JoeGP | DeviantArt | website
::: spoiler Transcript Comic in 5 panels
Panel 1: a guinea pig stands in front of a barber shop sign that reads “1/2 off Haircuts”
Guinea Pig: Oh, wow!
Panel 2: the guinea pig leaves the barber shop and sees his reflection in the window. He’s noticeable shorn evenly on only half his body from nose to tail.
Guinea Pig: Hey!
Panel 3: the guinea pig turns around and reenters the barber shop.
Panel 4: the guinea pig leaving the barber shop again spies his reflection in the window and sees a quarter of his body still has hair on it
Guinea Pig: What!
Panel 4: the Guinea pig re-enters the barber shop.
Guinea Pig: This is going to take FOREVER. :::
33 Comments
ladicius@lemmy.world · 45 pts · 4d
That's not how reflections work.
Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world · 34 pts · 3d
It's also not how "1/2 off" cuts work, animals don't go to a barber, nor do they talk.
But the reflection being unrealistic, yes, that's where we draw the line.
ladicius@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 3d
The cartoonist draws the line. I'm just a dog on the internet.
blazeknave@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 3d
This mf on fire today
FishFace@piefed.social · 12 pts · 3d
Yes, that is where we draw the line, because the things you listed are all part of the joke. The reflection is not (and is almost certainly due to lack of skill because reflections can be hard).
Should we never criticise any unrealistic aspect of something as soon as it contains one deliberate unrealistic aspect? Is the coffee cup on game of thrones unproblematic because we can just as well imagine they have Starbucks in Westeros as dragons? If someone draws a comic with a talking animal, is it no longer possible to critique the anatomy in their drawing?
Or does this not make sense, do we recognise a difference between deliberate deviations from reality and accidental ones (or deviations from the established or expected reality)?
Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 3d
You say it's not relevant to the joke, but a realistic reflection wouldn't show a side-by-side depiction. The way it's portrayed here highlights the hair cut that the animal is upset about, which is key to the joke.
It might not be realistic, but I see this as "artistic license," along with the other absurd elements.
FishFace@piefed.social · 3 pts · 3d
Since you can see what's happened without the reflection, I don't think a realistic reflection would hurt that prospect. In fact it might be easier (if the reflection were kept as it is, and the piggie rotated so that it would produce the reflection)
Zarobi@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 3d
"Lack of skill" is a bit harsh… the artist used the "mirror" tool as a time saving measure. Doing anything else would require redrawing most of the creature in a new pose, and I don't really feel like it's necessary for this comic
FishFace@piefed.social · 2 pts · 3d
It is a bit harsh but I don't think it's wrong. The more skillful artist would know not to use the mirror tool. If they wanted to save time, they could have flipped the other guinea pig drawing they've done (the one of it heading into the shop) and used that for the guinea pig looking into the glass. (The interior would need to be redone still, but not the outline, legs and ear)
cannedtuna@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 4d
👍
BradleyUffner@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 3d
To be fair, that's not how guinea pigs work either.
Akasazh@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 3d
Also usually they have mirrors inside the barber shop
glibg10b@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 3d
It is in games with screen-space reflections
nullspace@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 3d
But they used the mirror tool.
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works · 24 pts · 4d
Too late to add a Zeno's Barbershop stencil to the window?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Dichotomy_paradox
Rhaedas@fedia.io · 5 pts · 4d
Was my first thought too, the final panel pull back to show the name.
starik@lemmy.today · 21 pts · 3d
You would eventually get down to the last hair, and then have a 50% chance to remove it with each subsequent haircut. This is his how homeopathic solutions can end up with literally no “active ingredient”, or only a small chance of containing a single molecule of it.
SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml · 17 pts · 3d
No, they'd just keep cutting the hair in half
saigot@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 3d
Eventually you'd get down to one hair cell, if that is cut in half it is no longer hair.
0ops@piefed.zip · 6 pts · 3d
You wouldn't split an atom!
lena@gregtech.eu · 6 pts · 3d
The barber will cut the last hair in half
TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip · 18 pts · 3d
It all depends if you know your limits
Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 3d
😂 Lim --> 0
cholesterol@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 3d
The fact that it's a guinea pig is an amazing choice.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · 6 pts · 4d
After six or seven times it won’t matter.
QuandaleDingle@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 4d
⁶🤷♂️⁷
whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 3d
(I'm missing that ref, already seen several time, can someone explain me 😢)
QuandaleDingle@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 3d
Nah, keep your mental health and forget this brainrot. XD
ripcord@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 3d
Oh. 67. I didn't even get the reference.
23 skidoo.
Miner_Fabs@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 3d
67 came from a song lyric, then a kid made a tiktok where he frantically said "six seveeen!! six seveeen!!" to the camera while doing a gesture with his hands. and because kids love pattern recognition, when they see the number it's easy to point it out and do the gesture. and so the meme spread.
the humor comes from it being nonsensical; the joke is on anyone who's either tired of it, or never found it funny at all, so i don't really see it going away anytime soon.
ReginaPhalange@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 3d
For a minute there I thought the Unicode Consortium did an extremely stupid decision, don't worry guys, it's 3 characters.
SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 3d
So this is how they make skinny pigs
A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip · 4 pts · 4d
All depends on if he's a mathematician or a physicist.