Saturday, January 15, 2011

The H-R curve revisited: The DFF implementation

The most frequent thing I do at work is check if my fly is done up.

Ah, you see? We are not so different you and I.

Now then, thanks to some fresh funding and some brainstorming by fellow true believers on le book de face, further breakthroughs have been made regarding the H-R curve...

The this blog-renowned Hilariousity-Ridiculousity curve!


Previously on XTD we discovered the H-R curve is not, as some fools thought, linear with hilariousity increasing proportionately with ridiculousity.

(Fools! Foolish, foolish fools!)

Further research uncovered the quadratic nature of the H-R curve. Funnily enough, this breakthrough coincided with my finally mastering the curved line tool in Microsoft Paint.

The newer H-R curve is pictured above and, somewhat redundantly, below as well.


At our last shareholders' meeting, the issue was raised that the HR curve in its current form does not account for the many nuances, subtleties and idiosyncrasies that are present during a story-telling session.

It was also pointed out that it did not have a time axis. With 2 variables already, adding a third for time allows for three, count it, three dimensions. Wow, there's that university degree kicking in.

The necessary steps have been taken, the transmogifier has immobilized, the gimp has been chained up, and today I give you... the results!

(Pause for gasp)

The Drunken Fool Factor (DFF)

Studies by our staff scienticians have shown the Drunken Fool Factor (or DFF as the kids are calling it) to have a profound effect on the curvature and path of the HR curve. It should be noted from the outset that the said drunken fool in our studies was the person listening to the story, not the story teller.

"Wait a tick, blog-man! Define "drunken fool"", is something you might say at this point. Ahh, dear cyber-amigos. You are wise. Indeed, this was raised- there are different variations of drunken fools, too many to list here. For simplicity, our chief warlock advised that during our partially animal cruelty free studies it was assumed there were three types of drunken fools:

1. The angry drunken fool
2. The happy drunken fool
3. The sleepy drunken fool

Doc and Dopey refused to participate.

Firstly, to the angry drunken fool factor (or ADFF). The typical path of the HR curve is as follows:

As can be seen, as time (denoted by "t" for some reason) progresses the hilariousity level plummets into negativeland, whilst ridiculousity increases at a rapidly decreasing rate. Even the initial spike in hilariousity is only generated by the people around you pissing themselves about you essentially trying to get a black eye.

That wasn't enough however. Our sceinceologists went deeper (hehe).

What has occurred here is to be expected, although more theoretical than practical as the angry drunk has likely taken his/her anger out on you or someone nearby very early in your story and has left you without an audience, which of course is the fuel of the fire that is the HR curve.

After the initial plummet, the curve dramatically rebounds thus exhibiting what can only be described as Downey Jr-like characteristics. The reason for this? The levels of hilariousity and ridiculousity have spiked, not because of the story, but because of the people around you, assuming there are, thinking "holy shit, he/she is still talking to this drunken maniac. Why is he/she still talking to this drunken maniac?" (ridiculousity) and deriving humor from the situation (hilariousity).

As an aside, the people around you may then want to address the problem of why they are struggling to decipher your gender from such close range... or maybe that's your problem.

Moving right along. Similarly to the ADFF, the Happy Drunken Fool Factor (or HDFF as the prophecy foretold) also had a noteworthy effect on the HR curve.


The happy drunk, as hypothesized, is a more enduring sounding board than the angry drunk, who is more likely to locate a sounding board and incapacitate you with it. As with the General Theory of the HR curve, the curve reaches what initially appears to be the classic Fracture Point of ridiculousity (the FPR... we've been over this, damit). However, the happy drunk is then inclined to ignore the critical mass of ridiculousity and, not only continue listening to the story, but also find it more hilarious (i.e. the level of hilariousity increases).

Hence, the "Whatevs" Point of Inflection, or simply the "Whatevs" Inflection, is born. Think of it as the Megatron to the FPR's Optimus Prime.

Our staff scientists, who also happened to be scientologists (they've since been retrenched), alerted the board to the following anomaly:

Honestly, I just don't understand this. Maybe there really was a rip in the space time continuum localized entirely within our lab as a former employee of our sciencey division yelped as he was taken away to be voltage-calmed. Maybe the drunk or the story teller lost track of time; the drunk due to obvious reasons and the teller because he/she was so caught up in the story.

Or maybe the lab clock broke. Or maybe I just forgot that I added a time axis and was just too damn proud of my mastering of the curved line tool in Paint that I had to put this image on the blog in spite of its blatant non-sensicalness.

We just don't know!

Finally, the sleepy drunk:

As I said, an audience is the fuel that fires the HR curve.

We ended up having some time up our sleeves, so the hot chick factor (HCF) was briefly analyzed. In other words, the effect on the HR curve if the storyteller was, well, a hot chick:

As expected.

We're through the looking glass here people... or whatever. Further government funding is welcomed, needed, and enjoyed. After all, this is being done for the greater good.

(The greaterrrr goooooooood)

Friday, January 7, 2011

The H-R Curve

Now, for my next trick...

What would happen if Nine Inch Nails and Tool had a baby?

Well, you would have a Nine Inch Tool with Nails of course.

I am a thinker and observer. Often you'll find me staring out into the distance with furrowed brows pondering the key issues of the day, not unlike the one above.

Last night I stumbled upon something noteworthy.

Remember: Not fascinating. Noteworthy.

I was recapping a hectic week I just had. As the story progressed, the more ridiculous it got. As the ridiculousness, or level of ridiculousity (as denoted by 'R') increased, the laughs, hahas, or... grrh... lols received increased. That is, I found the level of hilariousity (as denoted by 'H') increased proportionately with R.

Of course, I drew a graph.

The H-R Curve was born. However, as I furrowed my brow and stroked my chin to the point of near-self combustion, I realized that there must, must be a critical mass of ridiculousness; a Fracture Point of Ridiculousity (FPR), if you will.

Hence, more research was done (click for making larger and such)...

The H-R curve is a living breathing thing, to the extent that a graph hastily cobbled together on Microsoft Paint can be considered a living, breathing thing. Suffice to say, each zone will vary from human/humanoid to human/humanoid.

Further research (and hence government funding) is necessary and should be welcomed in this field. I believe the next step is to add the DFF or Drunken Fool Factor into the model and see how that shapes the H-R Curve.

As She said, there are indeed holes to be filled. The green zone of story telling safety is large; the optimal ratio of hilariousity to ridiculousity lies somewhere in there. If it can be pinpointed, the wonders it could do for the world are, dare I say, infinite.

Among them:

- No more awkward silences at parties
- No need to end stories embarrassingly with "... and it was so funny"
- No more awkward backtracking when the teller realizes he/she has gone or is going too far

I understand that the first point may render the ability that I have observed in some to make cricket/cicada noises redundant. This is sad, but I believe a necessary casualty in our noble quest to find the point at which to know when to say "... mmmwell, that's about it".

Speaking of which, that's about it...

Or is it?....

Yes... yes it is.