Does Xkcd Cartoon How Is Joke?

Does Xkcd Cartoon How Is Joke
Malamanteau, which is referenced in the tooltip, is one of the recurring motifs. “Out of the twenty-three references listed in the article, one is a dusty manuscript from the 1490s, while the other twenty-two are discussions that took place on Language Log.” Despite the fact that the webcomic does not follow a predetermined plot, there are a number of recurrent characters and themes.

  • “Technology, science, mathematics, and relationships” are some of the recurring topics that are explored in xkcd.
  • xkcd often includes jokes that are connected to many aspects of popular culture, such as Guitar Hero, Facebook, Vanilla Ice, and Wikipedia.
  • There are several strips that begin with the lines “My Hobby:,” and they often portray the nameless narrator character detailing some sort of amusing or peculiar activity.

However, not every comic is meant to be read in a funny manner. Other xkcd comics consist of intricate descriptions of various landscapes, while others focus on romantic relationships and interpersonal dynamics. Several strips from xkcd make reference to Munroe’s alleged preoccupation with the possibility of Velociraptor assaults.

  1. There have been several instances in which individual Wikipedia pages or Wikipedia in its whole have been cited in xkcd.
  2. A debate was started within Wikipedia after a replica of a made-up entry for “malamanteau” (a prank word developed by Munroe to poke fun at Wikipedia’s writing style) was posted there.

This controversy was picked up by a variety of media outlets. Another strip portrayed an example of a subject that Wikipedia was unable to cover in a balanced manner in the form of a fictitious donation to either anti-abortion or abortion-rights activists.

The recipient of the donation was decided based on whether or not the word count in a Wikipedia article on the event where the donation was announced was odd or even. People often think of Wikipedia as an extension of their own minds since it gives them access to a far larger amount of knowledge than they would otherwise have.

A tooltip is included in the majority of xkcd strips. The language of the tooltip typically includes a supplementary punchline or a remark connected to the comic that was published that day. One of the rare characters that appears more than once is a man who always wears a flat black hat.

  1. He is a very sociopathic individual who, for the entirety of his existence, has devoted himself to wreaking havoc and inflicting pain to other people only for his own amusement.
  2. In spite of the fact that he does not have a name, members of the community frequently refer to him as “Black Hat” or “Black Hat Guy.” During the course of a short series dubbed “Journal,” he met and became romantically involved with a woman who is equally as vicious as he is.
See also:  What App Turns You Into A Cartoon?

His community friends refer to her as “Danish.” Beret Guy is the name that is occasionally used to refer to another recurrent figure who is a man wearing a beret. It appears that he is not just ignorant but also hopeful, preoccupied with pastries, and entirely out of touch with reality.

  1. He also possesses magical abilities, which manifest themselves frequently in the creation of circumstances or objects that support his overly optimistic worldview, even when doing so goes directly against the norms of society or the laws of physics.
  2. One example of this would be his startup making incredible amounts of money, despite the fact that he has no idea what they do.

In one instance, he recruited Lin-Manuel Miranda to work for him as an engineer, while in another, he really grew “endless wings.” The production of geographical maps, as well as the many of styles these maps might take, are a recurrent topic throughout the entirety of the comic.

Where did xkcd get its name?

What does the abbreviation XKCD stand for? – It’s not even close to being an acronym. It’s only a word, and there’s no phonetic sound for it; it’s a prized and closely guarded point in the gap between strings of four characters.

Are xkcd’s supposed to be funny?

The experience of humor is highly individual; some individuals may find it humorous, but it may not be hilarious to everyone. Attempts to describe what makes something funny sometimes fail to convey the funny aspect of the situation, even if they are successful in elucidating the underlying point.

  1. In point of fact, not all xkcd comics are meant to be seen in a humorous context.
  2. However, many of them are able to express significant points in a manner that is thought stimulating, and at the very least, they are occasionally humorous while doing so.
  3. (From a purely personal standpoint, I find it humorous, but it’s difficult for me to articulate just what it is that I find so amusing about it.

I believe that a portion of it is the recognition of the manner in which a questionable or even dubious result can turn into a media circus (for more information on this topic, see also this PhD comic), and possibly a portion of it is the recognition of the manner in which some research may actually be done – even if it is usually not consciously.

Nevertheless, the concept may be understood and appreciated by everybody, regardless of whether or not it makes them laugh. The purpose of this is to do many hypothesis tests at a significance level that is considered to be moderate, such as 5%, and then to make public the result of the test that was found to be significant.

Naturally, if you conduct 20 of these tests when there is actually nothing of any significance happening, the predicted number of those tests to provide a result that is significant is 1. There is approximately a 37% chance that there will be no significant result, approximately a 37% chance that there will be one significant result, and approximately a 26% chance that there will be more than one significant result (I just checked the exact answers; they’re close enough to that).

This was determined by doing a rough in-head approximation for $n$ tests at significance level $frac$. Because Randall displayed 20 tests in the cartoon, it is clear that this is the argument he is trying to make (namely, that you should expect to receive one significant result even when there is nothing going on).

Even the subheading of the fictitious newspaper item, which reads “Only 5% possibility of coincidence!,” draws attention to the issue at hand. (If there was just one test done, and that was the one that was published in the papers, then that may be the case.) There is, of course, also the more nuanced problem that a single researcher could behave much more sensibly, yet the issue of widespread marketing of false positives still arises.

Imagine for a moment that these researchers do no more than five separate tests, each of which is set at a significance level of one percent; hence, the probability that they will stumble onto a fraudulent result of this kind is around five percent at most. So far so wonderful. Imagine, however, that there are twenty such research groups, and that each of them is studying a different random subset of colors that they believe there is a purpose to examine.

Or one hundred study groups; in this case, what are the odds of a headline similar to the one in the comic? Therefore, on a more general level, the cartoon may be making a reference to publishing bias in general. If only significant findings are highlighted, we won’t learn about the dozens of groups that came up empty when searching for green jellybeans; instead, we will only hear about the one group that did find anything.

In point of fact, this is one of the primary arguments that is presented in this essay, which has been making headlines over the past few months (for example, here, despite the fact that the piece was published in 2005). A reaction to that piece highlights how important it is to conduct further research.

It is important to keep in mind that the result that “Green jellybeans are connected to acne” is extremely unlikely to hold up if the study that was published were to be replicated several times. (As a matter of fact, the hover text that accompanies the cartoon makes a witty allusion to the very same topic.)

See also:  Where Does The Word Cartoon Come From?

How often does xkcd have new cartoons?

Panel from “Philosophy”
Author(s) Randall Munroe
Website xkcd. com
Current status/schedule Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays
Launch date September 2005 ; 16 years ago
Genre(s) Comedy, geek humor

The American cartoonist Randall Munroe is the creator of the webcomic known as xkcd, which is also written out as XKCD at times. The comic is billed as “a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, arithmetic, and language,” which is how it is described in the tagline.

On the website for the comic, Munroe clarifies that the title of the comic does not refer to an initialism but rather “simply a word with no phonetic sound.” The content of the comic ranges from philosophical reflections on life and love to inside jokes on mathematics, programming, and other scientific fields.

Some comics incorporate basic comedy or pop-culture allusions. Stick figures make up the majority of the cast, but the comic also includes scenery, graphs, charts, and sophisticated mathematical patterns like fractals. On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays of each week, there are updates made to the collection of cartoons that are currently available.

  1. Munroe has published a total of four volumes that are spinoffs from the original comic.
  2. The first book, which was released in 2010 and given the title xkcd: volume 0, had a collection of comics that were chosen from his website.
  3. His blog of the same name, which he started in 2010, served as the basis for the book he published in 2014 under the same name.

On the site, he addresses unique scientific issues posed by users in a humorous yet scientifically sound manner. On the website, the “What If” column receives periodic updates with fresh content in the form of new articles. His book, “Thing Explainer,” which was published in 2015, provides explanations of scientific topics using only the one thousand words that are most frequently used in the English language.