I’m not seeing the problem here 😄

Everyone knows the best way is to down them in one piece

Larson has drawn his characters’ writing as intentionally bad in other comics to make it clear that they’re primitive in some way, so this would make sense.

Some background on this comic:

Transcript:

I wasn’t sure which section of this book would be a good place to get this off my chest, but I’ve always felt that I’ve committed some heresy by doing cartoons (like the ones above) that mixed dinosaurs with primitive people. I think there should be cartoon confessionals where we could go and say things like, “Father, I have sinned—I have drawn dinosaurs and hominids together in the same cartoon.”

Some background on this comic:

Transcript:

The Los Angeles Times, which carries The Far Side, has taken umbrage with my cartoon on several occasions. (Apparently, someone there actually reads the comics beforehand.) These three, as I recall, created some conflicts with the “good taste” standards of that paper, and I believe all three were deleted from their comic page back in the early eighties.

The first two I suppose are subjective, although I don’t remember other papers censoring them. Their rejection of the elephant cartoon, however, had me baffled. I’ve always found it appalling that the demand for ivory has caused these magnificent animals to be continuously poached—but the ultimate act of contempt for the rights of wildlife has got to be represented by the elephant’s foot wastebasket. And that’s the point I was striving for in this cartoon—not that I was hoping to make a profound comment of any sort (the cartoon is really pretty inane, I think), but just who wouldn’t be upset to find out something like this had been done to a former part of their anatomy?

The artist has had a string of comics where the joke is pretty much just harassment. It worked out here because of the absurdity:

But mostly it’s just been haha harassment:

So this is an iteration on that joke, where the humor is that it’s the girl doing the harassment because it inverts expectations or something. TBH I think this artist is the weakest of the C&H artists and one of the reasons I’ve thought about switching to posting old comics randomly from across all the history instead of sequentially.

Some background on this comic:

Transcript:

This is one of my personal favorites based mostly on one character’s facial expression. The simple “gag” is that Indians and horses are meeting for the first time and handshakes are going all around. But it’s the horse gesturing toward the scenery that I felt “made” this cartoon. I can’t express it, but there’s something captured there that I just like. If I had to draw it over again, the other characters could be drawn a myriad of ways—but I don’t think I could ever replicate that one horse’s expression.

Also, interesting that they edited it to change the width so much.

To be fair, Python is just glue for code written in lower level languages when it comes to AI

Since the transcriber just wrote “(Math equations on chalkboards)”, I figured I’d try transcribing with unicode. This was the best I was able to do. Not quite as good as LaTeX

Left chalkboard

√613 x/y²
x̅-̅9̅5̅
⦵ 4172
π = √674J
(3x⊖²)
⁄
x² − y⁴²

Right chalkboard

x-y
⁄
√x²
61.7

We know from Scorpions that Love is Blind

Seems like they’re not blind though, just don’t have great eyes:

Even with all those eyes, scorpions can’t see very well! Yet the sensitivity of their eyes is among the highest in all arthropods and dependent on the kinds of habitats in which they live. In general terms, however, their eyes mostly tell movement and light from dark.

Interestingly, they might use their bodies as eyes:

Scorpions don’t need to use their eyes to get a full picture of their surroundings: their body seems to function as a basic eye under ultraviolet light.

To test the idea that the waxy cuticle covering a scorpion’s body can detect light, Doug Gaffin of the University of Oklahoma in Norman exposed 40 of the arachnids to visible or UV light. He studied their behaviour both with and without “eye-blocks” – pieces of foil placed over their eyes to act like opaque glasses.

Wearing their shades, the scorpions did not move around much when illuminated by green light. But under UV light they scuttled around freely with or without the glasses, suggesting they did not rely on their eyes to see. The larva of the fruit fly is thought to be the only other creature whose body can detect light.

Carl Kloock at California State University in Bakersfield says the idea complements his own work. He found that the ability of scorpions’ cuticles to fluoresce in UV light affects their behaviour at night, since moonlight contains a modest amount of UV.

It might also be a reference to Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy, but that only has one dancer. My guess is generic “Bees are known to dance” + “What if the beekeepers danced?”, or maybe a little bit of all of the above.

Your second link says “They are still sold, and the model has gone surprisingly unchanged for the past 40 years.”, but the link is dead 😄

Searching online shows a few books with that title but none of the toys, so probably not?

you’ll like today’s comic: https://discuss.online/post/19967402

Good !CrappyCorrelations@lemm.ee post right there

Some background on this comic:

Transcript:

The first version of this (upper) seemed just a tad grotesque, and I ended up eliminating the pig being swallowed. (On another note, I’m not exactly sure how these snakes are holding up their newspapers.)

Some background on this comic:

Transcript:

The seed for this cartoon all started with a simple T-shirt design. If T-shirts were as popular in the nineteenth century as they are today, I wondered what kinds of things they would say. The sketch above lead to this cartoon.

He certainly was a lover:

Posting in ISO format now, we’ll see if there’s any objections

If anyone’s wondering why:

>> 0.000005
0.000005

>> 0.0000005
5e-7