1627: "Woosh"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
ThirdParty
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:53 pm UTC
Location: USA

1627: "Woosh"

Postby ThirdParty » Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:23 am UTC

Image
Title text: "It also occasionally replies with 'Comment of the year', 'Are you for real', and 'I'm taking a screenshot so I can remember this moment forever'."

Usually I find xkcd's in-jokes funny, but this one went over my head.

Tova
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:44 am UTC

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby Tova » Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:03 am UTC

Are you for real

ThemePark
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:42 pm UTC
Location: Århus, Denmark

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby ThemePark » Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:22 am UTC

ThirdParty wrote:Image
Title text: "It also occasionally replies with 'Comment of the year', 'Are you for real', and 'I'm taking a screenshot so I can remember this moment forever'."

Usually I find xkcd's in-jokes funny, but this one went over my head.

Woosh
I have traveled from 1979 to be a member of the unofficial board Council of Elders. Phear M3

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby ps.02 » Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:44 am UTC

Who would've guessed that Internet comment systems would eventually lead to making the Turing Test really easy?

User avatar
MostCynical
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:22 pm UTC

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby MostCynical » Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:05 am UTC

I've wondered about people who fail the turing test, posting on internet fora; would they also fail the Voight-Kampff test? Can we send Deckard after them?

User avatar
eviloatmeal
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:39 am UTC
Location: Upside down in space!
Contact:

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby eviloatmeal » Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:14 am UTC

I may have to teach one of my bots to randomly reply "That's not true."

Maybe the Twitter one. That sounds like a good idearecipe for soup.
*** FREE SHIPPING ENABLED ***
Image
Riddles are abound tonightImage

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby cellocgw » Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:15 pm UTC

ThirdParty wrote:
Usually I find xkcd's in-jokes funny, but this one went over my head.


I see what you did there.

Does Randall deliberately misspelling "Whoosh" count as whooshing all of us, or is it the other way around?
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
Reecer6
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:59 am UTC

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby Reecer6 » Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:08 pm UTC

This xkcd is of the better of the xkcds, in my opinion.

Although, wouldn't the obvious answer for what the joke is be "The video is obviously fake but it's more fun to pretend it genuinely happened, even though it's ridiculous," not that the video actually IS fake?

But perhaps it really WAS whoosh.

User avatar
jc
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:48 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Contact:

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby jc » Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:34 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:
ThirdParty wrote:Does Randall deliberately misspelling "Whoosh" count as whooshing all of us, or is it the other way around?

Nah; it probably just means that he speaks a dialect of English in which "w" and "wh" are pronounced the same.

My native dialect still distinguishes them, so I pronounce "which" and "witch" differently, and also "where" and "wear". OTOH, I have the "cot/caught" merger, and those two words are homophones in my native dialect. How about you?

There are lots of spelling mistakes that are based on such dialect differences.

piratejohn
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:26 am UTC

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby piratejohn » Fri Jan 08, 2016 2:31 pm UTC

ThemePark wrote:
ThirdParty wrote:Image
Title text: "It also occasionally replies with 'Comment of the year', 'Are you for real', and 'I'm taking a screenshot so I can remember this moment forever'."

Usually I find xkcd's in-jokes funny, but this one went over my head.

Woosh


Swoosh

User avatar
ShuRugal
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:19 am UTC

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby ShuRugal » Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:08 pm UTC

piratejohn wrote:
ThemePark wrote:
ThirdParty wrote:Image
Title text: "It also occasionally replies with 'Comment of the year', 'Are you for real', and 'I'm taking a screenshot so I can remember this moment forever'."

Usually I find xkcd's in-jokes funny, but this one went over my head.

Woosh


Swoosh


Sploosh

User avatar
The Moomin
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:59 am UTC
Location: Yorkshire

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby The Moomin » Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:18 pm UTC

ThemePark wrote:
ThirdParty wrote:Image
Title text: "It also occasionally replies with 'Comment of the year', 'Are you for real', and 'I'm taking a screenshot so I can remember this moment forever'."

Usually I find xkcd's in-jokes funny, but this one went over my head.

Woosh


PEW PEW PEW
I possibly don't pay enough attention to what's going on.
I help make architect's dreams flesh.

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby Jackpot777 » Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:44 pm UTC

Reddit once posed this question to its readers...

If you could only post the same one sentence to everything you wanted to reply to on reddit, what would your sentence be?


...and the top answer?

"This is bullshit - you're oversimplifying a complex situation to the point of no longer adding anything useful to the discussion."


A work of linguistic art, but that's probably bullshit and I'm oversimplifying it etc. That would be a great sentence to add to the bot.

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby ps.02 » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:03 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:Does Randall deliberately misspelling "Whoosh" count as whooshing all of us, or is it the other way around?

I just assumed that's how it was spelled on the forums Randall frequents. It's like if he wanted his bot to say "First!", he'd need to misspell that.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3406
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:22 pm UTC

Jackpot777 wrote:Reddit once posed this question to its readers...

If you could only post the same one sentence to everything you wanted to reply to on reddit, what would your sentence be?


...and the top answer?

"This is bullshit - you're oversimplifying a complex situation to the point of no longer adding anything useful to the discussion."


A work of linguistic art, but that's probably bullshit and I'm oversimplifying it etc. That would be a great sentence to add to the bot.


"I have a marvellous response to that comment, but this comment box is too small to contain it."

azj
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 11:33 pm UTC

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby azj » Fri Jan 08, 2016 11:47 pm UTC

Is it sad that I had to look up what it meant?

ijuin
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby ijuin » Sat Jan 09, 2016 3:04 am UTC

Thank you, Pierre Fermat.

RogueCynic
Posts: 384
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:23 pm UTC

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby RogueCynic » Sat Jan 09, 2016 5:21 am UTC

ps.02 wrote:
cellocgw wrote:Does Randall deliberately misspelling "Whoosh" count as whooshing all of us, or is it the other way around?

I just assumed that's how it was spelled on the forums Randall frequents. It's like if he wanted his bot to say "First!", he'd need to misspell that.


Maybe he missspelled it to hide the fact a bot wrote the comment?

jc wrote:
cellocgw wrote:
ThirdParty wrote:Does Randall deliberately misspelling "Whoosh" count as whooshing all of us, or is it the other way around?

Nah; it probably just means that he speaks a dialect of English in which "w" and "wh" are pronounced the same.

My native dialect still distinguishes them, so I pronounce "which" and "witch" differently, and also "where" and "wear". OTOH, I have the "cot/caught" merger, and those two words are homophones in my native dialect. How about you?

There are lots of spelling mistakes that are based on such dialect differences.


I can't wait to see the changes when the Boston accent has that effect.
I am Lord Titanius Englesmith, Fancyman of Cornwood.
See 1 Kings 7:23 for pi.
If you put a prune in a juicer, what would you get?

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5547
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby Eternal Density » Sat Jan 09, 2016 7:56 am UTC

I don't get it.
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

User avatar
Reecer6
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:59 am UTC

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby Reecer6 » Sat Jan 09, 2016 9:54 am UTC

Eternal Density wrote:I don't get it.


Comment of the year

WilliamLehnsherr
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:58 am UTC

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby WilliamLehnsherr » Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:21 pm UTC

Guys, why aren't we focusing on the bigger issue: why is everyone acting like it's real?

Ae7flux
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:45 am UTC

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby Ae7flux » Sat Jan 09, 2016 2:44 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:
ThirdParty wrote:
Usually I find xkcd's in-jokes funny, but this one went over my head.


I see what you did there.

Does Randall deliberately misspelling "Whoosh" count as whooshing all of us, or is it the other way around?


The Great Oracle gives ~550k hits for 'woosh' as opposed to 850k for 'whoosh' so I think you'd be hard-pressed to justify your charge.

Or is that a woosh. Dammit Randall, you're making me paranoid.
There is an x such that x entirely fails to signify just in case x lacks a specific combination of rotary and reciprocating motion.

faraway
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:08 am UTC

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby faraway » Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:14 am UTC

This is basically the same joke as comic 559, isn't it?

WilliamLehnsherr
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:58 am UTC

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby WilliamLehnsherr » Fri Jan 15, 2016 5:48 am UTC

faraway wrote:This is basically the same joke as comic 559, isn't it?


Only if your definition of "same" is very broad.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby SDK » Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:17 pm UTC

WilliamLehnsherr wrote:
faraway wrote:This is basically the same joke as comic 559, isn't it?


Only if your definition of "same" is very broad.

Woosh.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby Copper Bezel » Sat Jan 16, 2016 5:24 am UTC

I think you mean "Woosh - pun intended."
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

WilliamLehnsherr
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:58 am UTC

Re: 1627: "Woosh"

Postby WilliamLehnsherr » Sat Jan 16, 2016 7:48 am UTC

or "Woosh - ass-pun intended".

Am I doing it right?


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Archgeek, Soupspoon and 45 guests