I’ve been trying to come up with something for last comic the last 20 minutes, and I got nothin’.

Is that Rene Descartes? It looks like him. If so, that’s a close as I’ve come. But what that has to do with egg-rolls or drumrolls has utterly escaped me. Any help?

@Stan, I can explain: someone is pranking us with the eggroll comic. Seriously, that’s all I can come up with.

I’m not really sure if it should be 70,000 or 1,428.5 hours but the latter would not make for a recognizable joke.

He does sort of resemble Descartes; but I wouldn’t put that ahead of him being DeHorse.

Sorry! But if Descartes, he is about to announce his cogito and calls for a drumroll to make the dramatic moment. But some skeptical graffitist thinks it deserves no more than an eggroll — which in any event is more delish and nourishing.

@chipchristian thanks for doing the calculation. I had the same moment of hesitation on which way the division should go!

The [von] Letterman portrait is uncanny!

“thanks for doing the calculation. ”

If the calculation is of dog years to human years the calculation can not be correct. That’s 49 to 1. The standard 7 to 1. Somehow the calculation we done twice. If you done correctly it would be a very unfunny and unrecognizable as a joke 10,000 hours.

I want to make a joke about Descartes contemplating how many donuts shoved down his pants would keep him warm but tying that in with eggrolls and writing on his forehead is just as difficult as understanding the actual intent of the comic. This is entered as a LOL so someone must have thought it made sense. Perhaps something about eggs being runny and drums being crisp and that’s why the image is blurry?

The common notion that 10,000 hours of practice for a human, will make you be good at some art/craft and a dog who is 7 times more like the dog years. One would think that it would be 10,000/7 as each hour would be 1/7 in hours/dog hours. But someone check my math.

I thought maybe it was Francis Bacon, because bacon & eggs, but it still doesn’t make any sense…

Woozy, are you looking at the same numbers the rest of us are? Chipchristian’s two results are from two different calculations:

10,000 x 7 = 70,000

10,000 / 7 =~ 1428.5+

The question that he and Danny Boy raise is which would be the right one to do. Raymond A Levesque also raises the issue of which way to go.
But the sheer arithmetic is not in question. There doesn’t seem to be a role for 49 anywhere in that.

In terms of relativity, seven years being equal to one year (either multiplying or dividing) only works when comparing two perspectives. From either a dog’s point of view or a human’s, one year equals one year. If you travel in a spacecraft approaching the speed of light, less time elapses on board your ship than on earth, but within the ship (and on earth) time passes normally. You only find out about the difference when you get home.

Synchronous with Wide Open . . .

As a rule of thumb, Teresa’s Frog Applause panels rarely are ever funny. She usually tries for a stream-of-consciousness / moment-of-zen collage. For this one, however, she’s doing a bit of wordplay by replacing the more pompous ‘drumroll’ with the mocking ‘eggroll’. That qualifies as a minimum definition of funny by most standards, but by Teresa’s standards, it’s a positive zinger!

Here was a comment where I said Teresa is sometimes quite serious: and embedded a non-comic FA panel.

The problem is that, at least I, don’t understand “drumroll” either. Let alone replacing it with “eggroll”. I think someone was implying that Descartes might ask for a drumroll before announcing “cogito, ergo sum”, but really?

But the expression is it takes 70, 000 hours to get good at something; not 10,000. So it would take a dog 70,000 divided by 7 equals….. a boring and unfunny 10.000 hours to get good at it.

googles….. Oh, I guess the common notion is that it does take 10,000 hours…. Andertoons was doing a faulty innumeracy error of the sort I can never comprehend and inexplicably was multiplying rather than dividing. Because I can not comprehend people making such errors, I figured the joke was just that common notion was 70,000 and the joke was that a dog would engage in trendy business-motivation-jargon-aspiration-babble-gobblegook-garbage.

So I read Chipchristian as though he, chipchristian, was originating the joke which I thought was funny and would be clever. On rereading chipchristian comment I see he was assuming Andertoons had done the dog years conversion as the joke to begin with. I have to disagree that 1428.5 hours wouldn’t be a recognizable joke. Such an expression can only come from dividing by seven so real hours vs. “dog hours” would be obvious. Multiplying to go 70,000 is not at all recognizable as any funny manipulation to a number.

Of course part of the problem is that we say “It takes x amount of time to do something; that’s 7x in dog time” but a story from the point of view doesn’t work as we need that dog to be saying it takes “It took x dog time to do something. That x/7 in real time” and that’s just awkward. This is actually one of the rare cases it would work. And andertoons blew it.

7:1 is no longer the standard; it all depends on the size and breed of the dog. Which is why it didn’t work for me, nor did I ‘get’ it ’til I saw these comments.

And it never was a 1->X correspondence. Dogs reach breeding maturity on average at about one year (although there’s a lot of variance with larger breeds taking longer). That’s equivalent to somewhere in human teens.

An hour a day of fetch would take 27.4 years to hit 10,000 hours. That’s a very old dog.

I’ve been trying to come up with something for last comic the last 20 minutes, and I got nothin’.

Is that Rene Descartes? It looks like him. If so, that’s a close as I’ve come. But what that has to do with egg-rolls or drumrolls has utterly escaped me. Any help?

@Stan, I can explain: someone is pranking us with the eggroll comic. Seriously, that’s all I can come up with.

I’m not really sure if it should be 70,000 or 1,428.5 hours but the latter would not make for a recognizable joke.

He does sort of resemble Descartes; but I wouldn’t put that ahead of him being DeHorse.

Sorry! But if Descartes, he is about to announce his

cogitoand calls for a drumroll to make the dramatic moment. But some skeptical graffitist thinks it deserves no more than an eggroll — which in any event is more delish and nourishing.@chipchristian thanks for doing the calculation. I had the same moment of hesitation on which way the division should go!

The [von] Letterman portrait is uncanny!

“thanks for doing the calculation. ”

If the calculation is of dog years to human years the calculation can not be correct. That’s 49 to 1. The standard 7 to 1. Somehow the calculation we done twice. If you done correctly it would be a very unfunny and unrecognizable as a joke 10,000 hours.

I want to make a joke about Descartes contemplating how many donuts shoved down his pants would keep him warm but tying that in with eggrolls and writing on his forehead is just as difficult as understanding the actual intent of the comic. This is entered as a LOL so

someonemust have thought it made sense. Perhaps something about eggs being runny and drums being crisp and that’s why the image is blurry?The common notion that 10,000 hours of practice for a human, will make you be good at some art/craft and a dog who is 7 times more like the dog years. One would think that it would be 10,000/7 as each hour would be 1/7 in hours/dog hours. But someone check my math.

I thought maybe it was Francis Bacon, because bacon & eggs, but it still doesn’t make any sense…

Woozy, are you looking at the same numbers the rest of us are? Chipchristian’s two results are from two different calculations:

10,000 x 7 = 70,000

10,000 / 7 =~ 1428.5+

The question that he and Danny Boy raise is which would be the right one to do. Raymond A Levesque also raises the issue of which way to go.

But the sheer arithmetic is not in question. There doesn’t seem to be a role for 49 anywhere in that.

In terms of relativity, seven years being equal to one year (either multiplying or dividing) only works when comparing two perspectives. From either a dog’s point of view or a human’s, one year equals one year. If you travel in a spacecraft approaching the speed of light, less time elapses on board your ship than on earth, but within the ship (and on earth) time passes normally. You only find out about the difference when you get home.

Synchronous with Wide Open . . .

As a rule of thumb, Teresa’s Frog Applause panels rarely are ever funny. She usually tries for a stream-of-consciousness / moment-of-zen collage. For this one, however, she’s doing a bit of wordplay by replacing the more pompous ‘drumroll’ with the mocking ‘eggroll’. That qualifies as a minimum definition of funny by most standards, but by Teresa’s standards, it’s a positive zinger!

Here was a comment where I said

`Teresa is sometimes quite serious:`

and embedded a non-comic FA panel.The problem is that, at least I, don’t understand “drumroll” either. Let alone replacing it with “eggroll”. I think someone was implying that Descartes might ask for a drumroll before announcing “cogito, ergo sum”, but really?

But the expression is it takes 70, 000 hours to get good at something; not 10,000. So it would take a dog 70,000 divided by 7 equals….. a boring and unfunny 10.000 hours to get good at it.

googles….. Oh, I guess the common notionisthat it does take 10,000 hours…. Andertoons was doing a faulty innumeracy error of the sort I can never comprehend and inexplicably was multiplying rather than dividing. Because I can not comprehend people making such errors, I figured the joke was just that common notion was 70,000 and the joke was that a dog would engage in trendy business-motivation-jargon-aspiration-babble-gobblegook-garbage.So I read Chipchristian as though he, chipchristian, was originating the joke which I thought was funny and would be clever. On rereading chipchristian comment I see he was assuming Andertoons had done the dog years conversion as the joke to begin with. I have to disagree that 1428.5 hours wouldn’t be a recognizable joke. Such an expression can

onlycome from dividing by seven so real hours vs. “dog hours” would be obvious. Multiplying to go 70,000 is not at all recognizable as any funny manipulation to a number.Of course part of the problem is that we say “It takes x amount of time to do something; that’s 7x in dog time” but a story from the point of view doesn’t work as we need that dog to be saying it takes “It took x dog time to do something. That x/7 in real time” and that’s just awkward. This is actually one of the rare cases it would work. And andertoons blew it.

7:1 is no longer the standard; it all depends on the size and breed of the dog. Which is why it didn’t work for me, nor did I ‘get’ it ’til I saw these comments.

And it never was a 1->X correspondence. Dogs reach breeding maturity on average at about one year (although there’s a lot of variance with larger breeds taking longer). That’s equivalent to somewhere in human teens.

An hour a day of fetch would take 27.4 years to hit 10,000 hours. That’s a very old dog.

But in dog years that would only be ~4 years!