XKCD Author Finds Geeky Ways to Promote His New Book (xkcd.com) 65
Randall Munroe does more than draw the online comic strip XKCD. He's also published a funny new speculative science book (following up on his previous New York Times best-seller), promising "short answers, new lists of weird and worrying questions, and some of my favorite answers from the What If site."
From his blog: In What If 2, I answer new questions I've receieved in the years since What If? was released. People have asked about touching exotic materials, traveling across space and time, eating things they shouldn't, and smashing large objects into the Earth. There are questions about lasers, explosions, swingsets, candy, and soup. Several planets are destroyed — one of them by the soup.
But besides launching a new book tour, he's also found some particularly geeky ways to promote the new book. On Thursday Munroe went on a language podcast to ask his own oddball questions — like how to spot an artificial language, and what does the word "it" refer to in the sentence "It's 3pm and hot." He's illustrated a a science-y animated video, and released several self-mocking cartoons.
And of course — answered some more strange science questions.
From his blog: In What If 2, I answer new questions I've receieved in the years since What If? was released. People have asked about touching exotic materials, traveling across space and time, eating things they shouldn't, and smashing large objects into the Earth. There are questions about lasers, explosions, swingsets, candy, and soup. Several planets are destroyed — one of them by the soup.
But besides launching a new book tour, he's also found some particularly geeky ways to promote the new book. On Thursday Munroe went on a language podcast to ask his own oddball questions — like how to spot an artificial language, and what does the word "it" refer to in the sentence "It's 3pm and hot." He's illustrated a a science-y animated video, and released several self-mocking cartoons.
And of course — answered some more strange science questions.
Like on /. (Score:5)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
By anti-science I mean things that misrepresent scientific findings, distort the methods and processes of science, or that promote pseudoscience. If you're looking for a specific example, I remember that even his own readers gave him hell for 1235, back when he still had a forum. He has an undergraduate degree in physics, but a very poor understanding of science.
The comic has a lot of problems, it's pandering , many of the comics aren't even intended to be funny, it has a habit of "punching down" (to inst
Re:Like on /. (Score:4, Informative)
By anti-science I mean things that misrepresent scientific findings, distort the methods and processes of science
Wait, what? A COMIC STRIP misrepresents and distorts? Please tell me it isn't so.
If you're looking for a specific example, I remember that even his own readers gave him hell for 1235
The only problem with https://xkcd.com/1235/ [xkcd.com] is that it isn't funny so much as just obviously true. If Bigfoot and Nessie were real, then all the personal sightings of the past would be replaced with cell phone photos since cell phones are now ubiquitous. That hasn't happened, with means the "sightings" of the past were phony. Ergo, there is no Bigfoot.
Re: (Score:3)
it isn't funny so much as just obviously true.
Ah, so you don't understand basic science either.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, so you don't understand basic science either.
I understand Russell's Teapot [wikipedia.org].
Do you?
Re: (Score:3)
You're almost there. Keep going. Why does that comic demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of basic science?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
1235 is the example I gave the other person who asked, even his readers took him to the woodshed on that one.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Perhaps you'd be better off introspecting a bit on why exactly why you find this [xkcd.com] so compelling...
I am very well versed in the scientific method. I enjoy XKCD.
I can see why you'd want to post that AC...
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you'd be better off introspecting a bit on why exactly why you find this [xkcd.com] so compelling...
Nobody said every comic he ever produced was great. If your point is to find a panel he drew that isn't great then congratulations, you won. There are actually more than one. However, unfortunately for your argument, this says nothing about his work as a whole.
Also, there is *nothing* wrong about comic 1235, unless you want to take it literally, that is.
Re: (Score:3)
unless you want to take it literally, that is.
It's figurative then? LOL!
I didn't even think I needed to defend this, as it's such easy one to understand. Though, apparently, fans of the comic don't understand basic science either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
unless you want to take it literally, that is.
It's figurative then? LOL!
I didn't even think I needed to defend this, as it's such easy one to understand. Though, apparently, fans of the comic don't understand basic science either.
You're doing an impressively poor job at defending "this", all the while doing an outstanding job yelling around you need to.
Re: (Score:2)
How, exactly, do you respond to something like that? "Don't take that assertion of fact literally!" It's absolutely beyond reason.
As for the error, it is self-evident to anyone who made it through primary school. At least, that's what I thought yesterday. My guess is that when someone you admire says something, you're less likely to question it, even when it's so obviously wrong.
So how to defend "this"? The best way I can think to convince you is to very carefully guide you through your own misundersta
Re: (Score:1)
How, exactly, do you respond to something like that? "Don't take that assertion of fact literally!" It's absolutely beyond reason.
As for the error, it is self-evident to anyone who made it through primary school. At least, that's what I thought yesterday. My guess is that when someone you admire says something, you're less likely to question it, even when it's so obviously wrong.
So how to defend "this"? The best way I can think to convince you is to very carefully guide you through your own misunderstanding so that you come to the correct conclusion on your own. Let's start with a simple question: why do you think that the claim made in the comic is true?
I think the claim made in the comic was funny and superficially true, which is what made it funny.
Your turn.
Re: (Score:2)
Is "superficially true" different from "actually true"? Because we call that "false".
Now, I asked you why you thought claim made in the comic was true, not if you thought it was funny. The fact that you haven't answered my question has not escaped my notice.
I suspect that you've already figured out that my assertion is true, you just don't want to admit it.
Re: (Score:1)
About your question, sorry, I misread it. So here it is:
"why do you think that the claim made in the comic is true"
I don't. And I don't care whether it's true or not because it's irrelevant. XKCD is a fucking comic. It's there to entertain, not enlighten. Were it a dictionary or an encyclopedia, it would be relevant. But it's a comic, so it's not.
Here is my question now: Why do you think claims made in a webcomic should be true ?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't.
Good. Then why are you arguing about it?
Why do you think claims made in a webcomic should be true ?
You should care as well. He presents these "facts" as true and his readers repeat his nonsense as though it were true. His poor understanding of science, as presented in his comics, shapes his readers understanding of science. He is causing actual harm to the public understanding of science. He is abusing his unearned and undeserved credibility as an 'authority' on math and science to spread pseudoscience.
I think that's a problem. Why don't you? Why does someon
Re: (Score:1)
He presents these "facts" as true
So it all comes down to this. Can you provide a citation or any other kind of proof that Randal Munroe presents these "facts" as true ? If I just take his book "How to" as an example, there is a disclaimer at the first page saying "The author of this book is an internet cartoonist, not a health or safety expert". He doesn't even claim to be a scientist. The preface starts with "This is a book of bad ideas." XKCD itself is touted as "A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language." It hardly seems that h
Re: (Score:3)
. Can you provide a citation or any other kind of proof that Randal Munroe presents these "facts" as true ?
"Nevertheless, the explanations are scientifically valid. And they’re very well researched" -- Bill Gates [gatesnotes.com]
"“Often what really drives me to pick a question is when there’s one I think I know what the answer is, but I’m not sure if I’m right or not,” he adds. “Because then I feel like I want to go and look it up to find out if my instinct was right or not. Because either then I get to validate myself — ha! I called it — or I learn something surprising and t
Geeky ways? (Score:3, Funny)
Is he capable of doing anything that *isn't* geeky?
Re: (Score:2)
If so, quickly check his temperature. We don't want him catching Normalitis.
Destroying planets via soup, got my curiosity up.
Re: (Score:2)
Destroying planets via soup, got my curiosity up.
I'm guessing you would need quite a lot. Or maybe the soup is traveling really fast?
My copy of What if 2 hasn't arrived yet. If your planet gets destroyed by soup it turns out it wasn't that difficult.
Sorry in advance.
Re: (Score:2)
My copy of What if 2 hasn't arrived yet.
Did you pre-order? I got mine a week ago.
I haven't read it yet because my kids took it, so I don't know anything about the soup.
Re: (Score:2)
I have put it aside as a birthday present for one of the offspring.
Re: (Score:2)
Is he capable of doing anything that *isn't* geeky?
He had a GF and convinced her to marry him.
How many geeks manage to do that?
Someone, please, help... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
We need an obligatory xkcd for this thread.
https://xkcd.com/2672/ [xkcd.com]
/. Innovating advertisement (Score:2, Interesting)
I love XKCd and the books are really creative. Thing explainer is a masterpiece as far as I am concerned. But the promotion of the book is just the standard corporate crap.
I see this in creative types as they try to push their career to the next level. Back in the 1990 three of my favorite indie bands joined various labels and created these hugely overproduced albums. Sacrificing all creative to the hope of massive sales driven only by corporate wisdom. It of course failed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When a renowned geek releases a big product, it's "news for nerds" even if it's promotion. They are not mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's a book by this famous guy that doesn't know how to draw?
There is beauty in simplicity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose GUIs are fine and all, just not for everything. There are some things that don't seem to translate very well.
https://smallstep.com/blog/if-... [smallstep.com] (If OpenSSL were a GUI)
All of this may happen again (Score:2)
Re: All of this may happen again (Score:2)
Self-mocking? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
enough with the clickbait, randall!
Oblig... (Score:5, Funny)
Touching exotic materials (Score:4, Funny)
Like what? Women? That's far too hypothetical a situation for the Slashdot crowd.
About that soup... (Score:3)
Re:About that soup... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:About that soup... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
I suppose that he did not consider
Standard fair for that rag.
Re: (Score:2)
Standard fair for that rag.
Huh? Oh, you mean "fare".
And if that chip on your shoulder gets any bigger, it may begin to sustain nuclear fusion itself.
Did Randall sleep with your wife or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Did Randall sleep with your wife or something?
That seems unlikely. That is, that Randall has slept with anyone. He doesn't seem to understand healthy relationships, which is why so many of his "romance" comics come off as super creepy. He also has a habit of combining children's toys and sex [xkcd.com]. I'm no psychologist, but ...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no psychologist, but ...
Go on...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Schwarzschild radius of half a billion suns is about twice Jupiter's orbital radius. There's no collapse necessary. A blob of soup that big would be a black hole already.
The "pouring the soup onto the sun" question would depend on how fast you poured it. If you pour fast enough it will just collapse into a black hole, radiation pressure or no. If you pour slowly enough, it would accumulate well past 120 solar masses because soup is much more dense, and less fusible than hydrogen and helium. If you poure
Who is his target market for his books? (Score:2)
The ELI5 crowd on Reddit? The whole "use only these 1000 words" game becomes incredibly tiresome after a few pages.
what does the word "it" refer to in the sentence " (Score:2)
what does the word "it" refer to in the sentence "It's 3pm and hot."
Uh, is that supposed to be mysterious? Seems like simple english... "The day is 3pm and hot", it's the time and temperature of the day today, so clearly that's what "it" is... today or "the day".
Re: what does the word "it" refer to in the senten (Score:2)
The day is 3PM? That doesn't make sense to me. The time is 3PM, but the time isn't hot.
Re: (Score:2)
Both items are attributes that describe the current state of the day, so yes, the day is currently 3pm when it is 3pm. "Time of day" is a phrase that may make you more comfortable with the concept.
Re: what does the word "it" refer to in the sente (Score:2)
The state of the day and the time of the day are not the day. Even if I agree that time of day is a condition or state, which seems questionable.
I think the answer is "it" does not refer to anything at all.
https://www.thoughtco.com/dumm... [thoughtco.com]
New way (Score:1)