Not all xkcd comics are garbage. I worked on autonomous robotics back in the late 90s, and when I read this one I had to hold back a little sniffle: http://www.xkcd.com/695/

I've got a couple of friends out at NASA, and I doubt they'd begrudge the xkcd author allowing the robot to misbelieve that it was coming home at the end of the mission despite the lack of any hardware to do a return voyage :-)

I appreciate the effort, but when you're up against http://xkcdexplained.com/ and http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/, you need to either raise your game past boring blog rants or leave it to the pros.

A: "Did you read today's xkcd?"

B: "Indeed I did. Let us revel in our common knowledge of the topics discussed."

C: "Hah! Look at those self-righteous fools. I am truly elite, for I am aware of those portions of xkcd which apply to my job, but do not believe this marks me as special!"

D: "I too judge both A and B harshly! I will now play my guitar and write a small web app to demonstrate my superiority! Neither A nor B could accomplish that."

E: "Heh, you see that? They're judging a subculture composed of people slightly younger than they are. Man, my lack of judgment and superior skills marks me as a more worthy entity than C and D."

ad infinitum, I suppose, although I haven't seen anyone judge HN this way (some Redditors decry HN's capitalistic tendencies, but that's it).

Even though the author hates XKCD and I can't help but point out the irony in this particular comic http://xkcd.com/386/ describing his aversion almost completely.

A better title might be "Roger's Hilarious Nerd Rage". I know it's not nice to make fun of those afflicted with Asperger Syndrome, but complaining that there is not processor that officially carries the designation "x64" is giggle-worthy. (Not laughing with him, but at him.)

The author says xkcd epitomizes everything bad about "nerd culture", but honestly, I think I could say the same about this blog post. Who really cares how accurate Randall's description of OS X's system architecture is? It gets across the point of abstraction. Pedantry and misdirected anger (at a webcomic!) are a lot worse than a technical inaccuracy, in my opinion.

And if the fans of the comic are annoying, that isn't xkcd's fault. Every popular thing on the web has hangers-on.

The author has a problem with this comic:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/abstraction.png

Before anyone reads this blog post, let me quote you a gem in response to some xkcd text, "An x64 processor is screaming along at millions of cycles per second".

He responds thusly:

"There is no 'x64 processor;' though the 'x64' moniker is a generic term for Intel x86-compatible CPUs with the EMT64 or AMD64 extensions..."

Really? Sounds, from your comment, that there is. Colloquially, almost everyone that I know of who talks about this stuff says x64 when they mean 64 bit. This is language for you and it's not incorrect, it just is. It's the same as how people will say "roller blades" when they mean "inline skates."

As others have said, this is really just xkcd hating for hatings sake. The author even admits that some of his quibbles are debatable.

rogerclark = garbage. There, that was easy. Now, let me invent some reasons I dislike rogerclark to justify my poorly written blogpost.

Why, my dear reader, may I ask, did I really write such tripe?

Well, this morning I wanted Cheerios, but my milk was rotten, so I ate them dry. I arrived late for work after not being able to find my car keys, only to find a nasty email from my boss. My girlfriend then broke up with me via text message.

So, given my mood, I thought it was only proper to sully my reputation a little bit by bashing one of the most beloved nerd webcomics on earth.

Also, I have many Apple products and I just wanted to throw in a little defense of my purchases in my meaningless rant.

That's exactly how I feel. I wish I could sit back and just appreciate the fact that things like xkcd help draw people into the great field of computing. But this new breed of misinformed, know-it-all techno-dorks is just so infuriating. I can't help it.

And I hate that brand of meritless humor that is funny only because it's supposed to be funny. But that's a much bigger issue.

I'm not a regular reader of xkcd but every now and then one of my friends shares one and I get a smile.

What can I say? It's art. They don't teach systems-design in comic-book school and I doubt they teach graphic arts to EE majors. Art imitates life but it is not life. That's why we have artistic license.

I found this commentary to be pedantic at best. For somebody who claims to care so much about the correct terminology and representation of the world, the author has a seriously tenuous grasp on the intricacies of making a daily comic strip work.

Or, "why a literal interpretation of a poetic notion is a killjoy, by example".

His complaint is that the comic's expression of the anthropomorphizing of the machine (which leads to the author's amusement about the vast complexity required to achieve the inane) is fallacious. Eh. I don't require intellectual rigor from the funnies.

Talk about missing the fracking point. Randall Munroe is like Bill Nye or Mr. Wizard, but for math and hacking in addition to science. Fine-grained accuracy is less important than getting young people excited about the possibilities.

Also, it's a comic. Humor happens high up on the abstraction stack.

Oh, come off it. Have walks in the park. Check out a few museums in your area. Things like that. Try to enjoy life.

What I'm getting to, XKCD isn't meant to be taken seriously. There are a lots of things in life that shouldn't be taken seriously. Silly webcomics are one example. Try to relax a little bit.

That was an incredibly obnoxious rant, but he does get to the heart of why XKCD is popular amongst geeks -- it references topics that make us feel clever and part of an exclusive club -- and why it often rubs me the wrong way -- it uses those references as a cheap substitute for comedy.

Any humor can be made to sound stupid by explaining it sarcastically. It still has value.