1101: "Sketchiness"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

nemui10pm
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 5:03 am UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby nemui10pm » Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:57 am UTC

jpers36 wrote:No love for "shady" as another synonym for "sketchy"?


"shady" was the word that I came up with as soon as I read ShuRugal's post explaining what "sketchy" means to Americans/USAns/Yanks/whatever you'd call the citizens or residents of the United States of America, though I think "dodgy" or "creepy" would fit just fine.
For reference, I'm from New Zealand.
a genius, a philosopher, an abstract thinker

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby J Thomas » Mon Sep 03, 2012 12:24 pm UTC

nemui10pm wrote:
jpers36 wrote:No love for "shady" as another synonym for "sketchy"?


"shady" was the word that I came up with as soon as I read ShuRugal's post explaining what "sketchy" means to Americans/USAns/Yanks/whatever you'd call the citizens or residents of the United States of America, though I think "dodgy" or "creepy" would fit just fine.
For reference, I'm from New Zealand.


The way I see the words used in the USA, it seems like "shady" tends to be more like illegal business deals, while "creepy" is dodgy sex, potential mass murderers, that sort of thing.

"Sketchy" is likely to be something that has not been thought out very well.

But I think any of them would be understood as inappropriate sex stuff in context.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

chenille
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby chenille » Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:15 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:Japan isn't "drifting with North America", it is literally a part of the same plate.

That becomes a really weakly defined plate boundary under the continental shelf. They aren't always as clear as your map shows. And besides, as I just said, a little arbitrariness in your criteria is worth a lot, if it lets them reflect a concept that's useful to you.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby Max™ » Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:29 am UTC

North/South America and Eurasia/Africa aren't very useful to me, I suppose.
mu

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5477
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:52 am UTC

chenille wrote:It doesn't actually have anything to do with the straights. It has to do with the relatively narrow isthmuses

I'm sorry, I caused unnecessary confusion here by saying straight when I meant isthmus.

There are no straits in Panama or Suez. There are canals, now, which aren't the same thing anyway and don't count because they're just things we built across the land and not a substantial alteration of it. I meant a sufficiently narrow isthmus counts as a discontinuity in an otherwise continuous mass of land (meaning dry land, not covered by water).

Also, going by Max's tectonic plates definition having nothing arbitrary, what stops either southern New Zealand or western California (whichever has a larger portion on the Pacific plate) from counting as The Pacific (Sub-)Continent? For that matter, why don't they both count as a Pacific Subcontinent of the Australian and North American continents, respectively? Or if we're just going by largest land mass completely contained within a tectonic plate... well in that case Eurasia and North America are out since they both cross over onto other plates, but why isn't the Big Island of Hawaii the Pacific Continent? Point being if you're not counting every island (or at least the largest land mass on each plate regardless of size) as a continent, and every part of a land mass on a different plate as a different sub-continent, then you are drawing some arbitrary line. I'm just drawing one other arbitrary line. A continent is a continuous land mass: we agree that the mass (rather surface area) must be of sufficient size, and I'm adding that the continuousness also requires a certain size. Unless you can propose some non-arbitrary way of picking those size cutoffs, we may as well pick arbitrary ones that match common usage. Or pick none and call every island a separate continent (and coastal California its own subcontinent, etc).

I'm also looking strictly at physical geography here; I don't buy anything about Europe or Central America being different "continents" because of cultural boundaries. But the physical attributes in question when discussing continents are continuous masses of "land" in the sense of crust not covered by water, as compared to crust covered by water; and tectonic plates fundamentally are not about that. Tectonic plates surely are another notable type of object in physical geography, but are fundamentally different from continents and only bear a tenuous and by no means total coincidence them (meaning: yes the bulk of a given continent tends to reside on one plate and there are known causes for that coincidence, but as all these exceptions show there is not always or even frequently a one-to-one correspondence between continents and plates).
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby Max™ » Tue Sep 04, 2012 1:04 pm UTC

Well, keep in mind, I favor 4 over 6 or 7, I just think the argument for there being 10 makes more sense than any of the arguments for 6/7 do.
mu

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5477
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:52 pm UTC

And now this thread is showing a last post by rghreui6 on Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:30 am UTC in the index but still nothing after a post by Max™ on Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:04 am UTC in the actual thread, and refuses to mark itself read after I read it. Is something wonky happening with the forum today?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
flicky1991
Like in Cinderella?
Posts: 779
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:36 pm UTC
Location: London

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby flicky1991 » Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:58 pm UTC

Well, at least you fixed it by posting. XD
any pronouns
----
avatar from chridd
----
Forum Games Discord
(tell me if link doesn't work)

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby Max™ » Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:58 pm UTC

No, nothing unusual at all, go back to your regularly scheduled behaviors.

*talks into cuff* Subject is aware of errors in the system, recommend sedation, euthanasia, and reset.
mu


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Moose Anus and 84 guests