This is from a calendar of funny student responses. Many are clearly fake(written by the calendar makers), but most are understandable.
Many are puns or overly literal answers.
The Q: What is a fugue?
The A: Robots aren’t very emotive, with a pic of a robot.
I cant’t think of any words that sound or are spelled like “fugue” that would be confused for a word in robotics, so I think that it’s just a case of a student who envisioned himself as a robot in a fugue, and wrote the response in a matter-of-factual way about how he was feeling.
I presume that whoever put the calendar together included it either because it had a drawing or because it appealed to them as surreal humor.
Though, certainly I may be missing something obvious.
I don’t get it either and I tried. It may just be a nonsense joke but not a very good one.
IDK, but in psychology a fugue can be a loss of identity.
I’ll answer this after I get the soap off my radio.
That’s my take as well.
Three options -
A non-sequiter? And not a particularly dazzling one either,
A calendar maker who gave a dud remark the benefit of the doubt.
The robot looks vaguely like the acting robot Calculonfrom Futurama, whose problem is not a lack of emotion, but rather an over-abundance in his acting [think of him as a metal Tobias Funcke].
In the context of students’ writing weird stuff on exams, I think that this is … something weird a student wrote on an exam. The weirdness of it all is the humor.
Yeah. That some schmuck spent even so much time as he/she did to write down such a response – it demonstrates a profound mindlessness, it does.
See the thread about comedians riding their own material.
Yeah. They should get out and walk.
Sometimes into the ground!
Well, sure; otherwise, they’re flying.
And, boy, are their arms tired!
“I just flew in from New York… and boy, is that joke tired.”
I wrote that when I was about 12 years old. I don’t know if KidzTheezDayz would even get it but I figured the fogies here will.
I don’t get it either, but I have heard people talk about ‘fugue states’ in the context of computing - as analogy to the psychological phenomenon of the same name - I think they were describing unpredicted or seemingly-aimless behaviour of a system arising from poorly-written code (e.g. conditional tests that don’t test for all possible states, allowing execution to ‘fall through’, or where the thing being tested is changed by the thing testing it, resulting in meandering execution)