OK, I see there is some sort of getting-even irony here. But how is it performed? Is there really a diamond bracelet? Who is getting it, if there is one, and how is that a revenge? Or if the oddity is merely due to an omitted “not”, would that mean the husband was expecting to receive a bracelet?
Findus shares
And notes: So the customer looks nothing like the models but is still pleased with the make-up. So what? Or is she buying a distorting mirror? Should I recognise the customer or the person the make-up is evoking?
What is she* taking? And why did a commenter on GoComics make a reference to TinTin? (OK, we have a theory on that one, but is it related to the comic?)
*Based on necklace and shoes; not intended as sexism, though I suppose even making an assumption based on necklace and shoes could be considered sexist. Sue me, I’m 62.
From Olivier
I sincerely hope that this strip was meant as a satiric skewering of all the Taylor Swift hoopla, and not as an even semi-serious attempt to get on the bandwagon with everyone else.
P.S. When I first read the strip, I thought Liniers was in the market for the latest and greatest (overpriced) mobile phone, but when I zoomed in on the fourth panel, I discovered that the last word was “plane”. (I really like hand lettering, but now I wonder who does it for the translated version of the strip.)
I didn’t realize how far back Eyebeam goes! But while puzzling over this comic in its November 2023 recycle appearance, it seemed that finding the date of original publication might help. In 1988 simultaneous streaming release was not yet a standard practice ; heck, they didn’t have streaming at all. Distribution for private home viewing was, as shown, mostly tape rentals ; and yes, tape, as DVDs weren’t around until the mid 90s!
And is that what the joke is? That somehow Joe’s Rentals has this title as tape even though it’s just now opening at the theater? Or is it funny-surprising that all these people prefer to see it at the theater rather than in the comforts of home? Or even — but now we’re working too hard — or even that the ice cream shop is a clue that they’re having hot weather, and that gives an answer to “why is everybody going to the movie theater?” : that they are seeking air conditioning?
From Boise Ed.
This is a CIDU-Oy — is the joke merely in the polysemy of places? Or is there something special about the named cities, like if they all have Marathons and that’s how somebody is likely to break a leg?? Or nothing more? I don’t understand!
In case you would like either an introduction or a refresher on Searle’s Chinese Room argument, that link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy may be of interest.
That’s what this cartoon on Daily Nous recently seems to be about:
Okay, is it funny, to general audience? Is it funny, to an expert? Is it a good response to the Chinese Room Argument? Is trying to ridicule Searle what finished off Derrida?
P.S. It’s natural for comics fans to try illuminating philosophical point by consulting Existential Comics. But the only archive entry I can find there for Searle does not touch on the Chinese Room Argument at all.
The GoComics comments for this 21 November Strange Brew seem to not hit the target until they start asking if it’s Fortran or what programming language it’s in, or what the backslashes are for. Well, it’s not Fortran! But I am ready to accept remarks from one commenter (with a posting name that makes me think of one regular CIDU commenter!) explaining that This is in TeX or LaTeX or MathTeX. They use backslash all the time, for various things including, say , names for symbols. So the “\\in” you see in the top line produces an “element of” symbol…
Whether we can then go on to say that the represented math might be defining “line segment” or something like that, I can’t venture. We can’t go further, it looks like we’ve reached, erm, reached the terminus …
Comics I Don't Understand 