CALL FOR COMMENTS.

The American National Standards Institute Subcommittee on Brainy Things has extended its deadline for comments on the proposed ANSI standard for stupid. The subcommittee hopes to end the decades of pointless argument over what is stupid and what is not. The deadline has been extended because, while a number of comments have already been submitted, most of them were obviously from complete morons.

. 8 comments.

Comments

  1. tom says:
    August 13, 2025 at 6:08 am

    In the Kingdom of the Left-Brained, the right-brained man is king.

    Reply
  2. Occasional Correspondent says:
    August 13, 2025 at 1:30 pm

    I am reminded of the Scott Adams scale (reciting from memory):

    Dilbert: So, what do you think of the poem I wrote?
    Dogbert: You know they say that a roomful of monkeys,
                typing at random, could reproduce the works
                of Shakespeare given infinite time.
    Dilbert: Yes, but what does that have to do with my poem?
    Dogbert: Three monkeys, ten minutes.

    Reply
  3. asking for a friend who is antsy says:
    August 13, 2025 at 1:50 pm

    So the natural unit of stupidity and moronicity is the monkey-minute? (or, in the SI, the simian-second)

    Perhaps the monkey-minute could be called the Adams? so the Dilbert poem would weigh in at 30 Adams, or 1800 simian-seconds.

    Reply
  4. ANSIer than thou says:
    August 13, 2025 at 10:22 pm

    As a measure of stupidness, I note the monkey-minute unit forms an inverted scale (ditto the simian-second): the more stupid, the smaller the measure. This leads one to wonder: Is there an absolute zero to this scale? Maybe the rock-bottomed or dead-monkey-zeroed scale?

    What meaning, if any, would a negative monkey-minute reading have? It would seem to require the random-typing monkeys to have produced your output some time before you did. Seems problematical.

    Another problem is the “roomful” of monkeys. “Room” is not well defined here. There is, however, the well-defined if not quite SI unit the Barn (physics: scattering or particle cross-section), so I suggest the the definition be based on a BARNFUL of monkeys (note well: not barrel). How many monkeys fit in a barn? *

    Further work required.

        * Set aside such matters as how many angels dance
            on the head of a pin or how many Anglo-Saxons
            dance on the head of a pig

    Reply
  5. Richard A says:
    August 14, 2025 at 9:50 am

    How are they able to determine the moronicity of the comments if there is no ANSI standard for stupid?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *