Three-Way (Arlo?)

Cidu Bill on Nov 25th 2016

cidu-nyer-3way.PNG

Filed in Arlo Page, Bill Bickel, CIDU, New Yorker, comics, humor | 24 responses so far

24 Responses to “Three-Way (Arlo?)”

  1. Bob Nov 25th 2016 at 12:04 pm 1

    They had a menage-a-trois yesterday, and now the normal 2-way isn’t doing it for them?? I got nothin’.

  2. billybob Nov 25th 2016 at 12:10 pm 2

    since she appears to be wearing Google Glass (I like to call it Google Eyes), maybe she was having a virtual three-way, but he wasn’t.

  3. zookeeper Nov 25th 2016 at 12:16 pm 3

    I thought it was buyer’s remorse, not recognizing the Google Eyes (thanks billybob!) So she’s getting a three way, and he’s getting less than a third.

  4. Clay Miller Nov 25th 2016 at 12:31 pm 4

    It could be that in response to his request for a 3-way she got a 3-way light bulb, which is much brighter than a normal light bulb and the reason she is wearing sunglasses.

  5. Dave Van Domelen Nov 25th 2016 at 12:55 pm 5

    She’s talking to the person on the Google Glass. She was in two-person chat, the other person asked if they could make it a three-way, which in business-chat means open the video conference up to a third camera. She took “three-way” the other way, and had sex during the meeting. Very Arlo.

  6. ja Nov 25th 2016 at 06:21 pm 6

    I think this is one where “Hi. I’d like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.” works much better than the original (and regardless of if you notice the glasses or not).

  7. Cristiane Young Nov 25th 2016 at 07:40 pm 7

    Looks to me as though she’s wearing reflective glasses, thereby making his reflection the third party in the three way?

  8. Woodrowfan Nov 25th 2016 at 08:01 pm 8

    I thought they were 3-D glasses but DVD’s explanation makes more sense..

  9. Proginoskes Nov 25th 2016 at 08:32 pm 9

    billybob has it. One (or two) of her partners was virtual.

  10. Bob Nov 26th 2016 at 07:24 am 10

    Ah - now it makes sense. I thought the glasses were just because she had really bad vision (or an attempt to make her seem like a nerd).

  11. James Pollock Nov 26th 2016 at 11:56 am 11

    I just don’t see it; there’s nothing in the picture that unmistakably screams “Google glass” rather than “normal eyeglasses”.

    To get to that interpretation, you need the opened box labeled “Google glass” in the scene somewhere. And if this is a current cartoon, then it would be more topical to have Samsung Gear VR, because Samsung is currently spending a LOT of money to make even people like me, who have no intention of buying a gear to turn our phones into VR headsets, aware that new Samsung phones have gear available to turn them into VR headsets.

  12. Kevin A Nov 26th 2016 at 12:42 pm 12

    @James Pollock
    “normal eyeglasses” with the upper half of one lens occluded by a display on a black arm? Find a way to get a closer look; wouldn’t want you to miss out on any of the fun. :-)

  13. Grawlix Nov 26th 2016 at 12:58 pm 13

    Where’s his mouth?

  14. Ted from Ft. Laud Nov 26th 2016 at 08:54 pm 14

    James Pollock @ 9
    It may not be as clear as it could be, but it is certainly intended to be Google Glass. Also, it is not a current cartoon - it is from summer of 2014, shortly after Google Glass became publicly available (and and a little while before it ceased being publicly available…) Both per the entry at the Conde Nast cartoon store:

    http://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/Hey-you-re-the-one-who-wanted-a-three-way-New-Yorker-Cartoon-Prints_i11952100_.htm

    You can also enlarge the copy there to see the glasses more clearly.

  15. Mark in Boston Nov 26th 2016 at 10:33 pm 15

    Hey, you were the one who wanted a three-way bulb in each of the bedside lamps.

  16. Mona Nov 27th 2016 at 12:10 am 16

    “Hey, you were the one who wanted a three-way bulb in each of the bedside lamps.”
    And that explains why she is wearing sun-glasses, because the bulbs are on high.

  17. Proginoskes Nov 27th 2016 at 03:16 am 17

    … Or the bulbs are high, whatever.

  18. James Pollock Nov 27th 2016 at 03:44 am 18

    ” Find a way to get a closer look”
    “It may not be as clear as it could be, but it is certainly intended to be Google Glass.”

    If someone has to take a magnifying glass to your drawing to find the detail that makes it funny, it’s not a cartoon, it’s a “Where’s Waldo?”
    A problem easily solved by putting a newly-opened, clearly labeled package in the drawing, or a clearly-labeled instruction manual in the drawing. Relying on the artist’s ability to render details on something that most people have never actually seen just isn’t going to work.

  19. Ted from Ft. Laud Nov 27th 2016 at 11:23 am 19

    I would tend to agree. However, the cartoon came out likely near the peak of the Glass hype, so might well have been somewhat more obvious to a reader at the time (few would have seen the real thing, but lots would have seen pictures). And this was the New Yorker - maybe they would have considered having something that obvious as tacky…

  20. James Pollock Nov 27th 2016 at 01:30 pm 20

    I’ve now looked at the cartoon magnified to 3x, and, conclusively, the eyewear shown in the cartoon is NOT Google Glass. Google Glass has the computer display on the right side, the eyewear in the cartoon does not.

    So… if the item being drawn isn’t iconic enough for the artist to draw correctly, it is a mistake to assume the viewers will recognize it correctly when they see it without cues. I’m a fairly hard-core technophile, and this art, as is, does not signal to me “there’s a person wearing Google Glass in this cartoon. If they missed me, they missed nearly everybody (I trust this doesn’t sound too egocentric, it’s not meant to be.)

  21. larK Nov 27th 2016 at 03:18 pm 21

    This is a New Yorker cartoon — it isn’t meant for technophiles. Left-hand, schmeft-hand, for artistic purposes the artist switched it, but it is clearly Google Glass.

    http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1447883/google-glass.png

    As others pointed out, it is a cartoon from a few years ago, when you were likely to have seen a hipster on the subway actually wearing one of these.

  22. James Pollock Nov 27th 2016 at 06:59 pm 22

    “This is a New Yorker cartoon — it isn’t meant for technophiles. Left-hand, schmeft-hand, for artistic purposes the artist switched it, but it is clearly Google Glass”
    Not until I magnified the image, and was told to look for Google Glass. Until then, it was “clearly” a pair of ordinary glasses.

    “you were likely to have seen a hipster on the subway actually wearing one of these.”
    I live in the “Silicon Forest”, and have never seen an actual real Google Glass. Granted, I’m a little bit outside the natural target demographic for the New Yorker, but they do attempt to market the magazine even here.

  23. BeckoningChasm Nov 27th 2016 at 08:32 pm 23

    I’d never seen the Google Glasses before the pictures helpfully posted here. I always thought they were a bit more subtle looking; no wonder people were creeped out by them.

  24. Pinny Nov 28th 2016 at 02:39 pm 24

    Re: Dave Van Domelen (5)

    I would have thought that she is talking to her bed-mate. He had desired a menage-a-trois but had used the term “3-way” in his request. She understood it to mean that he wanted her to conference in someone else to the couple’s encounter. She accomplished this using the Google Glass to broadcast her point of view to another friend.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply