0539: "Boyfriend"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Shakleton
Posts: 495
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:31 pm UTC
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Contact:

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby Shakleton » Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:37 pm UTC

Affableprechaun wrote:
Shakleton wrote:Your normal approach. It's not useless here!

Oh. Well done good sir. Very well done.

To my shame, I must admit that I was ultra-ninja'd by something around 18 posts by ellaruby. So, if you'd just kneel before her instead of me?

ellaruby wrote:Ah, how deliciously simple.
If only we thought to use such methods more often!
Randall:
Your usual approach, is useful here :D
mikekearn wrote:You even have an appropriate shirt. Excellent.

User avatar
A.DTheMediocre
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:12 pm UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby A.DTheMediocre » Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:58 pm UTC

The only problem with this comic, for it is a good one, is that the boxplot shows that he does not spend twice as much time with her as the person on the end of the "whisker". It's more like 1.5 times as much.

Gero
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:29 pm UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby Gero » Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:07 pm UTC

Hehe. Good one. Alt text not quite up to standard though.

Arancaytar wrote:
...okay, but because you said that, we're breaking up.


Screw that! Anyone who graphs relationships on a box-and-whisker plot and makes statistical puns would be an awesome girlfriend! :P


I agree! She's probably all into Fibonacci numbered groping and whatnot. Remember?

Image

theoreticallyKat wrote:*sigh* this is the kinda thing I do in my head, but wuda never show to a guy....


You might try it out loud though. About half of the guys here thought it was great. The rest thought it was stalkery, but then, strong positive or negative reactions is a lot more helpful than Meh!? And wouldn't it also serve as a nice type of filter? The same way as pick-up lines do ie. if he thinks you're a stalker, he's not what you want any ways? Lots of us like geeky girls. Some of us dream of a girl that can code, but lets face it, not gonna happen, if one even exists, she's already with a guy a lot nerdier than me (Think Mark Shuttleworth). But at a loss for coder chicks, math girls or if a girl can hack-and-slash, owns polyhedral dice, even wearing glasses,..... It takes all kinds to make a world.

User avatar
lysandra
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:36 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby lysandra » Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:43 pm UTC

I once had a similar discussion with my stat-sig other when trying to figure out what terminology to use.

It's hard finding someone you're compatible with who also recognizes and appreciates the fib seq.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:06 pm UTC

But if the time counts with anybody of the opposite sex (or same if you're gay and whatnot), then does that mean I have a statistically significant other despite the fact I'm not trying to date anybody?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
athelas
A Sophisticated Plagiarism Engine
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:37 am UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby athelas » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:07 pm UTC

krynd wrote:The moral of the story (generated by the venerable Wheel of Morality): sometimes, being "weird" is not as good as you think it is. There's generally a good reason why "normal" society considers these people "creeps". Seriously, think about it with the genders reversed. How many would call the guy exceedingly creepy for doing something like this? Be honest. You know that in your head, you'd probably expect to see the girl calling the guy "creepy" or "over-thinking things" for doing this.
Well said. I think there's a lot of netizenry that claims to like the quirky, but would be creeped out in real life (particularly with the politically-incorrect gender reversal).
MartianInvader wrote:I mean, if you've got such small...
IT'S NOT SMALL! IT'S AVERAGE-SIZED!

Ahem.

User avatar
Katieesq
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:40 pm UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby Katieesq » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:09 pm UTC

dennisw wrote:
Quizatzhaderac wrote:They are nouns. The difference in nouns isn't how specific they are, it weather thier target is independant of context or not. "person" is a noun and is vaguer then "he" or "she". However without a context we know what a person is. We don't know to what he or she reffers unless were heard the user define (usually implicitly) the pronoun.

Thanks for the grammar analysis.

Note: Blue and green are alternated without additional meaning.


<3

Your copy editing is irrefutable.
Cupcakes of HOPE!

User avatar
dennisw
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:09 am UTC
Location: Appearing pro se AND pro bono!
Contact:

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby dennisw » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:18 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:But if the time counts with anybody of the opposite sex (or same if you're gay and whatnot), then does that mean I have a statistically significant other despite the fact I'm not trying to date anybody?

There's a B I G difference between "not trying" and "trying not".
Try the Printifier for xkcd. You can now scale the comic between 50 and 150%.

I find these very useful: Common Errors in English Usage (web site) and Eats, Shoots & Leaves (book). You may, too.

e pluribus unum
Unleash unlicensed ungulates!

EOTistatron
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:59 pm UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby EOTistatron » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:36 pm UTC

I'm casually dating a number of people.

I've got to admit, first thing I thought of.
Inconsiderate greedy sods, learn to share... ¬_¬

lavamouse
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 9:32 am UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby lavamouse » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:54 pm UTC

Read this this morning, with my statistically significant other reading it over my shoulder. We both found it very funny. I would have posted sooner, but, well, time was being spent with each other over anyone else.

User avatar
garren101
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:35 am UTC
Location: Alberta

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby garren101 » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:28 pm UTC

aion7 wrote:
sje46 wrote:
Zak wrote:
athelas wrote:Happy Valentine's Day, everyone!
Not cool man. You made me think that I had forgotten it.

Not funny man. Some of us don't have significant others.

Not cool, not funny, not a good comment.

This is all one big mistake. She/He clearly meant "Singles Appreciation Day". I just thought I'd clear this up.


"Singles Appreciation Day", "Singles Awareness Day", whatever you want to call it is merely another false holiday concocted by a group of single losers who are far too busy feeling sorry about themselves for being single than they are concentrated on finding themselves a significant other, as a result they spend the day despising those who are in a relationship which merely results in an increase of their own self-pity and self-hatred. As a single male who is not focused solely on the fact that I am single, I find this so-called "holiday" to be removed from the calender. Valentines day however despite being created by greeting card companies I find it to be a nifty holiday for two people in love a day to be with one another and to focus on each other (not that they need a particular reason to do so).
Arthur Dent: "What's so unpleasant about being drunk?"
Ford Prefect: "You ask a glass of water."

User avatar
dennisw
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:09 am UTC
Location: Appearing pro se AND pro bono!
Contact:

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby dennisw » Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:18 pm UTC

EOTistatron wrote:
I'm casually dating a number of people.

I've got to admit, first thing I thought of.
Inconsiderate greedy sods, learn to share... ¬_¬

If you can't bet 'em, join 'em?
Try the Printifier for xkcd. You can now scale the comic between 50 and 150%.

I find these very useful: Common Errors in English Usage (web site) and Eats, Shoots & Leaves (book). You may, too.

e pluribus unum
Unleash unlicensed ungulates!

User avatar
Glenn Magus Harvey
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:39 pm UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby Glenn Magus Harvey » Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:42 pm UTC

WHAT?! You're breaking up with a girl BECAUSE she's nerdy?

BLASPHEMY!!! LYNCH HIM!!!

Fat Tony
Posts: 1501
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:12 pm UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby Fat Tony » Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:51 pm UTC

This comic is amazing. The running theme of "What the crap is defining a relationship nowadays?" coupled in with the beauty of a hideous pun.
Excellent =D
...And what do you guys mean, "Happy Valentine's Day"? Is today European Valentine's Day?
I'm pretty sure ours is on the 14th...
Wanna hear the truth? Life is downright ok.

speqter
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 8:01 am UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby speqter » Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:53 am UTC

Does this mean that the other girls are called "statistically insignificant others"?

suzi
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:04 am UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby suzi » Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:05 am UTC

Assuming α = .05, wouldn't that mean there's a 5% chance he's cheating on her?

User avatar
double entendre
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:11 am UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby double entendre » Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:56 am UTC

Gero wrote: Lots of us like geeky girls. Some of us dream of a girl that can code, but lets face it, not gonna happen

Many girls can code, but we wouldn't want to be with someone like you anyway because of your sexism.

Besides, geek girls don't exist for geek guys. Geek girls exist to geek.

Also, my statistically significant other is definitely less geeky than me.

Faranya
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:10 am UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby Faranya » Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:12 am UTC

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am totally going to start measuring time spent starting tomorrow in order to accurately produce a box and whisker plot for valentines.

What? That's not creepy in the least!
Image

sje46
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby sje46 » Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:23 am UTC

garren101 wrote:
aion7 wrote:
sje46 wrote:
Zak wrote:
athelas wrote:Happy Valentine's Day, everyone!
Not cool man. You made me think that I had forgotten it.

Not funny man. Some of us don't have significant others.

Not cool, not funny, not a good comment.

This is all one big mistake. She/He clearly meant "Singles Appreciation Day". I just thought I'd clear this up.


"Singles Appreciation Day", "Singles Awareness Day", whatever you want to call it is merely another false holiday concocted by a group of single losers who are far too busy feeling sorry about themselves for being single than they are concentrated on finding themselves a significant other, as a result they spend the day despising those who are in a relationship which merely results in an increase of their own self-pity and self-hatred. As a single male who is not focused solely on the fact that I am single, I find this so-called "holiday" to be removed from the calender. Valentines day however despite being created by greeting card companies I find it to be a nifty holiday for two people in love a day to be with one another and to focus on each other (not that they need a particular reason to do so).

Yeah, because screw lonely people. They suck.

Valentine's day wasn't created by a greeting card company, either.
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

Benson
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:15 am UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby Benson » Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:27 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:But if the time counts with anybody of the opposite sex (or same if you're gay and whatnot), then does that mean I have a statistically significant other despite the fact I'm not trying to date anybody?

Well, that depends: is one of them statistically significant, i.e., not from the same distribution as your other friends/casual dates/whatever? If so, then yes, and if not, then no.

The whole point here (from her perspective, or at least what she's trying to push) is that there are objective measures that can discriminate an actual love interest from casual dating background; it would be completely invalidated if it always identifies someone as being significant.

Liwen's gate
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:31 am UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby Liwen's gate » Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:36 am UTC

WoW, now girls are using math to convince guys that they belong to each other. It's like the world is in reverse or something. But I guess that was the point of the comic. Very funny. I'll keep this in mind for my next breaking up scene.

Jsty
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:35 am UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby Jsty » Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:42 am UTC

I hate to point this out, but I have to question her analysis. There's every indication that she has failed to conduct an independent analysis. Who's to say she's not introducing bias into her study? Does the time they spend together at work count, or in classes, or even going from point A to point B? I fail to see how all time can be considered equal in this regard.

Obviously, more data is required.

User avatar
dennisw
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:09 am UTC
Location: Appearing pro se AND pro bono!
Contact:

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby dennisw » Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:21 am UTC

Liwen's gate wrote:WoW, now girls are using math to convince guys that they belong to each other. It's like the world is in reverse or something. But I guess that was the point of the comic. Very funny. I'll keep this in mind for my next breaking up scene.

Are you kidding? People have been using multiplication to convince each other that they belong together for years.*

*A really big number of years.
Try the Printifier for xkcd. You can now scale the comic between 50 and 150%.

I find these very useful: Common Errors in English Usage (web site) and Eats, Shoots & Leaves (book). You may, too.

e pluribus unum
Unleash unlicensed ungulates!

Epaiteia
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:13 pm UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby Epaiteia » Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:44 pm UTC

I'm pretty sure Randall is spying on my life. There's a couple of past comics that have given me this impression too, but this one especially, even though I don't date around and I'm pretty sure my statistically significant other doesn't know how to use box and whisker graphs.

Can't believe it's taken me this long to register here; what have I been doing with my life?!

flyonthewall
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:25 am UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby flyonthewall » Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:17 pm UTC

Epaiteia wrote:I'm pretty sure Randall is spying on my life. There's a couple of past comics that have given me this impression too, but this one especially, even though I don't date around and I'm pretty sure my statistically significant other doesn't know how to use box and whisker graphs.


Reading this made me realize that, even if this webcomic doesn't specify any certain group (except for geeks in general) as a subject, this comic does seem to be more accurate than astrology in general.

User avatar
Kadzar
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 2:40 am UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby Kadzar » Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:51 pm UTC

dennisw wrote:
Liwen's gate wrote:WoW, now girls are using math to convince guys that they belong to each other. It's like the world is in reverse or something. But I guess that was the point of the comic. Very funny. I'll keep this in mind for my next breaking up scene.

Are you kidding? People have been using multiplication to convince each other that they belong together for years.*

*A really big number of years.
And, traditionally, the product has convinced them to stay together, though this has changed somewhat over the past few decades.
Geogriffith wrote:
Dad, where is Grandpa right now?

"His source code was forked, backups moved off-site, and merged with a compatible project with similar goals. As was mine, as will yours be, someday."
Some Sort of Shuriken-Based Propulsion

User avatar
Ayelis
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:01 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby Ayelis » Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:59 pm UTC

Box? Whisker? Am I the only one who didn't get the memo that such a graph even existed?

I mean, I can see how it could be useful... It seems to be a lot of ranges, superimposed over the top of one another... But who invented this thing! Wikipedia, I choose you!
--
Don't tase me bro!

AppleJordan
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:34 am UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby AppleJordan » Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:06 pm UTC

Okay, I know there are plenty of people here who have had statistics class, so I'm probably wrong.

But I thought that there can't be any points outside the "wiskers"! Isn't the graph used to show the distribution of a set of data over a number line?

Gero
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:29 pm UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby Gero » Thu Feb 05, 2009 5:14 pm UTC

double entendre wrote:
Gero wrote: Lots of us like geeky girls. Some of us dream of a girl that can code, but lets face it, not gonna happen

Many girls can code, but we wouldn't want to be with someone like you anyway because of your sexism.

Besides, geek girls don't exist for geek guys. Geek girls exist to geek.

Also, my statistically significant other is definitely less geeky than me.


I couldn't be sexist, I like women too much! Easy now, I didn't say girls can't code. Don't jump to conclusions. I'm just saying I've met very few. There were lots of girls in my first year programming course. It's just that they seemed to fall by the wayside and by the final year, the only one left was a) weirdly a bit of a jock, what with being the college wrestling champ in the male category and b) married, and thus excluded from the argument. Of course this is anecdotal evidence, nothing statistically significant to 95% confidence interval, small statistical base, and probably skewed by personal involvement of the researcher. So please feel free to prove me wrong. But do try and get a larger statistical base than I have.

PS and when you do, can I have their phone numbers?

Faranya
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:10 am UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby Faranya » Thu Feb 05, 2009 5:37 pm UTC

AppleJordan wrote:Okay, I know there are plenty of people here who have had statistics class, so I'm probably wrong.

But I thought that there can't be any points outside the "wiskers"! Isn't the graph used to show the distribution of a set of data over a number line?

That's what I thought, but upon further investigation, I found that a point can be placed outside of the whiskers if it is very far from the next term in the set. The reason given is that if the whisker was extending, it would give the false impression that there was a distribution over that range, instead of the single outlier.

For example, if you have an outlier of 100, and the next largest term as 20, to extend the whisker all the way to 100 would imply that that there is still an upper quartile range through that whole area, whereas if you cap the whisker at 20, with a point at 100, it becomes very obvious that you have one extremely different term, and the quartile of more similar data should be capped off at 20. Of course, if you had 2 or three 100's, perhaps the whisker should be extended out...

But apparently she is the only one :D

This is why I never took statistics.
Image

Kleptonis
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 10:40 am UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby Kleptonis » Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:20 pm UTC

Wouldn't you have to be casually dating quite a few people to get a box-and-whisker plot that looks like that?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:34 pm UTC

The whole point here (from her perspective, or at least what she's trying to push) is that there are objective measures that can discriminate an actual love interest from casual dating background; it would be completely invalidated if it always identifies someone as being significant.


Ok, yeah, that makes sense.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
molbio5
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:25 pm UTC
Location: Raleigh
Contact:

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby molbio5 » Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:37 pm UTC

ironypoisoning wrote:
jspenguin wrote:It's the perfect XKCD:

Image


I highly approve of this analysis. I suggest we take it to all the other comics, and then someone can write their doctoral dissertation on it. By examining the correlation between people's reactions to strips on their respective threads and the extent to which it adheres to the "spirit of xkcd" as contained in those four characteristics, we can prove that it's a viable indicator of xkcd strip popularity. Which leads us to ask other questions, like how were those four characteristics isolated by Randall as the most xkcd of strip characteristics? Are there popular strips whose popularity cannot be explained by the presence of all four characteristics, or possesses something else entirely? What effect does the rickroll factor have upon the popularity of the strip, especially examined over time, and can we control for the popularity of the rickrolling phenomenon itself as a time-dependent variable?

(I've been reading too much sociology. Meh.)


win. :)
AT CG XX

light travels faster than sound. this is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

If it had been BHG, would he have been her "sadistically significant other"?

RanCorp
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:49 pm UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby RanCorp » Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:41 pm UTC

Ayelis wrote:Box? Whisker? Am I the only one who didn't get the memo that such a graph even existed?

Who can say?

But a simple Web search for "box-and-whisker plot" suggests it's neither Randall's nor Wikipedia's invention.

RanCorp

Lleu
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:59 pm UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby Lleu » Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:56 pm UTC

I wish that I had a cool graph for every situation.

User avatar
athelas
A Sophisticated Plagiarism Engine
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:37 am UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby athelas » Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:40 pm UTC

double entendre wrote:
Gero wrote: Lots of us like geeky girls. Some of us dream of a girl that can code, but lets face it, not gonna happen

Many girls can code, but we wouldn't want to be with someone like you anyway because of your sexism.

Well, it appears that at least one girl prefers her guys to be ignorant of (or feign ignorance of) statistics and their uses. :)

User avatar
Mr. Burke
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:56 pm UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby Mr. Burke » Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:12 am UTC

Glenn Magus Harvey wrote:WHAT?! You're breaking up with a girl BECAUSE she's nerdy?

BLASPHEMY!!! LYNCH HIM!!!

This isn't about the nerdiness. It's about the I've-been-following-you-around-enough-to-know-how-much-time-you-spend-with-who. And about the I've-unilaterally-decided-you-are-my-boyfriend. If someone tells anyone we are in a relationship without my consent, she just made sure that will never actually happen. That is completely crossing the line.

And seriously, just consider the same with roles reversed. A lot of people will immediately exclaim: “Stalker!”

solinvictus
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:52 am UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby solinvictus » Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:43 am UTC

ugh. ive been in this situation (roles reversed as im a guy) and she had an _official_ significant other. its was horrible, i pointed it out to her in much the same way as the comic (it really hits home hard, sadly) and 2 weeks later she... errm... dumped me?

User avatar
Arancaytar
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:54 am UTC
Location: 52.44°N, 13.55°E
Contact:

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby Arancaytar » Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:45 am UTC

"Official" as in engaged?

Gero wrote:Some of us dream of a girl that can code, but lets face it, not gonna happen, if one even exists


...then after reading that sentence she will have nothing to do with you. :P
"You cannot dual-wield the sharks. One is enough." -Our DM.
Image

Fat Tony
Posts: 1501
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:12 pm UTC

Re: "Boyfriend" Discussion

Postby Fat Tony » Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:56 am UTC

RanCorp wrote:
Ayelis wrote:Box? Whisker? Am I the only one who didn't get the memo that such a graph even existed?

Who can say?

But a simple Web search for "box-and-whisker plot" suggests it's neither Randall's nor Wikipedia's invention.

RanCorp

I remember learning about them and drawing them in eighth grade, but we've never used them since then.
Wanna hear the truth? Life is downright ok.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Leovan, Moose Anus and 119 guests