Best … XKCD … ever

Check it out:

Share the love.

31 responses to “Best … XKCD … ever

  1. And don’t forget to put your mouse over the picture of the ALT text.

    And if you are on a mobile device and can’t see that, it says…

    “‘You see the same pattern all over. Take Detroit–‘ ‘Hold on. Why do you know all these statistics offhand?’ ‘Oh, um, no idea. I definitely spend my evenings hanging out with friends, and not curating a REALLY NEAT database of temperature statistics. Because, pshh, who would want to do that, right? Also, snowfall records.”

  2. Too true to be funny….

  3. I don’t know about that (I still prefer, but definitely a classic!

    • And that indeed is my second fav XKCD of all time, BCC. But my fav one has just this little streak of anarchy running through it:

      I’m guessing tamino knew this would happen. In fact, it’s what XKCD is all about.

  4. Excellent! This one is my favourite -it always makes me think of tall blokes with Galileo complexes:

  5. One of the funniest:

    My all-time favorite:

  6. I just read one in a physics thread somewhere, that was along these academic joke lines (though Math is just the stop on the way to Philosophy):

    Dean, to the physics department. “Why do I always have to give you guys so much money, for laboratories and expensive equipment and stuff. Why couldn’t you be like the math department – all they need is money for pencils, paper and waste-paper baskets. Or even better, like the philosophy department. All they need are pencils and paper.”

  7. Ah, yes. Favorites. That’s why we have so many of them…

    • Love grapefruit–but the alt text was right on.

      • He’s obviously referring to supermarket Grosse Lisses – if he’d experienced a home-grown heritage tomato then said fruit’s coordinates would be in the +ve x, +ve y quadrant…

        Does the durian need a z axis?

    • Durian is an odd one. I am convinced that if you can reach a Zen-like state and put aside all prejudices of what food should taste like, then you might be able to enjoy it–but only in small quantity. On the other hand, even our dog turns up her nose a it, and a dog’s motto is “Go ahead and eat it. You can always throw it up later.”.

  8. Perhaps, most useful in climate debates:

  9. I love this one because I’ve gone through it:

  10. Clearly the best is

  11. Thanks for all the brilliant xkcd strips.
    This was my own favourite but now I am not so sure:

  12. Thanks for sharing your favourites. One of mine is

    I guess it tickles the computer scientist and physicist in me.

  13. Hi Tamino

    With the publication of the 2013 global average temperature series I thought I’d have a look at your “You Bet” article to see how things are doing. See:

    To my surprise I found an error in the formula you give for determining the bet. You stated:

    “If annual average global temperature anomaly (land+ocean) from GISS exceeds 0.735 deg.C for two (not necessarily consecutive) years before it falls below the value 0.277455 + 0.018173 (t-1991) (where t is the year) for two (not necessarily consecutive) years, then the still-warming side wins; if it falls below the above equation for two years before it rises above 0.735 for two years, then the not-warming side wins.”

    However, the value (0.277455 + 0.018173 (t-1991)) is the equation for the trend-line itself , whereas the required equation is for trend-line minus two standard deviations ie (0.277455 – 2*0.0959 + 0.018173 (t-1991)), which line is the lower of the two red dashed lines in your figures in “You Bet”.

    Here are the results to date of the You Bet challenge, with column A being the results using your equation and column B those using the corrected equation. The fourth column give the annual GISS anomalies/100:

    Year A B GISS

    2007 0.568223 0.376423 0.63
    2008 0.586396 0.394596 0.49
    2009 0.604569 0.412769 0.60
    2010 0.622742 0.430942 0.67
    2011 0.640915 0.449115 0.55
    2012 0.659088 0.467288 0.58
    2013 0.677261 0.485461 0.61

    As you can see, application of your original equation could result in AGW deniers winning the bet !! (Is this what has been keeping Heartland afloat all these years … ?!!) So, correction of the equation, if still possible, is a matter of the utmost urgency!!

    Cheers, Slioch

    [Response: If I recall correctly, this was pointed out at the time (in comments) and a correct formula was presented (also in comments). As for the deniers … ]

  14. Martin Vermeer

    695. AKA don’t anthropomorphise machines… they hate it