= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
rationalnoodles comments on November 2014 Media Thread - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (154)
Peter Singer investigates a basement flood (comic)
I rate this as "sucky ripoff of the original utility monster comic" http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2569
I also rate it as pretty sucky, but I don't see that it's a ripoff of the SMBC comic or even trying to do the same thing.
The SMBC comic is about a utility monster. The EC comic is about the term "utility monster".
The SMBC comic asks the question "what would the world look like, if we maximized utility and there were a utility monster" (and answers it in a silly fashion). The EC comic asks the question "wouldn't it be funny to draw a comic with a utility monster that -- ahahahaha -- actually looked like a monster?" (and, perhaps unfortunately, answers yes).
The SMBC comic would be exactly as interesting, and exactly as funny, if the particular term "utility monster" had never existed. The EC comic would be 100% pointless if that particular term had never existed.
[EDITED to fix a trivial but boneheaded mistake.]
I guess the joke is that "utilities" can refer to piped water.
Oh yeah, that too. (I'm in the UK where that term isn't so commonly used; it didn't occur to me when I saw the comic.) So there's a rather weak pun on "utility" and a rather weak pun on "monster".
This comic is basically a pun. I don't see why would you compare it to SMBC's one.