a partnership, resulting in the best science fair project that ever would be.
cunni.PNG (42.44 KiB) Viewed 8030 times
alitheiapsis wrote:HEY NOW DON'T TALK SHIT ABOUT BRONTOSAURUSES

User avatar
Decker
Posts: 2071
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:22 pm UTC
Location: Western N.Y.

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby Decker » Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:44 pm UTC

I'm greatly amused by the fact that he seems to have needed books and paper to invent that.
I was angry with my friend. I told my wrath. My wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe. I told it not. My wrath did grow.

User avatar
Maugchief
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:24 pm UTC

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby Maugchief » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:48 pm UTC

Variations on 316. I searched and I don't think the first one has been done yet, but I apologize if it has.

Spoiler:
loud2.PNG
I really need a girlfriend.
loud2.PNG (44.75 KiB) Viewed 7903 times
Spoiler:
loud3.PNG
I love this apartment.
loud3.PNG (62.17 KiB) Viewed 7901 times

User avatar
Magilla
Posts: 478
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:28 pm UTC
Location: Esperance, Western Australia
Contact:

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby Magilla » Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:46 am UTC

I love the second one.
They perceive my perambulations upon my gyroscopically-balanced personal transportation device, and have thus concluded that I am of Caucasian decent, and, while intelligent, I am also somewhat socially inept. - Peculiar Alfred

User avatar
Squid Tamer
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:59 am UTC
Location: Over there
Contact:

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby Squid Tamer » Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:35 am UTC

A flowchart for those who cannot reason at all:

Spoiler:
What_Now.png
What do I do next? Click random buttons?
What_Now.png (59.03 KiB) Viewed 7852 times

From 627 and 364.

User avatar
LuNatic
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:21 am UTC
Location: The land of Aus

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby LuNatic » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:08 am UTC

Maugchief wrote:loud2.PNG


Spoiler:
Image


That's a winner. Take your prize! ^^
Cynical Idealist wrote:
Velict wrote:Good Jehova, there are cheesegraters on the blagotube!

This is, for some reason, one of the funniest things I've read today.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby Xeio » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:16 am UTC

I haven't done an XKCDSW in a while. :P
notpsychic.png
I've tried it 500 times, that means that it should work the next 5 times in a row!
notpsychic.png (30.18 KiB) Viewed 7822 times
newton_and_lawerbniz.png
What? You were expecting a pun? This is no laughing matter.
newton_and_lawerbniz.png (39.23 KiB) Viewed 7818 times
Last edited by Xeio on Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:26 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8572
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby Zohar » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:25 am UTC

Is it weird I calculated how many tries it takes until there's a 50% chance to get a right on that game?

(it's 68 times)
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
e^iπ+1=0
Much, much better than Gooder
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:41 am UTC
Location: Lancaster

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby e^iπ+1=0 » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:55 am UTC

And how did you come to that conclusion? (I apologize for being thick if that was just a random number, but I'm genuinely interested if not)
poxic wrote:You, sir, have heroic hair.
poxic wrote:I note that the hair is not slowing down. It appears to have progressed from heroic to rocking.

(Avatar by Sungura)

JohnOldman
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:53 pm UTC

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby JohnOldman » Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:01 am UTC

I'd go for random, as the probability is calculated individually for every attempt, thus even after a billion attempts, it would still be 1%.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8572
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby Zohar » Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:06 am UTC

Spoiler'd for off topic (calculating probabilities):

Spoiler:
I'm assuming the person chooses the number to guess randomly (or just the same number each time), and so do the other people, with a uniform distribution (every number gets the same chance to be selected - 1%).

There's a 1% chance it will work, for each time (because there's 1% chance the other person will choose what you chose). So there's a 99% chance it will fail. What's the probability that it will succeed in one of the first two times? It's easiest to calculate this by saying "It's 1-(the chance to fail twice)". The chance to fail twice is 0.99 ^ 2 - have to fail the first time (0.99) and also the second time (0.99). So the chance to succeed in at least one of the first two times, doesn't matter which, is 1-0.99^2.

In general, the chance to succeed in at least one of the first n times is 1-0.99^n. Now it was just a matter of calculating and seeing for which n this number is greater than 0.5.
1-0.99^68 < 0.5 and 1-0.99^69 > 0.5.

So you'd need 69 tries to have a 50% shot at having guessed someone right. Coincidentally, if you do 100 tries, your chance of success is about 63%.


There are hundreds of posts about this kind of stuff in the math forum.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

JohnOldman
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:53 pm UTC

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby JohnOldman » Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:12 am UTC

Then you're wording was a bit off though (IMHO).
If you say for 63 tries there is a 50% chance to get it right, ok, I can't be bothered to try to check it but I'll assume you're right.
If you say, however, that after 63 tries, for the next one you have a 50% chance, it's wrong, the chance is 1%.
I assume you meant the first one though, but your initial wording sounded like you meant the second one :-)

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7573
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby phlip » Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:25 am UTC

I know the 63% figure for "chance to get it right at least once if you do it 100 times" is close to 1-1/e (for an event with probability 1/n, if you run n trials, the probability of the event happening at least once approaches 1-1/e as n increases, which comes from some magic around the limit definition of e)... but where's the other figure from?

Some experimenting suggests it's ln(2)... that is, if you have an event with a 1/n probability of occuring, and you run n*ln(2) trials, you have a 50% chance of success (for sufficiently large n)... but I'm not sure why.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8572
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby Zohar » Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:28 am UTC

JohnOldman wrote:Then you're wording was a bit off though (IMHO).
If you say for 63 tries there is a 50% chance to get it right, ok, I can't be bothered to try to check it but I'll assume you're right.
If you say, however, that after 63 tries, for the next one you have a 50% chance, it's wrong, the chance is 1%.
I assume you meant the first one though, but your initial wording sounded like you meant the second one :-)

OK, not sure how I misworded it, and the numbers were wrong. :) You have a 50% chance of getting a number right out of 1-100 at least once if you do 69 tries. You have a 63% chance of guessing a number out of 1-100 at least once if you do 100 tries.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

DanielR
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:24 pm UTC

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby DanielR » Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:19 pm UTC

I can't believe this wasn't done yet:

Spoiler:
Source: #619
xkcdsw_supported_features.png
If "full-screen" means 320x240.
xkcdsw_supported_features.png (19.85 KiB) Viewed 7756 times

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby Random832 » Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:26 pm UTC

phlip wrote:I know the 63% figure for "chance to get it right at least once if you do it 100 times" is close to 1-1/e (for an event with probability 1/n, if you run n trials, the probability of the event happening at least once approaches 1-1/e as n increases, which comes from some magic around the limit definition of e)... but where's the other figure from?

Some experimenting suggests it's ln(2)... that is, if you have an event with a 1/n probability of occuring, and you run n*ln(2) trials, you have a 50% chance of success (for sufficiently large n)... but I'm not sure why.


where P is the probability of at least one success in N trials, and p is the probability of a success in one trial:
Spoiler:
P = 1-(1-p)^N
Let P = .5
.5 = 1-(1-p)^N
-.5 = -(1-p)^N
.5 = (1-p)^N
.5^(1/N) = 1-p
.5^(1/N)-1 = -p
1-.5^(1/N) = p
...crap, I was supposed to solve for N, wasn't i? Let's try this again:
.5 = (1-p)^N
log1-p.5 = N
ln(.5)/ln(1-p) = N
ln(1-p)/ln(.5) = 1/N
given ln(.5) = -ln(2),
ln(1-p)/-ln(2) = 1/N
-log2(1-p) = 1/N

-1/log2(1-p) = N
for p=0.01, this gives 68.97. Obviously this is not the same formula as ln(2)/p - but they do seem to converge to be a constant distance apart, about 0.346603 [before diverging wildly as it exceeds Excel's ability to calculate]. This proof is left as an exercise for the reader.

Since your formula amounts to ln(2)/p, I'll note that the actual answer can be put in the form
-ln(2)/ln(1-P)
so there is some relationship between P and -ln(1-P)

(ln(1-p)+p)/p^2 appears to converge to -1/2

User avatar
Mr. N
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:37 pm UTC

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby Mr. N » Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:07 pm UTC

Funny.
Last edited by Mr. N on Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:12 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Your momma eats Pop Tarts!

singlefin
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:12 pm UTC
Location: https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Contact:

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby singlefin » Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:14 pm UTC

Mr. N wrote:Meatspace forum discussion


You've missed out the pedants who....


Oh no. What have I become?

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby setzer777 » Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:42 pm UTC

How do you pronounce: "f**k" in real life?
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
pseudoidiot
Sexy Beard Man
Posts: 5101
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:30 pm UTC
Location: Kansas City
Contact:

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby pseudoidiot » Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:44 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:How do you pronounce: "f**k" in real life?
"fk" or F*BEEP*k, or maybe "kcuf."
Derailed : Gaming Outside the Box.
SecondTalon wrote:*swoons* I love you, all powerful pseudoidiot!
ShootTheChicken wrote:I can't stop thinking about pseudoidiot's penis.

operator[]
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 6:11 pm UTC
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby operator[] » Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:23 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Sources: http://xkcd.com/628/, alt hosting
psychic.png
You can do a lot better than 1% if you, y'know, actually try to convince people.
psychic.png (12.06 KiB) Viewed 6993 times
Spoiler:
Sources: http://xkcd.com/626/, alt hosting
newton_and_leibniz.png
... yeah.
Spoiler:
Sources: http://xkcd.com/338/, alt hosting
past.png
Sigh. This seemed so much funnier when I read it on the Internet.
past.png (7.29 KiB) Viewed 6993 times
Spoiler:
Sources: http://xkcd.com/313/, alt hosting
insomnia.png
Zzzzz...

Two secret bonus-comics from here and here:
Spoiler:
Sources: http://imgs.xkcd.com/ibm/ibm_hc_2.png, alt hosting
medical_databases.png
We don't need your "SQL". For security reasons, we develop our own databases.
medical_databases.png (10.66 KiB) Viewed 6993 times
Spoiler:
Sources: http://imgs.xkcd.com/ibm/ibm_hc_3.png, alt hosting
information_hyperboles.png
We aren't living in the stone age anymore, are we?
Last edited by operator[] on Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:23 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Walter.Horvath
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:33 pm UTC
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby Walter.Horvath » Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:28 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:How do you pronounce: "f**k" in real life?

Usually I try to put space between the pronunciation of the first and last letter. It always sounds off, though...

User avatar
Mr. N
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:37 pm UTC

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby Mr. N » Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:53 pm UTC

Funny.
Last edited by Mr. N on Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:11 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Your momma eats Pop Tarts!

JohnOldman
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:53 pm UTC

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby JohnOldman » Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:16 pm UTC

The first panel totally made me think this was gonna be a homage to Flight of the Conchords :-) And the general idea even fit. :-)

User avatar
Dingbats
Posts: 921
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:46 pm UTC
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby Dingbats » Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:21 pm UTC

DanielR wrote:I can't believe this wasn't done yet:

Spoiler:
Source: #619
xkcdsw_supported_features.png

Best one on this page.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7573
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby phlip » Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:29 am UTC

Random832 wrote:Since your formula amounts to ln(2)/p, I'll note that the actual answer can be put in the form
-ln(2)/ln(1-p)
so there is some relationship between p and -ln(1-p)

Aha. And then, to a first-order approximation, ln(x) = x - 1 for x near 1. So, for sufficiently small p, ln(1-p) is close to -p.

Neat.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
The Scyphozoa
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Sector 5

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby The Scyphozoa » Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:42 am UTC

Oh me yarm A SECRET XKCD HOW DID YOU FIND IT Oh me yarm LOLOLOLOL.
Image
3rdtry wrote:If there ever is another World War, I hope they at least have the decency to call it "World War 2: Episode One"

doogly wrote:murder is a subset of being mean

Walter.Horvath
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:33 pm UTC
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby Walter.Horvath » Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:32 pm UTC

Sources: 628, News Forum (ESRB Rating: NSFW due to strong language)
Spoiler:
psychic.png
Don't be confused, it's an insult, not invitation.
psychic.png (51.94 KiB) Viewed 7331 times
Last edited by Walter.Horvath on Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:37 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TaintedDeity
Posts: 4003
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:22 pm UTC
Location: England;

Re: ITT: We make xkcd slightly worse.

Postby TaintedDeity » Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:36 pm UTC

Why was that funny?
Ⓞⓞ◯


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests