Page 1 of 3

1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:59 am UTC
by Steve the Pocket
Image

Mouseover caption: I have never been lied to by data in a .txt file which has been hand-aligned.

Reminds me of a blog post I once read about judging people's résumés based on format.

I'm not getting the distinction between .jpeg and .jpg; honestly I've never seen a .jpeg file out in the wild. Though I always use .jpeg for JPEG images just to prove to anyone who gives a shit that I, unlike apparently every software developer on the planet, am aware that Windows has been able to accept filenames with more than three-character extensions since 1995 and every other OS in existence has been able to since their inception so why aren't we using all of them?

On a related note,
Image
anyone know what's up with this banner?

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:03 am UTC
by rhomboidal
For safety's sake, I just assume that anything with a video extension is the Devil's disinformation.

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:09 am UTC
by dalcde
I've once received a report in ppt format. Wanted to kill him

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:17 am UTC
by Eutychus
Yes, when I saw that .ppt was on the plus side of the graph, my immediate thought was "Randall must never have read Death by Powerpoint".

Which, ironically enough in view of the new banner ad on the main page, could be subtitled "why you will not go to space today"...

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:26 am UTC
by WilliamLehnsherr
Steve the Pocket wrote:Reminds me of a blog post I once read about judging people's résumés based on format.


I don't know, in my experience most employers would expect a .doc file. Then again, I don't and never have worked as an engineer.

On topic... well, I have nothing relevant to say.

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:43 am UTC
by scarletmanuka
Just wanted to say that the reliability score given for .xls/.xlsx is way too high.

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:06 am UTC
by Mansoon
I don't know.... I miss the days when XKCD told stories and had emotions... It seems like most of the comics now are one-panel data mashes....

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:37 am UTC
by BlitzGirl
Steve the Pocket wrote:On a related note,
Image
anyone know what's up with this banner?

It's an Umwelt-image. I don't see that one. I see this one:
Spoiler:
Image
Using Chrome browser on an iPad. I see a different one using Safari that's in Up Goer Five style.
I thought .png file extensions were supposed to be trustworthy!

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:04 am UTC
by dalcde
BlitzGirl wrote:
Steve the Pocket wrote:On a related note,
Image
anyone know what's up with this banner?

It's an Umwelt-image. I don't see that one. I see this one:
Spoiler:
Image
Using Chrome browser on an iPad. I see a different one using Safari that's in Up Goer Five style.
I thought .png file extensions were supposed to be trustworthy!


The image is retrieved via the following js script:
http://dynamic.xkcd.com/test?_=<random number>

Where random number is something like 10950793589435.
Changing the number doesn't seem to make a difference.

For the record, the one I'm getting on chromium browser in linux is store_gd_e13_tY59.png
Image
and the one on firefox in linux is store_gd_e14_W4R0.png
Image
chromium browser "incognito" and firefox private mode in linux: store_gd_e4_YLkf.png
Image

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:06 am UTC
by patzer
The store image I get is
store_gd_e15_8Fjv.png

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:22 am UTC
by dalcde
Related information: The banner is not displayed on the Umwelt comic page, but is found everywhere else (afaik)

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:30 am UTC
by 3rdtry

Code: Select all

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 -256 1792 1792" version="1.1">
  <g transform="matrix(1,0,0,-1,129.08475,1346.1695)" id="g3890">
    <path d="m 256,192 q 0,26 -19,45 -19,19 -45,19 -26,0 -45,-19 -19,-19 -19,-45 0,-26 19,-45 19,-19 45,-19 26,0 45,19 19,19 19,45 z m 1152,576 q 0,51 -39,89.5 -39,38.5 -89,38.5 H 928 q 0,58 48,159.5 48,101.5 48,160.5 0,98 -32,145 -32,47 -128,47 -26,-26 -38,-85 -12,-59 -30.5,-125.5 Q 777,1131 736,1088 714,1065 659,997 655,992 636,967 617,942 604.5,926 592,910 570,883.5 548,857 530,839.5 512,822 491.5,804 471,786 451.5,777 432,768 416,768 H 384 V 128 h 32 q 13,0 31.5,-3 18.5,-3 33,-6.5 14.5,-3.5 38,-11 Q 542,100 553.5,96 565,92 589,83.5 613,75 618,73 829,0 960,0 h 121 q 192,0 192,167 0,26 -5,56 30,16 47.5,52.5 17.5,36.5 17.5,73.5 0,37 -18,69 53,50 53,119 0,25 -10,55.5 -10,30.5 -25,47.5 32,1 53.5,47 21.5,46 21.5,81 z m 128,1 q 0,-89 -49,-163 9,-33 9,-69 0,-77 -38,-144 3,-21 3,-43 0,-101 -60,-178 1,-139 -85,-219.5 -86,-80.5 -227,-80.5 h -36 -93 q -96,0 -189.5,22.5 Q 677,-83 554,-40 438,0 416,0 H 128 Q 75,0 37.5,37.5 0,75 0,128 V 768 Q 0,821 37.5,858.5 75,896 128,896 h 274 q 36,24 137,155 58,75 107,128 24,25 35.5,85.5 11.5,60.5 30.5,126.5 19,66 62,108 39,37 90,37 84,0 151,-32.5 67,-32.5 102,-101.5 35,-69 35,-186 0,-93 -48,-192 h 176 q 104,0 180,-76 76,-76 76,-179 z" id="path3892" style="fill:currentColor" />
  </g>
</svg>

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:47 am UTC
by najodleglejszy
Image

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:00 am UTC
by knotpossible
The first thing I thought of when I saw the chart was comic 833. I think I can do better. Goodbye.

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:09 am UTC
by dalcde
knotpossible wrote:The first thing I thought of when I saw the chart was comic 833. I think I can do better. Goodbye.


I'd consider the chart to be well-labeled. Apparently the vertical axis is the file extensions, and the horizontal must be the trustworthiness according to the title. Absolute measurements of trustworthiness are not needed (and not possible)

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:23 am UTC
by J. Curwen
I get this one (Firefox on ubuntu 12.04)
Image

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:28 am UTC
by dalcde
J. Curwen wrote:I get this one (Firefox on ubuntu 12.04)
Image

Weird. I get a different one using Firefox on Mint 16 (Ubuntu 13.10)

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:19 am UTC
by Jinksy
Am I the only one who immediately clicked 'copy image location' to find out how self-consistent the comic was?

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:32 am UTC
by Gregoreo
Insightful. Except PDF in my experience is near the mean of the others, since it derives from those sources.

There's also a tendency for trust decay as a file ages.

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:08 pm UTC
by cout
Glaringly missing: .ps.gz

(which should be at the top of the list)

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:13 pm UTC
by Klear
So what about *.odt? In my experience the data itself is trustworthy, but you'll never get to it.

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:21 pm UTC
by PinkShinyRose
dalcde wrote:Related information: The banner is not displayed on the Umwelt comic page, but is found everywhere else (afaik)

For some reason it (like the Umwelt comic) doesn't show up in my firefox browser in https... It does show up in arora and konqueror, but not in chromium. I think I found the culprit, it's the new mixed content blocking in firefox and chromium (where they block http requests from an https site).

EDIT:
Klear wrote:So what about *.odt? In my experience the data itself is trustworthy, but you'll never get to it.

You tried to use Microsoft products to open it didn't you?

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:25 pm UTC
by Carteeg_Struve
Fell off the bottom of the list: exe :D

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:26 pm UTC
by dalcde
Klear wrote:So what about *.odt? In my experience the data itself is trustworthy, but you'll never get to it.

I like to receive .od* documents, although my office suite handles them just as well as their Microsoft counterparts. Feels better to be open.

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:33 pm UTC
by orthogon
Presumably html was omitted because there is no one single value: the trustworthyness depends on the background colour and number of different fonts.

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:34 pm UTC
by samandiriel
Or, to put it another way: "The ease of ornamenting information in a medium is inversely proportional to it's truth." Feel free to call this "Munroe's Law", it's my saturnalia gift to you :)

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:35 pm UTC
by stickler
And yet .pdf has about the same position in "likelihood of file having a hidden bit of code that runs without permission, by file extension".

Now that there are ads on xkcd, I shall have to create a white list for Adblock Plus in case they start getting blocked.

I get the bobcat one on Win8 and the blue paper on Win7, whatever browser I use (FF or IE).

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:47 pm UTC
by Bossi
.ppt and .doc files consisting of nothing but .jpgs, however...

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:03 pm UTC
by Envelope Generator
I get a random store banner every time I load the page. Check these out:

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Judging by the image urls there must be at least two more variants.

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:22 pm UTC
by uncleroy
Chrome on OS X consistently shows this one:

Image

Turning Adblock Plus on and off seems to have no effect. I didn't even know there were other possibilities until I read this thread.

Monday musings I guess.

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:26 pm UTC
by TrueNarnian
Bear in mind though, this whole chart is only as trustworthy as a PNG

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:42 pm UTC
by cellocgw
dalcde wrote:I've once received a report in ppt format. Wanted to kill him


I get those all the time. I can't figure what the author was thinking. Worse, I send back a note asking for a text document, and some third-party wiseguy tells me not to denigrate the author's personal style.


Meanwhile, to add to the list (all w/ tongues firmly in cheeks) :
+20 : .R (R-language files)
+10 : .apk
-5: .m (Matlab files)
-200: file.DOC, or worse file.DOC.doc
-400: file.jpg.exe

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:50 pm UTC
by PinkShinyRose
uncleroy wrote:Chrome on OS X consistently shows this one:

Image

Turning Adblock Plus on and off seems to have no effect. I didn't even know there were other possibilities until I read this thread.

Monday musings I guess.

I don't think the browser, or OS has anything to do with it beyond the property of allowing or disallowing cookies from dynamic.xkcd.com...

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:12 pm UTC
by Flumble
I wonder where .BAT.MY%20OSX%20DOCUMENTS-INSTALL.EXE.RAR.INI.TAR.DOÇX.PHPHPHP.XHTML.TML.XTL.TXXT.0DAY.HACK.ERS_(1995)_BLURAY_CAM-XVID.EXE.TAR.[SCR].LISP.MSI.LNK.ZDA.GNN.WRBT.OBJ.O.H.SWF.DPKG.APP.ZIP.TAR.TAR.CO.GZ.A.OUT.EXE is on this scale.

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:47 pm UTC
by Ekaros
Flumble wrote:I wonder where .BAT.MY%20OSX%20DOCUMENTS-INSTALL.EXE.RAR.INI.TAR.DOÇX.PHPHPHP.XHTML.TML.XTL.TXXT.0DAY.HACK.ERS_(1995)_BLURAY_CAM-XVID.EXE.TAR.[SCR].LISP.MSI.LNK.ZDA.GNN.WRBT.OBJ.O.H.SWF.DPKG.APP.ZIP.TAR.TAR.CO.GZ.A.OUT.EXE is on this scale.


http://xkcd.com/1162/ and the alt text is relevant here, I believe.

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:12 pm UTC
by EugeneStyles
scarletmanuka wrote:Just wanted to say that the reliability score given for .xls/.xlsx is way too high.


I think xlsx should be substantially lower on the list than xls.

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:30 pm UTC
by orthogon
cellocgw wrote:
dalcde wrote:I've once received a report in ppt format. Wanted to kill him


I get those all the time. I can't figure what the author was thinking.

Folklore in our office has it that drawing in Powerpoint is slightly less broken than Word (or, ironically, Visio), so sometimes you see Powerpoint slides embedded as diagrams in documents.

I like to imagine that Microsoft has a Japanese-style fifty-year plan involving fixing the grid in Office products and making it possible to select Only Label and Number as the default, with an elite team of top researchers working on it.

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:33 pm UTC
by BAReFOOt
What? NO!

.jpg exists only for those losers whose operating system couldn’t handle anything beyond 8+3 file names! (Like old versions of Windows.)
.jpeg is the only correct extension for image/jpeg (/^JFIF/) files!

P.S.: Why doesn’t this forum have an inline-[code]?

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:01 pm UTC
by BAReFOOt
orthogon wrote: Folklore in our office has it that drawing in Powerpoint is slightly less broken than Word (or, ironically, Visio), so sometimes you see Powerpoint slides embedded as diagrams in documents.


Y'all motherfuckers need some .dot!
(Or SVG if it’s not [just] a diagram.)

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:06 pm UTC
by BAReFOOt
Flumble wrote:I wonder where .BAT.MY%20OSX%20DOCUMENTS-INSTALL.EXE.RAR.INI.TAR.DOÇX.PHPHPHP.XHTML.TML.XTL.TXXT.0DAY.HACK.ERS_(1995)_BLURAY_CAM-XVID.EXE.TAR.[SCR].LISP.MSI.LNK.ZDA.GNN.WRBT.OBJ.O.H.SWF.DPKG.APP.ZIP.TAR.TAR.CO.GZ.A.OUT.EXE is on this scale.


Well XHTML, TAR and even O, are perfectly fine. RAR, ZIP and GZ are way below bz2, let alone xz. And I don’t know if the correct extension of Lisp files is LISP, but in that case it would be good too. INI is barely bearable. OBJ is OK if it’s a 3D file format, I guess.
Assuming all of them are in lower case.

The rest can burn in hell.